Why Lockdown Failed in Reducing COVID-19?

With the cases of COVID-19 on the unprecedented rise and a number of fatalities rising day by day, it is hardly unfair to say that Lockdown failed in reducing COVID-19. Read this article to find out why?

The effects of lockdown should not be looked at in isolation. They are entangled with its political and humanitarian effects, including unemployment, starvation, a phenomenal migrant worker crisis, and a loss of access to healthcare. These crises could have been avoided with planning, but they have now become an essential part of the Lockdown story.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the nation at 8 pm on March 24, 2020,  on the outbreak of the coronavirus, an air of apprehension was noticeable across the country. Hardly four hours after this announcement, at the stroke of the midnight hours, India went into its first coronavirus-induced Lockdown.

 

Lockdown and Failures

And on May 31, the ministry of home affairs issued an order announcing a phased reopening or ‘Unlock 1’. Almost, all prohibition was lifted and new guidelines were announced, except in containment zones. In the preceding 24 hours, after the unlock, there have been 10,956 new cases and 265 fatalities reported.

To understand the reasons behind failure, we must begin with the reason behind this Lockdown.

After a long consideration that the central government took the decision to enforce a nation-wide lockdown, for the following mentioned reasons –
1. To gain the time to prepare for the rising threat of pandemic COVID-19.
2.  To spread awareness in public regarding the threat of COVID-19, so that they might become mentally prepared.

But, if we analyze closely, things are not that simple.

Why Lockdown Failed?

See following reasons –

1. When a complex and unclear threat is unfolding, one can see the appeal of Lockdown to those in power. It reframes disease control in terms of restrictions on movement and contact. The worries about sloppy health infrastructure, testing, tracing, monitoring, probabilities, education, research, and so forth, are replaced with a list of rules, responsibilities, and consequences. The relationship between authorities and people become simplified: the authorities enforce the rules, the people must comply.

2. Moreover, it is almost self-evident that a strict lockdown must “work” especially when one is willing to ignore all the realities of what such rigorous Lockdown would entail. There is now an obvious wrongdoer for any failure to control transmission– the violator of rules– and this narrative helps build support for solutions based on surveillance.

3. The third effect is that it “localizes” both disease and politics. Because people, and hence infection, are not allowed to move freely, the epidemic can take very different paths in different regions. Consequently, responses to it need to be local, and the responsibility for day-to-day disease control passes to state governments or municipal corporations, thus lessening the burden of the Central Government.

Now, let us discuss what was supposed to happen and what actually happened.

Lockdown imposed to prevent COVID-19 from spreading

Lockdown has two overlapping effects on disease, and distinguishing between them is essential for understanding the situation in India. First, it slows the transmission of the virus by implementing social distancing. Second, it slows the geographical spread of disease.

Of course, neither effect is absolute.

Poor lockdown planning can be led to panic and overcrowding, probably stimulating transmission for a while. And within some localities, hindering the freedom of movement might actually have accelerated the transmission of COVID-19 by stopping outflows of people which could have reduced population density.

1. The first lockdown effect, a slowdown in transmission, occurs by a reduction in day-to-day events that spread disease. As movement is restricted, the new carriers are not able to spread the virus.

2. The second effect, that is geographical localization, can be seen simply as a reduction in the effective population where the disease is able to spread. It limits the spread and aid in monitoring, but of course, localization can never be perfect.

Disease leaks across state boundaries, within a town, or even within an urban locality. Nevertheless, after lockdown begins, fewer outbreaks in new localities were observed. The outbreaks which fail to occur would take more time to become numerically significant – hence, their absence takes time to become visible in data.

As explained above, one must consider both effects of lockdown: an immediate drop in transmission caused by increased physical distancing, and a slower change caused by geographical localization of the disease. While a drop in transmission slows the rise in numbers in the short term, it is disease localization which aids in the control of spread. Both these results are found positive.

So, why does it fail?

Criticism of Lockdown

1. While the lockdown did gave us time to prepare and lessened the transmission rate, the main criticism is that it was poorly planned, and crudely implemented. It also took attention away from other more sustainable strategies for disease control such as increased testing and proper medical facilities. The government has also failed to use the period of lockdown to ameliorate the shortage of personal protective equipment and other medical equipment.

2. Another valid criticism is that it failed to contain the spread. According to data, active infections nationwide are about 35 times higher than at the start of lockdown. Although this is much less than what would have been the case without it, nevertheless it is a large number of active infections. It means that any sudden return to pre-lockdown conditions would rapidly increase cases.

3. The third reason is the administrative and social failure in the case of migrant workers. After losing their jobs, laborers, a majority of whom infected, streamed out of urban red zones and carried their infection into green zones. The impossible journey that many laborers undertook shows desperation and the inadequacy of support provided by the state governments. Hundreds of them had died on their way. Better planning, with ensured minimum provisions, would have saved them. That also leads to the question of massive unemployment and economic failures.

Finally, the only thing that could be said is that Lockdown was indeed a great step but lack of proper planning led to greater failure.

Leave a Comment