Mobility amidst a pandemic - a review

A review because we certainly have discussed this sometime ago. Right at the start, in fact. It’s closely related to quarantine measures a year ago – or the dreaded term, “lockdowns,” as others look at these community quarantines with intense hate. Who wouldn’t – freedom is something everybody yearns for, especially after a year of being restricted to one’s domicile.

The concept of mobility is closely associated with the idea of lockdowns, especially at this time of the pandemic. The term “lockdown” per se is sometimes also misunderstood, what with the numerous nomenclature and acronyms (our community quarantines, or CQs). Basically, lockdowns are generally perceived as restriction of entry to and exit from a certain area – a country, province, city, barangay, etc., while allowing movements within, oftentimes with a parallel time constraint (curfews). This loose movement within the locked-down area is the one that conflicts with the concept of social distancing.

Mobility, on the other hand, is the ability to move or be moved, as differentiated from the act of moving itself, of people, goods, and services which is defined as “transportation”. Mobility is something that people have, the freer from constraints the better. Transportation can be provided, but if people don’t have a choice, or their movements are restricted by design, then they don’t have mobility. This often happens when people are not given the opportunity to move whatever they can and are forced to be transported in modes imposed on them, or which discriminates against others, or be discriminated against by them.

Apparently, authorities equate restrictions or lockdowns with diminution of transportation services. At the start of the pandemic last year, public transportation was severely restricted. For private cars, not as much, they’re allowed with rules, which clearly was a case of social discrimination. When the COVID-19 cases eased up, public transportation was reinstated, but with capacities reduced. Now that the cases are spiraling up again, public transportation is again curtailed.

Two points to consider – capacity and mobility. The latter depends on the former. Even with CQs/lockdowns imposed, the “allowed” population should be accorded mobility through sufficient capacity with social distancing. It is the latter which curbs infection and not the movement itself. In fact, movement should be made easier and faster with social distancing instead of being restrained. Reducing capacity is actually a formula for more transmission! People will squeeze into the limited available vehicle space, will take longer time transferring and waiting at terminals and transfer points, and will scramble and fight for seats.

Social distancing easily breaks down at waiting areas and transfer points, and that’s where viral transmission is at its highest. Authorities need to understand that the health protocols can best be maintained by providing mobility at all times, which translates to providing sufficient capacity. When people don’t scramble for a ride, or don’t wait two hours to get one, social distancing likely happens. If they fight inch for inch to get a ride, the virus has its heyday, cases will spike, and after that deaths. Bottom line? Provide mobility by providing sufficient capacity.