Right to scrutinise Covid decision-making process
This caused some controversial scenes and comments during the weekend. Some people were branded “selfish” and a lot more for not heeding to government guidance. On the other side of the argument, others insisted they had. But there was also the group, who thought they would do what best suited them, which meant, braking or bending current laws to suit their personal convenience. Obviously, a lack of the now popular local ‘buzz-word’ of the moment, ‘common sense’ which clearly does not mix well with ‘stupidity’, especially, during a pandemic and under a ‘do what your told’ national scenario’!
Unfortunately, at least in the short to mid-term, we going to have to live with the coronavirus which has overturned life as we knew it! The path, back to normality, will take a very long time, even though it’s clear the extraordinary restrictions currently enforced cannot go on indefinitely, notwithstanding that today they are still a necessity.
The lockdown, in operation now for the past 6 weeks, has been hugely effective in addressing public health concerns. As a result, Gibraltar’s spread of the virus has been contained and adequately managed as evidenced in daily briefings from No 6.
Due to the fact, that amazingly, we have suffered no deaths or any critical cases, where the overall infection rate originally anticipated at this stage of the pandemic did not materialise, we could not have asked or prayed for anything more!
Of course, a lot is to do with decisions taken by the government, following the recommendations of its expert health advisers who should be rightfully praised, as do the much larger group of people essential in the fight against this virus. But just as praiseworthy, even more so, in Gibraltar’s case having practically achieved empty Covid hospital beds, is praise for the public efforts. The citizens, who gave up so much of their constitutional and democratic rights. Where it is hoped, that down the road, Covid will not return with any other unrelated underlying health consequences because of what people had to give up!
For a nation, not always noted in certain areas, for its strict social discipline or its love for full-on officialdom, the people Gibraltar, or the citizens of today, have demonstrated an ingrained ability to behave in the public interest in a crisis, and in a way that has put other nations to shame!
Covid Accountability and the Decision-Making Process?
At the risk of upsetting one or two, probably becoming (even more) unpopular with some, it is my opinion, that the natural inclination of politicians is to communicate aspirationally. This often comes into conflict with that of its health advisers, who communicate in terms of what they know and what they don’t know. Possibly why, as we’ve seen in some of these daily briefings, it’s kind of played out and ends up in the form of mixed messages, often confusing to the public…for sure!
If I’m brutally honest, which regular Panorama readers would know is always the case,
I also find there’s an often (though not always) somewhat disconnect between public Covid communications based on good intentions, and those based on good medical science. This latter point has proven somewhat vague or unclear during some press briefing addresses.
However, not only is this an important issue and a matter of great public interest, and obviously why, it is the right of the public to know how these important national decisions have been taken. But also, what evidence were they based on. Instead, of the now routine pitch that they follow on Public Health UK and the World Health Organisation advise or recommendations. This, is an important key related element of the decision-making process, which the press or the public, never hear about or have been privy to.
Also, it is unknown, if ‘minutes or notes’ are taken at these important closed-door decision-making sessions. This information should be made available and public as is the case in other countries.
There is a huge difference how meetings are recorded. If only notes are recorded of meetings and not detailed minutes. The difference, is mainly, that minutes reflect the record of the meeting and must be agreed at the beginning of the next meeting. Notes could be a subjective view of what happened?
MORE IN PANORAMA PRINT EDITION
05-05-2020 PANORAMAdailyGIBRALTAR
