Note: The views and opinions expressed in blog/editorial posts are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of Misbar.
The Need for Lockdowns
The world has been forever changed both by the direct effects of COVID-19, and by one of the most common strategies being used to curb it: lockdowns. Lockdowns typically involve the limitation or outright banning of non-essential activities (large gatherings, air-travel, schools, etc.), while enforcing measures such as testing sites, contact tracing, providing personal protective equipment, and quarantines. In mid 2020, as transmissions slowed down, it seemed like lockdowns were working. However, as winter set in and new variables emerged it became clear that this fight was far from over.
As of now, several countries have already gone back into lockdown in an effort to combat the renewed vigor of the virus. New and more contagious strains have emerged in the UK and South Africa creating fresh challenges just when the world was beginning to see glimpses of hope after several vaccines were released. Scientists have already called into question the effectiveness of said vaccines against these new strains and mutations. With that in mind, it’s important to assess the viability of once again implementing lockdowns while considering the difficulties that such a measure creates in itself.
The Pros
The main benefit of locking down an area is to keep people safe by limiting their possible exposure to the virus. Research collected since the beginning of the pandemic has shown that lockdowns do in fact accomplish that. It is essentially a delaying strategy used to buy time, letting the infected recover without further spreading the virus. Hospitals get a chance to catch their breath without being overwhelmed, scientists get more time to work on vaccines, and the general population gets time to develop herd immunity with minimal casualties.
The idea behind herd immunity is that if a majority of a population carries antibodies for a disease, transmission will be severely hampered. Those who cannot take the vaccine will be effectively protected. This is why it is not effective enough to just isolate vulnerable parts of the population, as the disease will spread around them and eventually close in. Limiting that spread also helps with tracing the virus as it is transmitted, which is nearly impossible amidst the chaotic interactions of “normal” life.
To put it simply, a lockdown can be more humanitarian than simply allowing immunity to build up in the population by letting the disease spread. The alternative would, according to the WHO, cause “unnecessary infection, suffering and death.” However, despite the benefits of protecting the population by keeping them at home, there are undeniable drawbacks to drastically reshaping society for extended periods of time.
The Cons
Some experts have cited the high survival rate of COVID-19 (99.5-95%, depending on the demographic) as a reason for lockdowns being too extreme. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and health economist, argued that factors outside of the virus make lockdowns a struggle for many, especially for the elderly and those in disenfranchised social groups. In other words, the negative effects of lockdown conditions might create a crisis rivalling the virus itself.
Economics is an often mentioned topic in the discourse of lockdowns, and for good reason. The stock market crash during the Spring of 2020 was disturbing to investors around the world, and the poor and marginalized were financially devastated. For the millions of people who lost their jobs, lockdowns created a serious financial hurdle. This issue has been somewhat mitigated by government-subsidized wages, but levels of support have varied wildly by country, and the economic drain has been enormous across the board.
Another equally important ramification of lockdowns, created in part by economic difficulties, is the toll taken on the public’s mental health. In countries like the UK, it has become clear that young people in particular are susceptible to deteriorating mental health as a result of the pandemic and efforts to contain it. Students expressed difficulty concentrating, rising levels of anxiety and depression, as well as feelings of social isolation.
With rising levels of mental illness, people have turned to unhealthy coping strategies. Studies have shown that lockdowns in the United States dramatically increased levels of alcohol consumption, with speculation that this could be further linked to mental health issues such as depression. In order to combat what has been dubbed a “Mental Health Epidemic” countries such as the UK invested huge sums into mental health support structures.
The negative side effects of a lockdown are not only very serious, they are interconnected. There is a domino effect between each of the aforementioned difficulties, coalescing into a mountain of trials which has proven insurmountable for some.
Different Methods
The levels of success with lockdowns have been extremely varied. Countries like Vietnam effectively used lockdowns in combination with personal protection and contact tracing to mitigate fatalities. These methods were implemented almost immediately after COVID spread. Meanwhile, the United States has experienced enormous difficulty in creating a unified response to the virus. Lockdowns, mandatory PPE, and contact tracing were implemented, but without synchronicity, and only as the virus made its way around the nation. Due to the way States are individually governed, each reacted differently to the spread of COVID.
The disparity between cases and fatalities between these two countries (2,421 cases and 35 deaths for Vietnam, 28.5 million cases and 510,000 deaths for the U.S.) is staggering, even when factoring in population levels. While Vietnam was proactive in it’s defense against the pandemic, the U.S. was reactionary.
Sweden, unlike the aforementioned nations, did little to prepare against COVID-19. In general, Sweden’s healthcare policy on the virus has been extraordinarily lax. Not only has testing been highly limited, face mask requirements in public were minimal. It was only during late September of 2020 that hospitals required face-visors for their staff, and as recently as mid-December that face masks were mandated on public transportation.
Despite the confidence of the Swedish government that their nation would weather the course without disruption, the pandemic has taken its toll on the country. Sweden has experienced a much higher mortality rate than their Scandinavian neighbors who implemented stricter requirements and lockdowns. Since the beginning of November, infection and mortality rates in Sweden have increased exponentially. As of the time of writing, cases have increased beyond 600,000 and deaths by 12,000. Even so, exact statistics for infections are difficult to pin down due to a lack of sophisticated testing and contact tracing. The Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, as well as the King of Sweden himself, Carl XVI Gustaf; both stated that they had “failed” the people, citing the death toll of the virus.
Like Sweden, the island nation of Taiwan has not made use of a lockdown. However, unlike Sweden, Taiwan has experienced incredible success in dealing with COVID-19. The numbers speak for themselves: since the pandemic began, there have been 938 infections and 9 deaths due to the virus. This is especially surprising considering the vast majority of Taiwan’s sizable population (78.9% of approximately 23,844,097) live in dense urban centers.
In essence, Taiwan has been unified under an extremely proactive defensive strategy. Having learned the potential devastation of pandemics from the SARS outbreak of 2003 (as well experiences with other diseases like H1N1 and MERS), Taiwan already had a stockpile of PPE ready to go in case another infectious respiratory virus broke out. These reserves proved to be invaluable, but were only one contributing factor of the island nation’s admirable feat.
Banning large gatherings, contact tracing, frequent testing, and screening travelers from other countries have all been essential tools which work in tandem with each other. Any foreign arrivals are required to go through elaborate measures upon entering the country, and must undergo a quarantine if they wish to stay. Any quarantined person is checked on by the Central Epidemic Command Center throughout each of the 14 days they will be spending in isolation. Furthermore, the Taiwanese Government uses triangulation to track cell phone signals and ensure that quarantines are maintained; if they are being violated, fines are levied against the guilty party. These practices also apply to any Taiwanese citizen who tests positive, as well as anyone they were in contact with.
In comparison to most other countries, the measures imposed by Taiwan might seem extreme or even authoritarian at first glance. In order to understand how these measures are socially acceptable it is important to consider the political culture of the Taiwanese. Some experts hypothesized that Taiwan’s practices of governmental transparency and populist democracy explain the apparent trust in such dramatic methods. The people have faith in the government to keep their best interests in mind, and the government does their best to keep the people safe.
There has been a noticeable trend with the various reactions to COVID. In examining prolific examples like Vietnam, The United States, Sweden, and Taiwan, it is clear that success doesn’t just stem from using or not using a lockdown. Being proactive, unified, realistic, and transparent seems to be the key to success in dealing with this pandemic. That is easier said than done, but it is still a goal worth striving for.
From Sweden to Taiwan, and everywhere in between, the pandemic has created myriad trials for us all to overcome. Even in the best cases, sacrifices have been necessary. Financial difficulties, mental health issues, and social disruptions are very real issues which must be dealt with alongside the virus. This is all in the hopes of protecting people from COVID, and eventually returning to a normalcy which too many of us had taken for granted.
