Why should we bother about COVID-19?
The kind of attention that COVID-19 has been getting globally indeed is because it has also (or rather mainly) affected the rich and powerful. From Sophie Trudeau, the wife of Candian President, to Hollywood actor Tom Hanks; from UK health Minister Nadine Dorries to Iranian deputy health minister Iraj Harirchi.
And it is true that deaths caused by malnutrition (responsible for 69% of deaths of children below 5 years in India) or hunger (which causes 9 million deaths worldwide annually) or even a curable condition like TB (which results in 1.5 million deaths every year globally) far outnumber deaths from COVID-19 infection. Most of these deaths are a direct result of acute poverty — something that those in WHO who decide what constitutes a pandemic, media or so-called world leaders are immune from.
It is also true that there is no greater pandemic than rising inequality.
Does this mean we should take the threat of COVID-19 lightly? Definitely not. What differentiates COVID-19 from other kinds of mortal illnesses is that it does not comply with traditional statistical averages. Moreover, globalization and easy connectivity to thousands of airports around the world lead to the possibility of an exponential rise in the number of cases. Remember, in just three months, the rate of infection leapt from zero to more than 150,000. And as of today, it is still rapidly climbing the exponential curve.
Agreed, it is mostly the privileged, or rather international travellers, who have been infected by COVID-19 in India. However, since the rich cannot do without the services of their maids and chauffeurs who in turn use public transport, it is also likely to affect the least disadvantaged who stay in thickly populated slums.
Do note that COVID-19 started in China, one of the most globally connected nations, with almost every country in the world dependent on it one way or another. It is also one place that successfully converted a justifiable nation-wide paranoia into a strict implementation of sensible measures (after some initial denial and bungling). But Western media, predictably, was quick to term this intervention as a draconian lockdown. What is not discussed, however, is that if not for that lockdown, perhaps the largest quasi-quarantine in human history, we would have been staring at a much bleaker scenario today.
A global viral pandemic like COVID-19 is uncertain and unpredictable in terms of infection, relapse and mortality. For instance, is there a way to identify asymptomatic but contagious carriers? What is the guarantee that those who have been cured will not get it again? Will there be a reduction in lung capacity for those who are cured? In other words, collective paranoia is not always irrational. It is the way evolution has prepared us to avoid extinction in the face of potential disasters.
With just a few cases, small towns in southern and central Kerala have almost gone into a self-imposed lockdown. People are worried and therefore, cautious. The state government has been at it too, with regular updates and procedures to be followed, in case of exposure to the infected. A city like Mumbai, on the other hand, acts cockier as though people here are immune to this potent virus. Suburban trains are still running packed. Workers are out on the street and slogging for their daily wages. What is at stake is survival. And when a system fails to support you, how do you ensure that — lockdown or no lockdown? There is no way ordinary people here can afford to store essentials for a month or more, and stay home like the privileged can. That is why the “go corona, corona go” chant evokes more pathos than laughter. Because that’s life at its bare minimum — hope and pray that all will be well, even when nothing is.