On March 25, India entered one of the world’s strictest lockdowns aimed at slashing the transmission of the coronavirus disease. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced it (first as a 21-day period), the country had 536 reported infections. The most stringent phase of the restriction would eventually be extended several times, lasting 68 days. By June 1, when the first of the measures were eased the country had over 198,000 infections.
India thus became possibly the only large country that locked down even before it was hit by a surge of cases. The country’s first wave began building progressively as the country “unlocked” – rising steadily through the months between July and October, and peaking right around the festival season in November.
The variation in the strategy from the rest of the world – which mostly rolled out restrictions only when cases surged – has divided experts, although they mostly see it to have helped.
“If we had a situation where everybody follows the government instructions, then there would have been no need for a lockdown. Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and Japan have all shown that it is possible to manage without the lockdown as long as you have the resources, the ability and the commitment,” said Dr Gagandeep Kang, professor of microbiology at Christian Medical College, Vellore.
“If your life is so desperate that you cannot follow the government instructions, then you won’t. In that sense, I think the lockdown was necessary because it conveyed to the people that it is a serious issue and it stopped the movement of people,” said Dr Kang.
The lockdown, she added, had significant consequences for livelihoods, especially among migrant workers. “It also created a fear in the minds of people, leading to stigmatisation. I was really worried about the government controlled testing of Sars-Cov-2. When they set up testing in January, it was only NIV (National Institute of Virology, Pune) doing the testing, only NIV confirming it. And, that is impossible for a country the size of India.”
The lockdown helped buy time for India to at least improve its testing capacity. “Fortunately for us, when we had the lockdown, it slowed things down. If the lockdown had been a lockdown where imports were still allowed, it would have been better.”
A second expert said the early lockdown was also crucial for India’s stressed health infrastructure to prepare itself. “The lockdown was important at that point of time. One, it slowed the spread of the infection as there was less interaction among people, less movement of people. If it hadn’t been done, the curve would be sharper, and it would have been sooner. Two, it gave the states time to build their infrastructure. There weren’t adequate oxygen or ICU beds then,” said Dr Rakesh Mishra, director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.
“Whether it could have been implemented in a better manner to avoid the difficulty of people, maybe. In hindsight, we can say anything but at that time, there was a lot of panic in the European countries, we did not know anything about the disease. It was an unprecedented situation,” he added.
At present, with cases rising again, the country could be in a better position to avoid such harsh suppression measures. “Now, we are much better placed. We have the infrastructure, we know how the disease can be managed. And, we have a vaccine. For the current increase in the number of cases – assuming that states are conducting enough tests and the more accurate RT-PCR – we should have local restrictions based on local data,” Dr Mishra added.
“In places where there isn’t a surge in cases, people should still remember to mask up at all times. And, in places where the numbers are going up, there have to be some restrictions put in place,” he said.
Leave a Comment