Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1280162
20.08.2020 9 OPINION Kevin-James Fenech Kevin is the founder and owner of JOB Search - jobsearch.mt and FENCI Consulting fenci.eu. He is a management consultant and business advisor by profession, focusing on strategy, human resources and recruitment. He has a passion for anything related to business and has written about the topic for over 10 years in most major newspapers or journals Dr Fear D r Fear has spoken. e people must obey. Ban this, stop that and control all. Now, if we were talk- ing about the Ebola virus, Smallpox or the Bubonic Plague, I would perhaps un- derstand but we are not. We are dealing with a novel coronavi- rus which has a mortality rate of 0.6% (Source: WHO). So my question is, does it make sense to insist on draconian and authoritar- ian measures to 'control' the spread of the virus? Does it make sense to con- tinually impose a one size fits all set of restrictions on the whole population? Since when you control, close and stop everyone, you introduce a whole lot of uncertainty which destroys business confidence and God forbid brings about a recessionary situation. Yes the UK removed Malta from its Safe Travel List but it also removed Por- tugal, Holland, France, Monaco and (at the time of writing) most likely Greece and Turkey. is is a global pandemic and goes beyond local politics. Dr Fear needs to appreciate that tour- ism has a GDP multiplier effect of circa 28%. Whereas direct GDP contribution is in the region of 16% but still you are talking of something that if shut down or severely restricted, will quite literally choke the Maltese economy. e same applies to many other EU countries and this is precisely why in June the EU Com- mission led an initiative of reopening Eu- ropean borders and 'rebooting' tourism. e EU recognised how important tour- ism is to the economic recovery. Granted, there has been a spike of cas- es in most EU tourist destinations this month but didn't we know this would happen? I mean if freedom of move- ment exists people will travel and the virus will follow. Dr Fear will tell us we need to close down and restrict again but I ask why? Until there is a vaccine the virus will spread across borders and no country can afford to lockdown until the vaccine is readily available for mass immunisation. So I ask if the mortality rate is 0.6% why apply restrictive and controlling measures on the whole pop- ulation and which have a big negative economic impact? Dr Fear would also do well to under- stand how Risk Management works. In the business world, risk is deciphered by considering the probability of an outcome versus the severity of impact. An outcome has a low-medium-or-high probability of occurring and similarly the severity of impact is classified as low-medium-or-high. Applying this to the public health risk of COVID19 in Malta, I would say that the probability of the virus spreading within the com- munity is high but the severity of the impact is low given its 0.6% mortality rate (Source: WHO). To contextualise the matter: If COV- ID19 was as deadly as Ebola or Small- pox, it would be a different risk assess- ment, since the 'Severity of Impact' would be 'high' given the mortality rate (Ebola: 50% and Smallpox: 30%). In such a scenario, we would need restric- tions and aggressive COVID19 coun- ter-measurers. Fortunately, we are deal- ing with a mortality rate of 0.6%. Tony Blair just this week said: 'In every single aspect of this, once you realise you are not going to eradicate the dis- ease, you are going to have to contain it and live with it at least until a vaccine comes, then you have just got to have a sensible risk calculus in every area.' Translated in simple language: if something has a high probability of happening but the public health impact is low, I mitigate the risk and focus on the high risk cases without jeopardis- ing the whole economy. You do this by protecting the old and the vulnerable. What you should not do is introduce 'a one size fits all' restrictive policy on the entire population, since the economic price is far too high. e COVID19 countermeasures which Dr Fear is insisting upon (ban this, stop that and control all) are bet- ter suited in a controlled laboratory environment perhaps but we live in a thriving democracy and our economic system is based on free market econom- ics therefore any restrictions, coercive public health measures and/or author- itarian decisions on the entire popula- tion, destroys all this. Yet Dr Fear tells us that this is not fair and that '…the burden must be shared by all and not disproportionately by vulnerable individuals…' But why? Why should we put the whole population through a painful recession when we can protect the vulnerable and mitigate the risk so as to avoid an economic re- cession. What is wrong with a 'balanced approach'? Dr Fear needs to change into Dr Good, otherwise we are in for a long and deep recession. Uncertainty, public health restrictions on a whole population and fear, are the recipe for an economic re- cession. What we need is targeted coun- ter-measures to protect the old and vulnerable but let the rest of the popu- lation get on with their normal lives, so our open and free market economy can function for the general good of all. As Tony Blair so eloquently put it, every government has over relied on medical or scientific experts throughout this pandemic but ultimately political leaders need to recognise '…where the science ends and judgements begins'. Our political leaders need to listen to Dr Fear / Dr Good as well other impor- tant stakeholders but finally their judge- ment is their own and they will thrive or sink politically on the judgement they take. I am convinced that the balanced approach as well as targeted measures to protect the old and/or vulnerable, is far more effective than blanket public health restrictions on the whole popu- lation.