Covid19 confusion

DOCTORS know the first duty they have to patients is to do no harm.

The Government, like the medical fraternity, has a similar obligation to do nothing to jeopardise the lives and safety of citizens.

Indeed, the relentless insistence over the past year of Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh’s exhorting the population on what it should and should not do during the covid19 pandemic made it seem the Government was well aware of this responsibility.

But in recent days its apparently inconsistent and illogical positions on seeking covid19 vaccines have made its behaviour and motives harder to understand.

There has been growing uncertainty over when this population can expect to get inoculated. Yet, even after all the firmly applied anti-pandemic measures of the past year, it appears that this country’s lack of vaccines, especially by comparison with most of the rest of the region, is not even a political embarrassment for the Prime Minister.

His stated disavowal of “begging” countries for vaccines is hard to understand, too, in the context of his own actions.

It was Dr Rowley who made, alongside the World Health Organization (WHO) director general, a strong plea to the international community not to hoard vaccine supplies and leave smaller countries behind.

It was also the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Caricom chairman, who wrote to US President Joe Biden for WHO-approved vaccines. Days earlier, Dr Rowley said he had also written to UK and Canadian leaders, and Canada's was “the only response I’ve had so far.” He also spoke to China’s President Xi Jinping, who reportedly made assurances, and said Caricom would approach the African Union.

In this context, the invocation of an aversion to “begging” with regard to India suggests Government was not truly open to all avenues of supply after all, even as our inoculation numbers fell way behind those of smaller neighbouring Caricom states.

This inconsistency reached dramatic new heights when the head of the Cabinet on Thursday seemed to contradict, and indeed criticise, a diplomatic official from India.

An unclear policy or an apparently inconsistently applied principle is one thing, but it is taking it too far to allow it possibly to inflict damage on this country’s chances of receiving the international support it so clearly needs on this issue.

The tangle with the Indian high commissioner, whether advertent or inadvertent, suggests a willingness to place political expediency and pride above the national interest.

It is also hard to discern the need for or usefulness of Mr Deyalsingh’s unusual excoriation of the leader of a business interest group in Parliament last week.

It is good to see the Government jealously guarding what it clearly knows to be its job. It should have complete control of the inoculation programme and should not be in league with private entities seeking commercial gain.

But first, do no harm.