Someone asked me how I would have responded differently to the covid-19 pandemic, in the context of what has happened in Singapore.
My views have been stated in several dozen posts in the website called #HearMeOut.
I will summarize the key points here. You can check the earlier posts to verify the accuracy of this summary.
At the initial stage, PM Lee said that the virus will kill 0.2% of the infected people. He was looking at the global statistics available at that time. I agreed with that view. I was not concerned about the virus.
I agreed with the government's view that it was not necessary to wear a mask. I also agreed with the view that the limited stock of masks should be reserved for the health workers who were highly exposed to the risk of infection. The risk to the general public was negligible.
I changed my view about wearing of masks after a few weeks. I decided, out of common sense, that the mask can be washed and re-used and that the limited protection offered by the mask is better than no protection at all.
I would not consider it necessary to impose a rule to make it compulsory to wear a mask outdoors. The public should be advised to wear a mask when they are in crowded places. I would leave it to their common sense.
The government was alarmed when they found the large number of infected cases in the foreign worker dormitories. They were worried that the virus would spread in the general community.
They were also worried that the increase in cases would "overwhelm the healthcare system".
I think there were also worried that it would upset their contact tracing strategy.
They decided to call the circuit breaker and closed down workplaces and business outlets.
I publicly expressed in strong terms that it was a bad judgment on the part of the ministers. The cost to the government in relief measures and to the livelihood of several hundred of thousand families was horrendous. It was not necessary at that time.
Most people agreed with the view of the government, but I did not. I did not get much support for my alternative view.
Here is my perspective:
a) I never agreed with the strenuous efforts made in collecting contact tracing details. I felt that it was a waste of time that could have been better spent on other useful activities. I do not mind contact tracing by asking the infected people who they had met within the past two weeks. It is not comprehensive, but it is adequate.
b) I preferred that hand sanitizers be provided at all public places - and be clearly visible to everybody. Instead, they were made available in only a few places and most were hidden away.
c) I also preferred that the temperature scanning should be carried out by a central agency, using proper equipment and trained personnel, rather than be left to the workplaces (which were unreliable and waste a lot of manpower).
After the first four weeks of the circuit breaker, the ministers decided to extend it by another four weeks. I declared them to be insane.
Here are my reasons:
a) Although a large number of new cases were detected each day, it was the result of large scale testing in the dormitories.
b) Most of these cases were mild. Most of the infected people did not need hospital treatment. They could be quarantined in the isolation facilities. They were not dropping like flies.
c) The hospital system was not overwhelmed, even after the infected cases went past 20,000 and later 30,000. The number of severe ill patients under intensive care remained below 30. It has since dropped below 10.
d) The death rate in Singapore was extremely low. It was only 2 per million of population (it has since increased to 4). It was nowhere alarming, compared to over 400 per million in some countries.
e) The ministers lost their perspective. They were so worried about 30 deaths from covid-19. They forget that 20,000 people die every year in Singapore from all causes.
f) It was quite clear by that time that the virus was mild in Singapore, probably due to our warm climate. It was nowhere as lethal as the virus in cold countries.
The ministers, with the support of the public agencies and the military, were efficient in to set up 20,000 beds in the isolation centers within a few weeks. I said that it was commendable but not exemplary. Many other countries were able to carry out similar undertakings with similar success.
I consider the ministers to be insane in extending the circuit breaker. They confirmed their insanity by relaxing the circuit breaker in three phases, which, in effect, is prolonging the circuit breaker.
Some people supported the extension of the circuit breaker by stating that the number of deaths would have increased, if it was not done.
We do not know if this will become so serious. We do not know how many lives would have been saved.
We should not overlook the lives that were lost due to the circuit breaker, from people who delayed their treatment for other serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, and from people who suffered depression and other mental health issues.
One thing is clear. The circuit breaker cost $100 billion in taxpayer's money to provide relief to the affected businesses and households. This is only partial relief. It does not compensate them adequately for the full extent of their losses.
Many small businesses will not survive. Many families will have their finances completely ravaged.
The $100 billion could have been put to better use to waive GST totally for 8 years or to provide $800 a month to every person above age 70 for 25 years.
In the light of the uncertainty, what would I have done?
I would wait before calling the circuit breaker. I would see how bad the situation would develop, before taking extreme measures that are costly in economic terms and potentially more damaging in health and lives.
I would not act in haste or in panic. I would carry out my risk evaluation in a calm manner.
In the light of uncertainty, I would monitor and adjust our strategy in the light of new evidence. I would not take the extreme measures which may turn out to be the worst option.
I declare the ministers to be insane and that the government had wasted the $100 billion and cost a lot of damage to businesses and households.
Tan Kin Lian
