There has always been a tendency, even in circumstances of presumed emergency, for Guyanese, on the whole, to strike a ‘business as usual posture,’ or else to trust what we customarily call ‘pot luck,’ that whatever danger may be ‘out there,’ we will, somehow, ‘dodge the bullet.’
Two weeks after the first coronavirus fatality here and reports of other cases (up until now the number appears to be small but unclear) there may well be evidence that we may be again going down the same road of indifference.
Take a stroll into downtown George-town and you cannot fail to notice the sense of casualness, the impish pushback against cautions about ‘social distancing’ and about upgrading standards of hygiene. The handful of days, a week or so ago, when stores were flooded with seekers of soaps and sterilizers are behind us. What lies ahead is unclear.
This week, Republic Bank (Guyana) Ltd issued a public statement that included six relief measures for its customers. Its warning is clear. The measures, the bank says, seeks to respond what it describes as the “anticipated impact” as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It appears to point to a prognosis on Republic Bank’s part that the virus, its human health implications apart, will strike, as well, in the realms of business and the economy and will, moreover, impair people’s ability to properly meet their various financial obligations, conceivably for, at the very least, months down the road.
Interestingly, Republic Bank’s position on the matter of the coronavirus situation is underpinned, first, by its assessment that the impact of the pandemic may extend well beyond what one might call the ‘coming and going’ period, that is to say that the impact is likely to leave a more enduring mark in its wake.
One expects, of course, that such relief measures as the Bank has put in place will have to be reviewed, from time to time, depending on both the severity of the impact of the coronavirus on the country and the speed with which that impact recedes.
The initiative that Republic Bank has taken is, from the Bank’s perspective, noteworthy but is it, from the standpoint of the business sector as a whole, sufficient? By now, surely there ought to have been some serious ingathering of the business community, convened by the major Business Support Organisations (the Private Sector Commission, the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association and the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry) to, (based on advice from both state and non-state health authorities) make some kind of pronouncement as to just how the business community, as a whole, should behave in those circumstances. As of the current week there was still evidence of what one might call normal trading in shops, malls, supermarkets etc and in the process there did not appear to be evidence of a sufficient mindfulness of how that practice is lining up against the admonition about social distancing.
While there have been a few private sector-initiated public pronouncements on the issue of the coronavirus, these have more-or-less resembled a sort of going through the motions, reflected either in an indifference to or a lack of awareness of the potential gravity of what we are faced with. As is the case elsewhere, the PSC should have long established a hot line(s)-supported Coronavirus Advisory Desk, which, working in conjunction with the health authorities, including reliable and accessible sources outside of Guyana, to provide a greater level of enlightenment on considerations that have to do with business owner and consumer behaviour and employee safety in the circumstances.
The anomalies in the national response to the coronavirus, so far, would appear to repose in two phenomena. First, it is, plain and simple, a matter of our insufficient knowledge and resource-related capability to respond to the menace of the virus in ways that are both reassuring and remedial. The second has to do with what, in these kinds of circumstances, is usually a national inclination for an unfathomable indifference. This is driven, it seems, either by another disease, a ‘devil-may-care’ malady that treats serious threats as though they were no more than irritating distractions, or else, a line of reasoning based on ‘numbers’ and underpinned by the assumption that ‘the count will skip me’.
By far the most poignant point made up to this time about just where we are insofar as the coronavirus is concerned was made by The PAHO/WHO resident representative in Guyana. He made it clear just days ago that prevailing public behaviour would appear to reflect a pointed indifference to health-related cautions about social distancing. “I think we should seriously consider a lockdown… if we don’t do a complete lockdown at some point, I think we will be in deep trouble,” is what the WHO/PAHO official is quoted as saying. Quite what that “complete lockdown” means has not been spelt out thought one suspects that it may well mean an enforced curtailment of some of those prerogatives (freedoms?) that we take for granted. As an aside, It is apparent that the usual numbers on parts of the stretch of sea wall between Kitty and the Pegasus end has, of late, reduced considerably A curtailment of leisure activities, whether it is tasting the offerings of the night time fast food stands or congregating in the ‘after hours’ places of entertainment to eat and drink, there is clearly a need to take more seriously concerns about social distancing.
Two days ago, a Robb Street businessman who has been trading continually since the first reported case of the coronavirus locally told this newspaper that he continues to worry about the balance between the menace of the virus and what he describes as “the need to earn.” Glancing furtively at two young female employees at the other end of the congested store he drops his voice to whisper about them not having jobs for however long he has to remain closed… and perhaps even longer. Then he takes another look in their direction and walks off without bothering to say that the conversation with us had ended.
All of these considerations pale into insignificance against the backdrop of the WHO/PAHO’s blunt warning last week that insofar as a national response to the coronavirus is concerned we are moving in the wrong direction. There could have been no greater signal that a point has been reached where there is little choice than that we begin a national conversation that will lead to a significant upgrading of across-the-board national consciousness of what we are up against and the various ways that may be at our disposal to help fend it off.
