WHO-linked Sri Lankan Epidemic Experts' Statement - LG's comment (29-08-2021)

I just read through that public statement by a group of top specialists in the epidemic field, including WHO-linked experts calling, for an extension of this current (so-called) "lockdown". I am very disappointed in the content of this statement. In my opinion these specialists have failed as 'experts'. Their basic message, which is very good I just read through that public statement by a group of top specialists in the epidemic field, including WHO-linked experts calling, for an extension I just read through that public statement by a group of top specialists in the epidemic field, including WHO-linked experts calling, for an extension of this current (so-called) "lockdown". I am very disappointed in the content of this statement. In my opinion these specialists have failed as 'experts'. Their basic message, which is very good in terms of intentions, either deliberately or carelessly avoids focus adequately on THE key practical aspect of the governmental action they are calling for: namely for an extension of the 'lockdown'. As experts endeavouring to manage the SPREAD of the epidemic, their focus on what they call a 'lockdown' is utterly shallow and obfuscating. They do not simply explain WHY, despite nearly 14 days of this lockdown, there continues to be worsening and not lessening of the crucial dynamics of this epidemic (and any other communicable disease), namely, the RAPID SPREAD. Missing is a description of the currently implemented 'lockdown'. Their statement avoids describing the actual nature of these 'lockdowns' being grudgingly implemented by the Government this past year. The Government does not really hide the blatant pretense of its recent 'lockdowns' enforced during most of 2020. The pretense is simple:- use this term of 'lockdown' but in reality do not really implement it. The experts must explicitly say what THEY mean by a 'lockdown'. In terms of svere epidemic management, one of the first and continuous measures that is required is the drastic reduction in human mass activity - (a)mass production, (b)mass transit (whether for work or play) and (c)mass consumption (whether general supplies or luxuries, including leisure/entertainment). Thus, a REAL 'lockdown' means the MAXIMUM suspension of the above three activities. What is exempted from suspension and must continue to function, albiet in an epidemic controlling manner, are the genuine 'essential services': emergency services, full-scale medical management of epidemic, utilities supply, security and policing and, telecommunications (and a very few others). What has happened so far this year has been the infrequent and often inadequately lengthy suspension of only a portion of 'a', 'b' and, 'c'. Entire sectors of mass production including large scale construction, export manufacturing (apparel etc), agriculture and, their numerous ancillary industries and services (including freight, storage) and also major service sectors such as tourism (and ITS ancillaries) have been deliberately kept functioning as so-called 'essential services' (!). All this means not just mass production and mass consumption (although not luxury consumption) but, most importantly, mass transit as well. So, even during the so-called 'lockdown' that our WHO-linked Experts group refers to, it has only been a pretence with literally several millions of people commuting and concentrating in production and services sites all across the country! The Experts statement DOES NOT say whether it is this kind of sham 'lockdown' that they seek to extend until October. The only reference to the areas of lockdown is in the final item in the 'Recommendations' where they call for planning "in advance for a systematic re-opening of sectors, regions, ....". This implies that the major sectors have all been in suspension. But they have NOT! In effect, this Statement covers-up the pretense of the Government about its so-called lockdown. Let this group of Experts categorically state whether they wish the current pretense lockdown (with many major mass activity sectors NOT suspended) to be extended or, whether they want a genuine lockdown with the bulk of sectors in suspension. If the Statement can go into detail in persuasive arguments about some aspects of an extended lockdown, why has it not actuallly specified the very nature/scale of the 'lockdown' which they, as the authoritative experts, see as needed to manage the epidemic? Of course, in many genuinely planned pandemic counter measures in other countries over this past 18 months of the pandemic, there has been entire specialised state Budgets created by now - over a year into the pandemic. Our Government has none! What they argued in 2020 April (when the rate of infection was barely ten percent of today's) - that the country does not have the budget for a genuine lockdown - Government leaders continue to trot a whole year and more later! This is both pretense and total incompetence. The real outcome of the pretense is to be seen in the 2021 half-year business sector reportage: profits up for major corporates and a booming stockmarket. In macabre fashion, this boom in wealth for a few is parallel to the boom in infections and death and immense disruption and social trauma. In the 1980s, Sri Lanka advertised itself as a 'taste of paradise'. Today, in the eyes of world and in our own eyes this 'dharma dveepa' is an Island of Death and Cruel Sacrifice of Humanity for profit and market positioning. This kind of cruel, cynical opportunism is actually an insult to the 'ideals' of Capitalism. But are the Capitalists hiding as they check their banks online?

 

current thoughts:-    

> Ideological challenge to Capitalist Individualism & Market-based valuations by COVID pandemic (and also Climate Crisis) (e.g. individualism/opportunism vs. collectivism/social responsibility) 

> Political-economic challenge to Capitalism by COVID pandemic and need for centralised and planned economic action for pandemic management    

> If Bourgeois Parliamentary politics is not the main path of Sri Lanka’s progressive social transformation, how can traditional Leninist struggle evolve toward a successful revolutionary struggle that takes into account today’s social class contours and socio-cultural mobilisation dynamics? (e.g. how far can we use FB mobilisation without being trapped by its limits?)