Shutdowns Need Not Be Curfews

On 12 March the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the new coronavirus, COVID-19, to be a pandemic.

- Aneetha Warusavitarana

With cases in Sri Lanka reaching over 100, the Government of Sri Lanka has taken several measures to prevent the spread of this disease. One such measure was enforcing an island-wide curfew.

The risks posed by COVID-19 to the health and safety of our population is considerable, and measures to prevent the congregation of people and the spread of the disease are commendable. A lockdown may certainly be warranted, yet a highly restrictive and prolonged curfew may prove to be counterproductive.

As witnessed on Tuesday 24 March, the short window given for basic necessities such as groceries, medicine, and other supplies proved to be not only inadequate but counterproductive to the objective of imposing a curfew in the first place.

The Government lifted curfew from 6 a.m. to 12 noon, allowing people to purchase their essentials. This temporary lifting of the curfew highlighted the flaws in the solution. With limited information as to when the next curfew would be lifted, people panicked and shops were inundated.

It was not unusual to hear of someone who stood in line for six hours, practising social distancing, only to enter a supermarket that was crowded with people, and filled with empty shelves. Crowds were so great that the fear is that the number of infections in the country will now rise in the weeks to come.

Limited information exacerbating the problem