On Tuesday, New Zealand declared that it has effectively “eliminated” COVID-19 and has eased its lockdown restrictions to a certain extent, with new cases only increasing in single digits. While this does not mean that the country has eradicated the virus or come any closer to finding a cure, the stark reduction in new cases indicates that it has been highly successful–so far–in its strategy to contain community outbreaks of the novel coronavirus. The approach adopted by Kiwi Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has caught international attention for being the most comprehensive and effective among ‘Western’ countries, who are struggling to contain the pandemic. Can India learn any lessons from the efficiency of New Zealand’s response?
On 23 March, New Zealand cemented its commitment to an elimination strategy, in stark contrast to the mitigation strategies being followed by other Western powers, including its neighbour Australia. At the time, Auckland had confirmed only 102 cases with zero deaths. On 26 March, Ardern announced a national emergency and a full nationwide lockdown on level four of the country’s devised alert scale, which included the complete closure of educational institutes, strict border and travel restrictions, and intensive physical distancing. At the same time, the country committed to rapid case detection and contact-tracing, as well as the implementation of a well-coordinated and alert communication strategy between authorities and the public to disseminate information and developments surrounding the issue.
The thought process behind this approach was that disease elimination, in contrast to flattening the curve, would reverse the sequence of infection by using strict and vigorous intervention at an early stage to interrupt the transmission of the disease. For New Zealand, a country that has never really dealt with a coronavirus epidemic such as SARS or MERS before, this worked effectively as it extinguished the physical chains of virus transmission. At the same time, it has given authorities, medical experts and researchers the time and space to divert resources towards ramping up critical measures required for elimination. These measures have left medical staff and infrastructure in a relatively better position compared to their European and American counterparts, and allowed for rigorous quarantining at borders, increased surveillance for treated cases, and expanded contact tracing and testing. As of 28 April, the country will be moving to a level three alert, which allows for the easing of restrictions for economic purposes while still maintaining strict norms for social activities.
At first glance, it may seem like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strategy has not been too dissimilar to Ardern’s. On 24 March, when the country had nearly 500 cases and 9 deaths, Modi announced a similar nationwide lockdown for the country’s 1.3 billion people, completely sealing its borders, restricting domestic travel, and shutting down all ‘non-essential’ businesses and institutes. The strict lockdown, which was initially supported even by Modi’s vocal political opposition, was extended until 3 May, and there are talks of it being further extended in badly affected areas. As of today, there is still no concrete exit plan to relax the lockdown, with the Chief Ministers of states opting for different strategies moving forward as the threat of a surge in cases looms over such decision-making.
Of course, there are several factors that render the two countries incomparable at their core. New Zealand’s total population of 5 million is a fraction of that of even Mumbai city. Additionally, those residing in New Zealand’s smaller cities and clusters are already naturally socially distanced from one another. Social distancing in New Zealand is far more realistic and achievable, given that the country’s total population density is a mere 47 per sq. metre, compared to India’s 1,202 per sq. metre. Further, the island country is fairly isolated, with its nearest neighbour being New Caledonia, a tiny chain of islands around 1,930 km to its North, thereby increasing its ability to control its borders. India, on the other hand, shares landlocked borders with several countries–including China, where the virus originated. It is also prone to large-scale cross-border land migration to and from Nepal and Bangladesh.
Moreover, the challenges Modi faces are far more layered and complicated than that of Ardern due to the sheer diversity and disparity of the country’s population. The foremost shortcoming of Modi’s hasty lockdown announcement was his inability to account for the poor and vulnerable, leaving millions stranded without sustenance or pay almost overnight. Currently, India is simultaneously tackling its largest internal migration crisis till date, with civil society needing to step in to cover for the abysmal government relief package being offered to migrant workers, farmers, and the poor. Yet, Modi has not adequately spoken of possible solutions for this issue in his public addresses. His administration also seems to be scrimmaging for finances to improve its medical resources and infrastructure, with the Centre resorting to public donations via the controversial new PM-CARES Fund. At the same time, his government remains under the scanner for its continued crackdown on dissenters and journalists as well as its inability to contain rising communal tensions and mob lynchings even during the lockdown.
But, despite these massive socio-political differences between the two countries, there are a few very basic lessons that Modi could learn from Ardern’s approach towards the pandemic. Firstly–and experts over the past few weeks have been reiterating this at all points–India needs to begin aggressively testing its people, whether or not they show symptoms of the virus. On average since January, New Zealand has tested around 21,900 per 1 million people, while India’s testing ratio stands at just over 200 per 1 million people, which is far too little for a population so dense and large. And to delay matters further, this morning, the Health Ministry announced that homegrown antibody testing kits being manufactured under the Make in India scheme can only be expected by the end of May.
Secondly, Ardern’s government has paid out nearly $5.5 billion to 1.5 million citizens in wage subsidies to support employers in continuing paying their staff as a part of its economic relief package. In India, the responsibility for such subsidies lies with State governments, and its implementation is neither compulsory nor consistent, with states doling out vastly different amounts on different timelines. Perhaps a Centrally mandated wage subsidy using a certain amount of the PM’s relief fund or CARES Fund can be used to bail out disadvantaged migrant workers during this crisis without discrimination.
But lastly and most importantly, Arden has a lot to teach Modi in terms of pure leadership. The 39-year-old Prime Minister has been lauded internationally for her extremely mature, empathetic, and educative communication. Not only does she conduct daily briefings with officials and the press, she also hosts frequent Facebook live chats, often in casual clothing from her work “bubble”, where she interacts with the public and informally discusses the trials and tribulations of living in a lockdown, while at the same time thoroughly explaining her policy decisions and their implications using informal, yet informative language. Further, Arden and other lawmakers took 20% pay cuts in solidarity with their citizens in light of the emergency. In a recent study, it was found that 88% Kiwis trusted her government to make the right decisions during these trying times.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that Modi’s charisma is attractive to several Indians, especially Hindus, who regard him extremely highly and are bound in spirit in his presence. And his words, too, have reflected a certain amount of empathy to the people–he told citizens to consider him a member of their family and even organized a few community-building events to honour frontline workers. But where he differs most starkly from Ardern is that his addresses, both via radio and television, are infrequent and are highly sanitized from any talk about real policy decisions. He has also been strategically quiet about the recent atrocities carried out during the pandemic or controversial and un-scientific statements being made by his party members. And as if his failure to address these pertinent issues was not enough, Modi gives his citizenry no transparency or space to question his decisions, choosing to sustain his manicured image with propaganda and distraction. While such disassociated leadership may have worked so far, it may no longer be good enough to curb the growing uncertainty among the country’s rural and migrant workers.
An indefinitely extended lockdown would leave millions unemployed and hungry for far longer than anticipated, snowballing into another emergency that Modi may not have the capabilities to deal with in the impending backdrop of a global recession. At the same time, the relaxation of rules would put the same people at risk of contracting the virus as they already live in densely packed conditions with poor sanitation facilities. Indeed, the task of striking that perfect balance is a uniquely mammoth one, but Modi must shed his placating father-figure approach and ensure that his televised and radio communication regarding future steps and relief are far more frequent, consistent, and clear, since those most vulnerable to the adversities of this situation are unlikely to have access to Twitter or other media where such intricacies and details are usually discussed. The Chief Ministers of Kerala, Odisha, and Maharashtra have performed quite well in this regard, leaving us wanting more from the PM.
Therefore, while India cannot practically emulate New Zealand’s model due to vast differences in the countries’ geopolitical realities and crisis management capabilities, there is definitely more than enough space in our current democratic system to expect Modi and his government to employ transparent and effective communication practices like Ardern, especially during such uncertain times.
Image Source: Axios