| Analyst | Bahauddin Foizee |

The most rational strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic is for governments worldwide to enforce strict and extended lockdowns. These measures should remain in place until either the virus is fully contained, or a vaccine becomes widely available.

Officials from the World Health Organization (WHO) have consistently emphasized that a comprehensive lockdown, paired with rigorous testing, treatment, and isolation of confirmed cases, is essential for controlling the outbreak.

Countries that implemented early lockdowns have reported significantly lower infection rates compared to those that delayed action. A notable example is Saudi Arabia, which took decisive measures early on, including prohibiting foreign pilgrims from attending Hajj. As a result, the nation recorded only ten COVID-19-related deaths among 1,563 confirmed cases by March 31.

In stark contrast, Italy’s experience highlighted the dire consequences of procrastinated lockdowns. The nation saw a surge in infections and fatalities, surpassing even those in China, leading to a breakdown of its healthcare system.

Why Longer Lockdowns Are Necessary

For governments and businesses, the prospect of a complete lockdown can be daunting, often viewed as a threat to economic stability. This fear has led to delays in implementing lockdowns or opting for less stringent measures. Even when lockdowns are enacted, there is pressure to keep them short.

Experts argue, however, that lockdowns must not only be stringent but also extended beyond what many governments and businesses prefer. Without a complete halt to the virus’s spread or the availability of a vaccine, lifting lockdowns—whether fully or partially—could be reckless.

China’s recent decision to relax its restrictions has raised concerns among global health experts, who warn of a potential second wave of infections. While the initial lockdown was effective in curbing the virus’s spread, the easing of these measures may lead to a resurgence as people resume normal activities.

If China had chosen to maintain its lockdown longer, the risk of a second wave could have been minimized. The consensus among British researchers suggests that a lockdown lasting a minimum of 12 to 18 months may be necessary to yield significant results. This presents a dilemma for governments, which must choose between lifting restrictions—thereby risking lives—or prolonging them and facing potential economic fallout.

If lockdowns are eased, the loss of life could be substantial. Conversely, governments are increasingly concerned that maintaining strict lockdowns could lead to irreversible economic decline.

Recommendation

From both a moral and economic perspective, governments should prioritize public health over economic concerns. The economic argument is straightforward: human beings are the foundation of the economy, serving as both labor and consumers. A robust population is essential for economic vitality; preserving lives ultimately supports economic recovery. In summary, prioritizing health is not just a moral imperative but also a pragmatic economic strategy.