You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

SA’s handling of Covid-19

A critical assessment of the first 90 days.
Eight months later, it’s unclear what the government’s strategy actually was when it imposed the strict lockdown. Image: Shutterstock

Eight months ago, when South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa announced a strict lockdown for an initial 21 days in response to the Covid-19 threat, the decision was widely praised. A few critics, including myself, disagreed. I warned against “a strident ‘conventional wisdom’ which holds that governments and societies should respond through drastic measures”. I argued that the government had moved too rapidly to drastic measures, and that the negative consequences might outweigh the benefits. I said this would constrain South Africa’s options later in the pandemic.

Evidence on the widespread harms of the lockdown and government decisions to weaken regulations when case numbers were increasing corroborates these arguments. Many commentators now agree the government’s approach was not optimal. But they still argue that we can only say this with the benefit of hindsight. I disagree. The reasons why the government’s actions and approach were likely to be flawed were already evident at the outset.

In a recent paper, I examine in detail the crucial first 90 days of the government’s response from 1 March to 31 May 2020. The analysis uses two frameworks.

The first looks at the Covid-19 pandemic as a problem of balancing trade-offs between anti-disease measures and their social and economic consequences over a lengthy period of time. The second considers different characteristics of “scientism” – excessive, simplistic reliance on “science” – and how that can be harmful.

The overall lesson I suggest we draw from this is that while anti-scientific approaches are harmful, naïve reliance on scientific evidence and overly confident scientists is too.

Excessive deference to science also dangerous

Most analyses of government responses to Covid-19 internationally have focused on the dangers of unscientific or anti-scientific attitudes. The result has been to neglect the fact that excessive confidence in claims by scientists is dangerous as well. Scientific predictions are sometimes wrong. They are also often subject to a great deal of uncertainty. And if policymakers fail to recognise this they will not make the best decisions for society.

Based on publicly available evidence, which is detailed in my paper, I conclude that the response by the South African government during crucial periods reflects “performative scientism”. This is not just putting excessive faith in scientific claims that were unreliable, but also making a performance of that to give the government response more credibility than warranted. The performance allowed government to withhold the basis for its decisions and conceal these from critical scrutiny, leading to an initial strategy that caused significant social and economic harm with relatively little proven medical benefit.

And this is where the time dimension comes in, especially for developing countries that have less public and private wealth to use as buffers when implementing extreme restrictions. Having squandered the few societal resources available for more restrictive measures, the South African government had to move to lower stages of lockdown during the potentially more dangerous winter period and even in the face of increasing case numbers.

Even after eight months it remains unclear what the government’s strategy actually was when it imposed the strict lockdown. Many commentators seemed to think that it was to suppress the spread of the virus. This despite the fact that the health minister’s earlier comments had suggested a “herd immunity” strategy in which 60% to 70% of the population get infected. Yet, instead of interrogating what the core strategy was, various social actors – including the media – alternated between uncritical praise of government and sharp, sometimes unfair, criticism of aspects of the lockdown regulations or their consequences.

The performance of “being guided by science” that played out in the media meant there was no robust interrogation of the most critical decisions the government took. This was, in fact, very unscientific and its problematic nature was exposed when some government advisors started making critical public statements about its regulations and approach.

The fact that the government seems to be seriously considering unrestricted national travel during the December holiday period, even as infections increase, is simply further confirmation of the swing in the opposite direction to its initial strategy.

Failures on various fronts

A full quantitative analysis of how the pandemic has played out in South Africa, and the effect (or not) of government’s decisions, still needs to be conducted. The media have reported many claims from government, advisors and others claiming success. These include claims that the strict lockdown “saved lives”. But none have been backed up by published, rigorous analysis.

However, government’s own numbers already show how its strategy failed on various dimensions.

First, critical care capacity was not increased very much during the strict (Level 5) lockdown. Since the original definition of “flattening the curve” referred to reducing critical care cases below hospital capacity, this means that government failed to flatten the curve through its efforts. The fact that critical cases ended up being far lower than predicted does not change this conclusion.

Second, the strict lockdown did not have a large effect on the rate that the virus was being spread and never reduced the rate low enough to make stopping transmission possible. Third, the initial modelling predictions (as reported in the press but never released officially) and subsequent more sophisticated ones have been very inaccurate, overestimating the number of critical cases.

Fourth, dramatic worsening of social indicators (like hunger and access to healthcare services), unemployment and public finances demonstrate the large social and economic cost paid. In other words, the strict lockdown over five weeks had devastating societal consequences but did not achieve the objectives set out and was arguably unjustified anyway because it was based on simplistic generalising from other contexts.

Lessons for the future

It is not a coincidence that those who expressed concern about the government’s initial response disproportionately included academics who work on methodological and philosophical issues relating to evidence use.

Excessive confidence, of experts in their own views and of policymakers in experts, is a well-established phenomenon. And its potential harms are often quite obvious. The dangers are much higher in unfamiliar, high stakes situations. The South African government placed all its faith in modelling by a small number of advisors. That modelling appears to have been based on crude use of evidence from different parts of the world. It likely exaggerated even the consequences in the countries it was taken from. Failing to make that modelling public violated two key principles of scientific activity: transparency and independent peer review.

It is therefore not surprising that the predictions turned out to be wrong. The excessive confidence shown in those projections also violated key principles of evidence-based policymaking. Even if the projections had been right, the government’s response might still have failed because it did not appear to have a long-term plan. Slamming on the brakes when you see an obstacle in the road might seem praiseworthy until a truck drives into you from behind and you hit the obstacle anyway.

Fortunately, South Africa has experienced better epidemiological outcomes than many countries outside the African continent. The reasons for that are still not clear, but there is little evidence that it is the result of government’s stringent response.

To make the best possible decisions for society, policymakers should avoid pseudoscience and excessive deference to science. Scientists and policymakers need to be more humble in their claims of what they know. Policymaking must reflect uncertainty and ignorance, not “incredible certitude” and arrogance.The Conversation

Seán Mfundza Muller, senior lecturer in Economics, research associate at the Public and Environmental Economics Research Centre (PEERC) and visiting fellow at the Johannesburg Institute of Advanced Study (JIAS), University of Johannesburg

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


Great article. Let this debacle be a hard lesson learned for those who wield the power to make/destroy lives through badly thought out decisions.

Ditto on your comment…

I do think Cyril wanted to be seen as part of the “team” of learned leaders…
Well those learned leaders except for Sweden, Taiwan and a few others were headless chickens listening to celebrity epidemiologists scientists who were idiots offering snake oil advice, that this virus will NOT attack SJM protesters but will attack protesters against shut down

In fact this Intelligent virus will not attack supermarkets, megastores, casinos, strip clubs, government offices or civil servants and cinemas but will Infect restaurants, salons, barbers and schools Etc

Congratulations to one African country who quickly decided their economy could not defeat the “Intelligent virus” …Ghana stayed open for business

I think Malawi went the same route as Ghana?

Last year 72 000 deaths due to HIV, but economy was still there.

This year 23 000 Covid deaths and a devastated economy with the largest unemployment ever.

ANC success !!!!

Many businesses in the food industry have learned this very costly lesson. Give your clients what they want, not what you think they should want.

When customers want a saucy burger and chips, and you only have lettuce and carrot salad on the menu, you will soon be evicted by the landlord. A business is built upon the needs and preferences of consumers. The consumers decide who survives and thrives, and who goes bankrupt. The restaurant owner begins his planning process with the end in mind. He allows the consumer to vote with his money. He ignores all the scientific data that links fatty and sugary food to diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cancer. He empowers the consumer to take control of his own health.

The self-centred, central planning politician with the hidden agenda, on the other hand, prescribes to the consumer what his preferences should be. This politician firstly determines which choice of action will benefit his personal interests, strengthen his position, and then he searches for scientific data to back it up. He ignores the abundance of scientific information that proves him wrong. He abuses his position, and his power over the legislature, to enforce lockdown on citizens and taxpayers without paying any consideration to the amount of destruction this will cause to the tax base and the livelihoods of citizens. He abuses his power because he has this power.

Big business cannot harm consumers, because those very consumers determine the size of that business on a daily basis. As the government grows, central planning, coercion, oppression and enslavement grows with it. Here we are, living in a nanny state, with Ace Magashule as the nanny.

The ANC voters sadly defy logic.

The latest beach saga is the best.

According to the KwaZulu-Natal Premier, he may ban swimming on the beaches because you have to remove your mask.

If I swim but keep my head above the water can I wear my mask and swim????

He will allow you to go to the beach with your mask for leisure.

Forgive them for the know not what they do.

The truth was suppressed by the same financial interests (money power) that have gained totalitarian control of the media. It is still being suppressed. Only the remnants of free media on the internet have been offering the facts backed by genuinely concerned professionals who show respect for the hippocratic oath.
In this environment there can be no trust of authority or media. The money power has corrupted everything and continues to do so.
This shamdemic is simply another step for the money power agenda of central totalitarian control of everything on the planet.
Division is the enabler of the destruction that they seek.

I think the writer is overly critical towards Science. Science always gives certain results and it should be completely unbiased results. Sometimes those results are results that you as a scientist might not like at all.

The difference is in the interpretation of those results. If you have a vested interest in the development of a vaccine for the viral threat, it is obvious that you will interpret the scientific results to fit you paradigm.

Not that you should be doing that, because as a scientist, you ought to be unbiased all the time and not only when it suites you.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles: Advanced Search
Click a Company: