Life in the shadow of the coronavirus - analysis

It's better than a lockdown, but it is not a return to life before corona. Rather, it is life in the presence of corona.

A cyclist takes a picture at the Barceloneta beach during the hours in which individual exercise is allowed outdoors, for the first time since the lockdown was announced, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Barcelona, Spain, May 2, 2020. (photo credit: REUTERS/NACHO DOCE)
A cyclist takes a picture at the Barceloneta beach during the hours in which individual exercise is allowed outdoors, for the first time since the lockdown was announced, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Barcelona, Spain, May 2, 2020.
(photo credit: REUTERS/NACHO DOCE)
The sweet scent of a return to normal is wafting through the land.
One smells it on the streets of the cities, which are steadily coming back to life. One smells it in the schoolyards, which are filling up again. One smells it on the roads, where traffic jams are beginning to reappear.
But it is, to a large degree, a fake scent. Because it is not the normal that we knew before the term COVID-19 became a fixture in our vocabulary. It’s a new normal. A two-meter space between us normal, a mask fixed on our face normal, a world without concerts and sports events normal.
It’s better than a lockdown, but it is not a return to life before corona. Rather, it is life in the presence of corona.
And if the move into a lockdown needed to have been well planned, organized and communicated, so too the move out of lockdown needs to be well planned, organized and communicated.
And just as the way the country went haphazardly into the lockdown, so too is it coming haphazardly out of the self-imposed closure. There are confusing and contradictory messages, a lack of clarity about what is and what is not permitted, an absence of transparency about the decision-making process and a sense that certain decisions are being made because of pressure from one party or another, not on the basis of merit.
And that last element – about pressure from one group or another influencing decisions – was one of the biggest problems hampering the way Israel went into the lockdown, and something the country needs to learn from as it emerges from it.
Back in March – when the scope of the virus became evident – it took Israel too long to restrict flights from the US and quarantine passengers coming from there, as was done to flights and passengers coming from China, Italy, Austria, France and Switzerland. The apparent reason for the delay: not wanting to do anything that might antagonize the US administration, which at the time was not convinced of the severity of the situation.
Likewise, synagogues – coronavirus hotspots – were not closed early enough, apparently because ultra-Orthodox Health Minister Ya’acov Litzman viewed that as too draconian a measure for his community.
Those lessons must be learned as Israel gradually emerges from the lockdown: that the decisions about what to open and when need to be made void of the concerns of one special interest or the other. For instance, beauty salons and barber shops were among the establishments opened last week – reportedly at the behest and pressure of Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev – even though physical contact is a prime vehicle for spreading the infection. Why were they among the first to open?
One of the most impressive – and perhaps surprising – elements of how Israel has dealt with the coronavirus crisis is the discipline shown by most of the public, a public not necessarily known for great discipline.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the nation to stay indoors, and it stayed indoors. Defense Minister Naftali Bennett said not to visit grandparents, and grandparent visits were canceled. Health Ministry director-general Moshe Bar Siman Tov said to don masks, and masks were donned.
Israelis, for the most part, internalized in early March that this was serious and followed the directives. Since Passover some two weeks ago, however, there has been a tendency to take the directives less seriously.
There are a couple reasons for this. First, the public began being less vigilant when it saw that its leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Litzman, President Reuven Rivlin and other top-tier politicians, were not following their own orders. Netanyahu and Rivlin told everyone to celebrate Passover Seders without family members not living under their roof, yet they had kids and grandchildren who did not live with them around their tables. The government said not to pray in synagogues, yet Litzman did exactly that.
If you want the country to follow the directives, the leaders must be the first to set the example. This is as true now as it was last month. If the new normal still entails keeping a distance and wearing masks, then the leadership needs to be seen punctiliously following those same orders.
Another reason for an overall dropping of the guard is because some of the directives just did not seem to make sense. For instance, the directive to only walk 100 meters from one’s home, or 500 meters if engaged in exercise, seemed completely arbitrary. The rationale behind this was never properly explained.
The public will abide by directives if they are explained and make sense, and if they see that everyone else is abiding by them.
As the country ventures back outside, two specific segments of the population need to be addressed and paid special attention to.
The first is those who want to rush out and pretend that a button has just been pressed and everything has returned to what it once was. They need to be reminded that the dangers are still there, and that if behavior patterns are not altered, we all might be forced back into lockdown again.
But reminding them is not enough. They need to be told clearly by competent spokespeople what the benchmarks are – how many people need to be infected or incubated – that would send the country back into a lockdown. It all needs to be clear and transparent.
And the other segment of the population that needs a proper explanation includes those who are wary about venturing out of their homes. At the beginning of the crisis, Netanyahu said: “Stay home, and stay alive.” So if the threat is still there, why leave, why send kids to schools, why go to hospitals with medical emergencies? This part of the population must also get a good explanation – aided as well by graphs and statistics – about what has changed, and why it is now safe to go back out into the world.
The Israeli public has largely shown that it will follow the rules. But it needs to know clearly what the rules are, as well as the logic behind them. That’s as true coming out of the lockdown as it was going in.