Better safe than sorry

Though the Prime Minister hinted that a final decision will be taken only after analysing how the country has fared in its containment efforts, there are sound arguments for and against the extension.

The argument against extending the lockdown is straightforward, strong:governments and businesses are starved of revenue, and workers are starving. It requires no further explanation as to how it is hurting us all, which, then takes us to the other choice. To understand this, let’s take a look around the world. Wuhan in China, the epicentre of COVID-19, went into a total shutdown on January 23. But that did not flatten the curve immediately. If one plots the number of cases on a graph, it shows how it continued to rise even after that due to a simple characteristic of the virus – the 14-day incubation period. Also, those infected but asymptomatic were also shedding the virus, meaning even those who appeared healthy were still passing on the infection. Chinese authorities finally lifted the restrictions at Wuhan after two months. That is five more weeks than what India has planned.

Another example is from the United States, demographically more similar to India. Kentucky closed non-essential businesses on March 26 when its death rate was 1/day, while Tennessee waited till March 30 (6 deaths/ day). Now, less than a week later, the projected daily death rate when the virus peaks is 15 in Kentucky as opposed to between 100-200 in the case of Tennessee. It is alarming to even calculate the projected cases and deaths in populous states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which are poorer in terms of healthcare as well.

There is a third option that the policy makers in India can consider. A soft shutdown. The days since March 25 have shown us that a number of jobs and services can be done remotely. Perhaps the government can prod establishments (including the State-run ones) that can work remotely to continue to remain so, while allowing the essential/unavoidable ones to travel. Physical distancing should be strictly maintained not just at shops, but on public transport as well, even if that means buses and trains are to be operated much more frequently. There should also be facilities to supply as much materials as possible at doorstep, and provide financial support to those in need. And all the while, we need to test more.

All these would cost a lot of money, but the other options are worse. Because though we are close to two weeks into lockdown, numbers are rising rapidly. And the experts at the Indian Council for Medical Research are reportedly expecting it to peak by April end. So while all options appear dreadfully difficult, the choice, ultimately, should be the one that hurts the least