We know who are most at risk of catching and unwittingly spreading Covid-19, so we should be using electronic monitoring to tighten up contact tracing, and be checking in with them daily, argues Dr Raymond Xia
Finding ourselves in Alert Levels 2 and 3, once again, was a frustrating situation for all New Zealanders. Citizens are annoyed, and so too are the politicians.
The cost of the latest lockdown is estimated at $240 Million. That’s the financial cost. There are further costs too which are less tangible – mental health, domestic stability and negatives associated with loneliness and isolation are obvious areas of concern when our country is jumping in and out of levels of freedom and normality.
The Prime Minister keeps calling on people to support each other, keep the team on track. The messaging and tone from the Government has been very kind, but we’ve found ourselves at a point where that is not enough.
They’ve become national numerical identities by their titles of “Case A, B, C, M, L”, and so on. They too will no doubt be frustrated and feel things are unfair. And they have a point - because the rules are not clear enough.
My research expertise lies in marketing and consumer behaviour. A recent study I authored looked at reasons people did not engage with contact tracing systems. Trust in the business and in the Government was a huge factor, and businesses could take certain steps to help encourage better buy-in.
Industries such as food-service and hospitality are at huge risk from yo-yo states of lockdown. In this extraordinary period it has become clear we need stricter rules. Relying on every member of the public to do the right thing is flawed.
We can’t get around that, and we will find ourselves in further frustrating states of lockdown if we continue with the current approach which has seen the team of five million setback by the poor choices of a few. It seems unfair. It is frustrating. But there is also an element of inevitability to finding ourselves here.
The same could be said for the people who are behind the latest breach. They’ve become national numerical identities by their titles of “Case A, B, C, M, L”, and so on. They too will no doubt be frustrated and feel things are unfair. And they have a point - because the rules are not clear enough.
These people should record their movement seriously, always use contact tracing systems and be contacted by phone each day. Turning on bluetooth in their phone should be a must.
While there is an element of every individual needing to manage themselves in a health-conscious way, the Government should pay more attention to the high-risk groups.
There is a 20/80 law (Pareto principle) stating that about 80 percent of consequences come from 20 percent of the causes. The law applies to Covid-19 transmission as well. The people who have a higher possibility of carrying the virus is the 20 percent. Hence, we should be far better placed to know where they go and what they do.
These people include the new arrivals who’ve left managed isolation facilities, close contacts of infected individuals, workers at the borders and airports, and the workers who are exposed to risk such as in healthcare. These people should record their movement seriously, always use contact tracing systems and be contacted by phone each day. Turning on bluetooth on their phones should be mandatory.
In the west, we cherish everyone's rights and freedom, and this is written in law. This is a symbol of civilization. However, we need to think again about the extent of freedom in different circumstances.
Every member of our society has freedom, while the society has its collective freedom as well. Take the surveillance camera, the traffic camera. Do we complain it infringes our rights and freedom by knowing where everyone is going? Yes, a few people do, but generally we are tolerant of it as the camera's main job is to protect the collective freedom and protect the majority people by identifying criminals and illegal behaviours that harm public safety. Similarly, when individuals' behaviour is against public health, we need deterrents and rules to prevent harm being inflicted on the whole population.
Stricter rules would ultimately protect individual's rights by providing a stronger safety net to contain community spread of Covid and prevent further restrictions. I imagine even if you were one of the unfortunate few embroiled in the latest fiasco, you would welcome tougher laws to prevent the same thing happening again.
Some ways stricter rules could tighten up loopholes lie with electronic monitoring of self-isolating and infected individuals via bluetooth. The regulations for self-isolation can be set for everyone in a particular bubble, with alerts and reminders to make it crystal clear what the conditions of the isolation are, and what the consequences are if they are broken. Individuals who need to self-isolate can electronically check-in each day. The recording process can be done by making an auto-answered call and press a key, logging in to an online platform, or using the governmental contact track app.
People who don’t follow the rules could find themselves landed with an infringement fee, or possibly more serious consequences. Heavy-handed this may seem, it is required in order for those who are high-risk to be motivated to stick to the rules. Without tight guidelines and expectations, cracks will form, and people will wander through them and down the road for a walk with their mate, or to the gym, or go to work, as they did last week.
Certainly, set-up system-building takes some work and time, but for the long-term benefit of public health and the economy, tougher rules will make a stronger country, and cost much less than repetitive and avoidable lockdowns.
So, will the Government be kind and supportive to the majority of us by making things harder for the high-risk few who have the power, or possibly ignorance, to take us up the Alert Level ladder?
