Lessons on reopening after COVID-19 lockdown

The lifting of quarantine restrictions is just a matter of time. The challenge is how to ease these restrictions without causing a major public health crisis.

When the COVID-19 pandemic started sometime in December, people paid very little attention primarily because China and the World Health Organization made it sound as if this was not even an epidemic . As the truth emerged by February to March the pandemic became a major public health issue. Most countries started ”locking down” their economies which led to a global depression.

The economic price of lockdowns is continuing to rise. It is not just massive unemployment; but, the cost of helping suffering people with relief goods and cash benefits; and,  there is the projected cost of stimulating the economy if we are to prevent an economic depression.

Governments are now desperately looking for ways to ease restrictions without making the public health crisis worse. In the Philippines, public health experts are pushing to extend the lockdowns in Metro Manila, explaining that a second surge of COVID 19 cases would happen if the quarantine is lifted prematurely. Businessmen and economists warn that an economic depression is imminent if the quarantine in Metro Manila is not lifted. Even the mayors were divided on this issue of lifting quarantine.

The biggest fear in lifting the quarantine  is that it will lead to a second surge and may literally force the government to again lock down the economy.  As governments look for ways to emerge from this pandemic hopefully by easing the economic pains  caused by lockdowns without worsening the public health crisis, it would be advisable to look at countries that have already reopened or are in the process of reopening. However, while we look for best practices in reopening an economy, it is important to note that recovery  strategies should be tailored to vulnerabilities of specific populations and to governments’ financial capabilities.

Social distancing, for example, will be very difficult to implement in places like the Philippines where public transportation is totally inadequate and where urban poor  families live in extremely crowded physical conditions.

We can examine the experience of three countries – Sweden, Singapore, South Korea – that avoided total lockdowns but are being used as examples.

In Sweden, people were encouraged to stay at home but this was not legally enforced. Bars,  cafes, restaurants and borders remained open and businesses were generally allowed to stay open. Universities were closed and major sporting events cancelled. The government has relied on the Swedish people’s best judgment when it comes to social distancing.

In Singapore, there was extensive preparation and planning for pandemic based on its previous experience with outbreaks. Aggressive response – testing, tracing, hospitalization – kept infection rates until April when the number of cases started to grow more quickly and the government issued shutdown orders.

The main cause of the problem in Singapore  was the outbreak in densely packed migrant workers’ quarters where the illness spread like wildfire and expanded beyond the dormitories throughout the city. Last April Singapore had to close schools and workplaces in an effort to slow the spread.

In a similar situation in the Philippines, once the lockdown is lifted in the urban poor areas, there is a possibility that the illness can spread throughout the country unless the government has adequately prepared prevention measures. If not, we will be forced to have a second set of lockdowns.

The most successful examples of battling the pandemic crisis are South Korea and Taiwan. I find these results very heartening because these two are democratic countries compared to authoritarian states that have been less successful.

There are three measures South Korea took which could be examples for everyone. The first is that based on their MERS experience, South Korea had a pandemic response plan that made it possible for the country to roll out expansive and aggressive testing early in 2020. Second, South Korea employed an aggressive tracing technique to quickly track down individuals who came into contact with a person who has tested positive for the illness. This allowed them to isolate individuals without waiting for them to develop symptoms which limits further spreading.

Third,  South Korea provided economic support that offsets the cost of seeking medical help and being out of work for extended periods while recovering in isolation. The government guaranteed coverage of all COVID-19-associated health costs and is covering paid leave for those who miss work due to COVID-19 or provide income for those who are unemployed.

In summary, South Korea’s plan included massive testing, technology based contact tracing, and financial compensation. There are lessons to be learned from South Korea and even Singapore which did not foresee the problem of crowded living spaces as a major cause for pandemics. The Philippines, with plenty of overcrowded slum areas, must learn from this lesson.

A potential surge in South Korea was immediately traced to a specific person as the cause. There are two lessons here. South Korea’s ability for contact tracing is very efficient. Unfortunately the possibility of a surge never disappears completely.

There will be new risks exposed as an economy reopens. For example, beef, pork, poultry processing plants have been discovered to be new hotspots for COVID-19. Last month, 5,000 plant workers in 19 states were tested positive. Large COVID-19 clusters have appeared in meatpacking plants in Canada, Spain, Ireland, Brazil, and Australia.

As we start reopening our economy, we need to learn lessons from the successes and failures of other countries in fighting this pandemic.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]