Critical questions on covid19

Prime Minister Dr Rowley - DAVID REID
Prime Minister Dr Rowley - DAVID REID

THE EDITOR: Following up on my last letter on critical thinking and the need for citizens to ask questions about issues which affect their lives as part of the process of becoming a nation of critical thinkers, it was music to my ears to hear the current interrogation of covid19-related decisions by many: like the Law Association asking about the legality of the police entering private premises re covid19 or the restaurants and bars about their total lockdown, or some businesses questioning the science of continuing the closure, or questions about the effectiveness of the police in putting a check on thousands of Venes entering the country illegally, most likely carriers, inter alia?

Those are some of the people’s questions. I have some of my own, tied into theirs in some instances, especially with reference to the comment from higher up “that we must take the advice of our medical experts and balance all interests.” Where is the balance, for example, in an invasion of privacy by the law which many in the law see as illegal as the Constitution does not support such? Is the perceived threat of home gatherings to “national security” sufficient justification for going against established law?

Further, where was the consistency in allowing for roadside food vending as bona fide restaurants and bars remain closed when the issue of people congregating applies to both? And now that the lockdown is total, would strict adherence to covid19 protocols be an equally effective substitute for mitigating the spread as against this total denial of an obviously popular service?

On this issue, the Prime Minister is to be commended for making an informed decision based on the objective evidence of his medical experts that in seven-ten days we will run out of the parallel hospital cover unless strict measures to minimise movement are taken. But recalling the invitation to visit Tobago for Easter and the reportedly 50,000 acceptance of that call, is this an attempt to close the door when the horse has already bolted?

Again, was there consistency in allowing “non-mall” businesses to ply their trade, inviting the same customer patronage, while “mall” businesses remain closed with loss of revenue and jobs? And now with only “non-essentials” being allowed, would a similar strict adherence to protocols, as with restaurants, be just as effective?

And what of the now exhausted promise to tackle “rogues” in the police and in the military who seem indifferent to the thousands of Venes entering our porous borders with impunity? As a now widely circulating Los Iros clip graphically demonstrates, and as our people continue to totter with this lockdown. And, further, would it be considered anti-vaccine to ask a question about the long-term efficacy of a single dose now that the arrival of vaccines for the second dose is shrouded in uncertainty?

Finally to my pet peeve. Will the children continue to die a slow death, cognitively, with no attempt to devise a strategic plan to deal with our most important resource, even as small-island St Lucia reopens its schools and the children in the US are going to school in Miami and on course to visit Disney World, their favourite?

Asking questions, even in these challenging times, is not being difficult, mischievous, or worse, unpatriotic. In fact in addition to being the first small step into the giant step of becoming a nation of critical thinkers, it is democracy at its best and those who govern our lives must feel proud that the people are slowly emerging from their inertia to realise their full potential as citizens of this country.

DR ERROL N BENJAMIN

via e-mail

Comments

"Critical questions on covid19"

More in this section