Surely it is clear that the national and local preventive measures to avoid further contracting of the novel coronavirus has disrupted everyone’s daily lives. Our often mundane and robotic daily schedules have been thrown into disarray because of the strict imposition of community quarantine measures in different parts of the country. From north to south, Filipinos are seemingly adjusting to an internet-reliant work scheme until the "coast is clear."

Some have adapted, at least temporarily, to working from the comfort of their living rooms. Schools have canceled their classes. Workplaces are operating with skeletal workforces. Malls around the country are seeing fewer and fewer shoppers. (READ: Luzon lockdown: What are the do's and don'ts?)

Bigger business establishments, especially the airline and hospitality sector, are also feeling the side effects of this national emergency. Canceled reservations and refunded transactions haunt companies. Even medium- and small-scale businesses are feeling the effects of the community quarantine measures. 

I’d like to take this time to just surface some narratives that might not be mainstreamed or spotlighted but are equally important. (It might not even be as essential to you, the reader, as other major issues related to the pandemic might hold more importance.) Whether it is the required cancellation of mass gatherings or the enforcement of curfew hours, the unfortunate victims of this national emergency and the community quarantines that stem from it are those in the "gig economy."

Basically, the gig economy is comprised of flexible and temporary freelance jobs in online or offline platforms. This includes jobs for all kinds of entertainers, ranging from musical bands to dancers, and those involved in skill-based work, such as make-up artists and photographers. 

Being an LGBTQ activist in Iloilo City, I have seen several of my LGBTQ friends post on social media their own struggles amid the community qurantines. Many events, conferences, graduations, forums, pageants, and shows have been canceled. No doubt that the cancellation of these gatherings are essential to ensure public health safety. While many become initially frustrated, they later realize the necessity of the abrupt change of plans, though others still wish that gigs could happen soon. 

One of my Facebook friends announced that all his hosting stints from March to April have been canceled; another lamented that all the reservations to her beauty salon have been rescheduled; and another announced the temporary closure of his fashion design/tailoring shop. Their only sources of income are gone because the need to contain the virus to protect everyone else outweighs their personal needs. 

As one of my Facebook friends, W Gallo, writes on her timeline, “May mga kaibigan akong bahagi ng LGBTQ++ na umaasa sa mga booking tulad nang pagsali sa pageant (Miss Gay), pagmake-up sa kasal, (lalong-lalo na sa) JS Prom, debut atbp., pag-ayos ng buhok (rebond, hair color), pagiging host/emcee sa mga ganap, paggawa ng gowns atbp...ang sakit lang dahil ang iba sa mga kaibigan ko ay breadwinner ng kani-kanilang pamilya. paano na din sila? ang pamilya nila?”

She correctly points out that during this period many of our brothers and sisters in the community are also relying on these informal sources of income to feed their families. While their health and safety is of prime concern, let us also acknowledge that systemic injustices also exist underneath the surface. The current social, political, and economic landscape of the country has often pushed marginalized groups to the periphery because of policies that are not pro-people. Often the lack of protective measures also perpetuate a culture that violates their basic human rights. (READ: [OPINION] Let’s not forget the poor during the coronavirus pandemic)

As an individual who identifies with the LGBTQ community, my goal is to surface these narratives. In any event, there are always individuals in the background and onstage who are already struggling with meager pay. But now, they also have to cope with uncertain economic futures brought about by the loss of opportunities to earn money and the possible increase in the cost of commodities. The coronavirus pandemic is as much an economic issue as it is a public health issue.

This made me realize that a lot of individuals are blinded by their own privileges and comforts. Some may be able to sit idly and survive this national emergency with all of life’s comforts, but others don’t even have a permanent roof over their heads. Lucky for some individuals and their businesses, they can somewhat survive this storm with minimal to zero damage to their investments and earnings.

Although it might already be obvious, the most affected are and will be those under the poverty line, those earning less than the minimum wage per day, those in non-regularized positions, those in the gig economy, those working in rural areas, and those who are already unemployed. 

Some might think that this argument is just part of the so-called "gay agenda." However, this is not only exclusive to members of the LGBTQ community, as the likes of street vendors, sari-sari store owners, pedicab and jeepney drivers, and other blue-collar workers will equally feel the economic effects of this pandemic. So it isn't only the parloristas, the event hosts, and the make-up artists that will be affected. There is no safety net ready to catch those on the lower rungs of society when the health crisis is coupled with a looming economic crisis. (READ: [OPINION] Checking your privilege during the coronavirus pandemic)

I’m sure this is similar across the country, and is not just in Iloilo City. Truthfully, the only solution I could think of is ensuring that when policies and orders are implemented it should also acknowledge economically marginalized individuals. This should translate into proactive policies, in times of national emergencies, that would establish safety nets for those in less formal economies. The government should study this extensively and realize that their policies should be pro-poor and pro-Filipino. 

A truly democratic country should cater not to the minority but to the majority. Who is the true majority? The true majority in the Philippines are our brothers and sisters who belong to the working class. – Rappler.com

Justin Francis Bionat is one of the founders of the Iloilo Pride Team and currently works as Executive Director of Youth Voices Count, a regional network for young LGBTIQ persons. He holds an MA in Human Rights and Democratization from Mahidol University, Thailand.

 

Metro Manila used to be a place I didn't see myself living in. Today, I (literally) can't get out of it. 

It’s been a year since I moved to Metro Manila – Quezon City to be exact. I came from Isulan, a humble town in Central Mindanao where the population is 32 times less and where traffic is something you only hear in the news. 

Isulan is a progressive first-class municipality in the province of Sultan Kudarat. Although it has developed greatly in the past years, people still enjoy the simple, relaxed, and happy probinsya life. You wake up to the chirping of birds and the cackling of chickens. You buy cheap local meat and produce from the town market. You sleep quietly every night. You enjoy quality time with your loved ones.

It is where my family lives. Isulan is my home.

The decision to move to Metro Manila was surprisingly easy. I got a job offer here that was hard to refuse. Even my parents were really excited about the idea of me living in Metro Manila; despite it being the farthest and probably the longest I would be away from them, they told me it was "just part of the experience."

Although I’d been to Metro Manila many times already, I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was getting into. Most of my work-related short visits here had given me nothing but anxiety. From the commute, to figuring out where to eat halal food, to the effort of speaking in Tagalog, every minute was stressful. So I had to constantly ask myself if I was ready to handle all of it. Was I really ready to handle that amount of stress every single day? 

"Not everyone gets to have that opportunity," my father would always say to convince me. "It will be a good experience. You’ll get used to it eventually."

Nothing about Metro Manila was reassuring – it was far from home, we didn't have a lot of relatives here, and I was unsure of a lot of things. But there I was holding on to my parents’ words and deciding to brave the big city.  

At first, the idea of moving was for the "experience." A year after, that "experience" taught me a lot about myself and what living in Metro Manila can do. (READ: [OPINION] A young Muslim's notes from Manila)

You will feel alone and scared 

Ever since I started working, I’d lived away from my family. But it was only when I lived in Metro Manila that I felt alone and sometimes even scared. It could be because I didn't have relatives I could easily run to, or the reality that going home was no longer just a 2-hour bus ride. 

A lot of things happened in 2019 and early this year that made me think of home and the feeling of safety when you are with family. I remember constantly calling my parents, especially when a typhoon struck some parts of Metro Manila, and when the city was constantly hit by earthquakes and aftershocks, and when we had to cancel work due to ash fall from the Taal eruption, and now that Metro Manila is on a lockdown due to the coronavirus health crisis. You have friends and workmates around, but the anxiety of not having your family beside you does creep in. (READ: LOOK: Scenes across Metro Manila as Luzon lockdown begins)

Everything seems a little harder 

Life in Metro Manila is far from the probinsya life that I’m familiar with. Everything you do here feels a little harder than what you’re used to. 

Being productive here is challenging. It will require you to have a certain level of discipline, time management skill, and sometimes creativity just to get things done. For those who have the means, being productive means spending more for your transportation, food delivery, and morning coffee. Productivity means being smart about your decisions from the moment you wake up. 

Traveling around Metro Manila is a challenge on its own. The commute is a horror story we are all familiar with, and alternatives to public transportation are limited. From someone working in Quezon City, a meeting in Makati or Pasay City will consume an average of 3 hours of his or her day from traveling alone. 

Time is a luxury when you live in Metro Manila. When you’re used to the relaxed pace of life in the province, living here feels like you don’t have enough of it. You always feel rushed, and sometimes even after a long day at work, you still feel like you haven’t done enough.

You pay for "convenience"

A higher cost of living is expected when you live in any urban area, but Metro Manila makes being thrifty a little tricky. 

I live in a rented condominium which costs me almost 15% of my salary every month. It’s twice the amount I paid for my previous apartment in Mindanao and excludes electricity and water bills. With 7 people residing in our house, our monthly electric bill in Isulan would rarely go higher than P1,000.00. Here in Metro Manila, a 40 sqm apartment with only 3 people will lead to a P3,000 monthly electric bill.

Yes, I could’ve rented cheaper accommodation, but considering the commute and other factors, it would just cost me the same. "It’s near my office and I don’t have to commute for work," I convinced myself. I was paying for the convenience, I guess. 

Other basic commodities like groceries are more expensive here as well. Nearby groceries sell their items P3-P5 higher than what I’m used to. It took me months to even notice this. Yes, you can go buy your cheaper groceries in public markets, but only if there’s one nearby. So I usually end up buying groceries at an air conditioned supermarket downstairs. Again, you convince yourself it’s okay to pay higher for convenience. 

Back home, everything is sold cheap and feels convenient. You don’t need an app to navigate and get to different places. You don’t feel stressed about going out to buy groceries or pay your bills. You don’t feel burdened when doing things on your own. You don’t need to pay extra for convenience. 

You feel guilty for being privileged

The one good thing living in Metro Manila has taught me is to constantly recognize my privilege. However, this, I believe, has also been the most disturbing lesson – that despite how challenging living here is, and regardless of how legitimate those challenges are, I have to acknowledge the fact that I’m already living in privileged conditions. 

It is hard not to feel guilty about complaining when you know that there are those who have it worse. It’s hard to complain about getting stuck in traffic while in a taxi or a Grab car when you know there are those enduring the discomforts of public transportation. It’s hard to feel exhausted after a long day at work when you still see people trying to make a living on the streets on your way home. (READ: [OPINION] 'Pasaway' commuters amid lockdown? These people don't have a choice)

It’s hard to feel sad, scared, and sorry for yourself without being guilty about it.

Living in Metro Manila allowed me to see and understand what being privileged means. The social disparity is so apparent in Metro Manila that it’s hard not to notice it. You see it everywhere and experience it almost all the time – on your way to work, when ordering lunch or dinner, when buying groceries, when you visit the mall, when you’re paying bills, and even when you’re stuck in your house because of a city lockdown. 

Having the time to comfortably work from home because of the health crisis and still expecting the salary at the end of the month while others are struggling, is a privilege on its own.

Everything reminds you of your privilege here. You don’t only see it, you experience it and sometimes you even become part of others’ struggles. 

My first year living in Metro Manila might have made me feel guilty of my privilege, but it was also a good reminder of why I decided to move and work here in the first place. I am reminded of the unfortunate realities that need to be addressed and how much more needs to be done. I am also reminded that with privilege comes the opportunity to do more and be more for others.

My first year living in Metro Manila reminded me of why my parents were very much excited for me. 

A day before the lockdown, my parents called to check on me.

"I’m okay," I replied, which was how I usually reply whenever they ask. 

And if I’m being honest, "okay" is an overstatement. But I also know that in Metro Manila, being okay is already a privilege. – Rappler.com

Nizam M. Pabil, 28, is a government employee working for the anti-poverty program of the Office of the Vice President of the Phillippines. He is a Mindanaon who hails from Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, now residing in Quezon City. 

Crafty and cruel, the coronavirus attacks people by exploiting intuitive human responses. How natural it is to visit loved ones who are sick and to greet them with a kiss, a hug, a touch. But contact spreads contamination; people must suppress this instinct to show love and concern through expected physical signs. 

Lockdown to control contagion is also the intuitive response. Countries from Argentina to New Zealand are closing their international borders and increasingly imposing domestic quarantine. Protecting healthy people by barring their entry into infected areas and the exit of potential virus carriers into still secure spaces appear logical. (READ: LOOK: Scenes across Metro Manila as Luzon lockdown begins)

But experts disagree. Roy Anderson, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Imperial College, dismissed travel bans as “a complete and utter waste of time.” Bruce Aylward, formerly WHO emergencies chief and last month’s Team Leader in China, declared, as a “pretty robust principle,” that restricting movement does not help, possibly justified only at the outbreak’s earliest stage. With virus carriers asymptomatic for as many as 14 days, and with most governments having delayed responses, the horses have typically bolted before the barn doors are bolted.

Still, Dr. Clare Wenham, London School of Economics scholar on health regulations, explains the strategy’s popularity: “It is good political placebo.” It allows an impressive show of government activity, even when implementation can cause economic, social public, and public health harm. Photos of massed travelers at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and crowds milling about Manila checkpoints and supermarkets mock warnings to maintain social distance.

Might the mandatory lockdown have fostered rather than weakened conditions for breeding coronavirus infections? (READ: [ANALYSIS] Why Filipinos need to stay at home until June (or even longer))

The human impulse to touch to show love and to impose lockdowns to counter threats is instinctive, but against the coronavirus may be counterproductive. Banning travel to and from Manila denies outsiders access to the resources and the expertise in many sectors, including health, that are more abundant in the capital.

People have also become used to operating within the sprawl of Metro Manila. Wage workers from Cainta did not expect encountering barriers into Quezon City. Exceptions are allowed but delays inevitable. It also devolves decision-making at the discretion of border guards.

Expanding the lockdown from Manila to Luzon is not as perversely problematic as simultaneously permitting its progressive constriction to smaller areas, from the capital region to the barangay. The ultimate logic of lockdowns leaves individuals to deal with the pandemic on their own: quarantine for the patient, the family, the household – only mediated and enforced by the weakest agency of government and the police while prevented from seeking help outside.

This will punish the poorest, weakest sectors of society. What is the government doing now about the coronavirus cases in Baseco and Payatas? (READ: Luzon lockdown: What are the do's and don'ts?)

South Korea and Singapore practiced selective quarantine but aggressively adopted the WHO priority on locating virus cases and tracing their contacts, conducting tests for accommodating as many as wanted it up to 10,000 and 2000 a day. 

Targeted lockdowns also permitted more direct assistance and more rigorous enforcement. Singapore isolated almost 5,000 cases and imposed criminal charges on violators. It did not confine millions of untested households in their communities.

Concerted response

Meanwhile, the Philippines lacks comparable institutions and resources; the DOH will not test those with only “mild” symptoms outside the “at-risk” population. And we must now accept the community lockdown as a done deed – and strive to convert government compulsion to personal compliance, hopefully, to reduce the cost of enforcement and allow effort and resources to address other concerns.

Such concerns include: providing transport for the sick to get to doctors, personnel to essential occupations, and buyers and sellers of necessary goods to market; or ensuring continued collection of garbage. Surely, such steps could have been announced with the decision to suspend public transport. 

Pandemics do not respect social, gender, economic, ethnic or national divisions. They require a concerted response from all countries and all communities, because the weakness of one endangers all.

The threat, as historian Yuval Harari observes, is not the violation of man-made distinctions among peoples or of boundaries between political or administrative units, but the breaching of the border between the virus and the human species. – Rappler.com

Edilberto C. de Jesus is professor emeritus at the Asian Institute of Management.

QuaranTinapay. Ito ang pamagat ng pagdiriwang natin ng World Poetry Day ngayong Marso 21.

Dapat ito ay sa Kamuning Bakery ng katuwang nating si Wilson Lee Flores sa likod ng tagumpay ng Kape’t Ka Pete na nakakalap ng higit sa P100,000 para sa maykaramdamang makatang si Jose “Pete” Lacaba.

Luto na ang lahat, wika nga, hanggang noong hatinggabi ng Marso 17.

Ipinatupad kasi ang "Enhanced Community Quarantine.”

Bunga nga ito ng paglalâ ng kaso ng coronavirus disease (COVID-19) na umabot sa pinakamataas na antas ng alert na Code Red Sublevel 2.

Tuloy, hindi ito natuloy.

Tayo’y mga Pinoy.

Tayo’y hindi kagaya ng iba.

Kaya hindi agad tayo susuko.

Nitong Marso 18 ang ika-91 kaarawan ng aking ina.

Habang sumusulat ako ng tulang ireregalo ko sa kaniya, may kung anong bumulong sa akin – mula yata kay Santa Corona – na panahon na para mag-TexTula.

Kapagdaka, bumalikwas ako mula sa kama ng self-quarantine.

Karakang kinontak ko si Bb Miriam Grace Go ng Rappler na siyang nagtaguyod ng TweeTanaga o ang paggamit ng microblogging site na Twitter para tumula ang mga nangarap maging “Mobile Makata” noong 2013.

Isinunod niya ito sa TexTanaga na sinimulan ko noong 2002 kung kailan nagkataon namang ako ang direktor ng Likhaan: University of the Philippines Institute of Creative Writing (ICW) at tagapangulo ng Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas (UMPIL).

Ito rin ang ika-10 anibersaryo ng short message service (SMS) na inumpisahan sa bansa ng Globe.

Inampon itong proyekto ng National Committee on Literary Arts (NCLA) ng National Commission for Culture and the Arts para sa  Pambansang Buwan ng Sining noong 2003.

Dinagsa kami sa ICW ng mga tanaga kaya nagpatulong kami sa presidente ng Filipinas Institute of Translation (FIT) na si Romulo “Joey” Baquiran Jr, at sa mga estudyante naming sina Salvador Biglaen at Beverly Siy sa UP Departamento ng Filipino at Panitikan ng Pilipinas.

Pumili kami ng unang gantimpala kada linggo.

Sa 4 na nanalo, ibinukod namin ang pinakamagaling na TextMakata ng Buwan.

Nag-almusal mag-isa, 
Kaning-lamig, tinapa; 
Nahulog ang kutsara 
Ikaw na sana, sinta. 
– Edgar J.C. Galang  

Ang dating Pebrero ay nasundan ng Agosto ng taong iyon.

Ang romantikong Textanaga ay naging patriyotikong DaliText.

At ang dating 10,000 tanaga (isang tulang 4 ang linya na ang bawat linyang magkakatugma ay may tig-7 pantig) ay nadagdagan pa ng 30,000 dalit (isang tulang may 4 ding linya na ang bawat linyang magkakatugma ay may tig-8 pantig) ay may sa loob ng Buwan ng Wika. 

Kinakalambre sa lamig, 
Laging may ulang tikatik, 
Bayang parating may sakit, 
Iaangat ng pag-ibig.
– Frank Rivera

Kaya, nang sumunod na Pambansang Buwan ng Sining noong 2004, sinubukan naman namin ang DionaText. 

Aanhin yamang Saudi, 
O yen ng Japayuki, 
Kung wala ka sa tabi?
– Fernando R. Gonzales 

Kagulat-gulat na umabot ang dami ng entri sa 40,000 diona (o tercet o 3 ang taludtod na ang bawat linyang magkakatugma ay may tig-7 pantig) sa loob ng 4 na linggo.

Napatunayan kasi ng mga sumali na prestihiyoso ang timpalak pampanitikang ito hindi dahil sa laki ng premyo kundi dahil sa mga huradong ang pinuno ng lupon ay ang Pambansang Alagad ng Sining na si Virgilio Almario, na nagwikang: “Lumalabas sa mga diona ang pambihirang pagpapahalaga ng mga Filipino sa kanilang pamilya at kahit naghihirap nagagawa pa rin nilang ipadama ang malasakit sa bawat miyembro nito.” 

Noong taon ding iyon, nagkaroon pa ng TextSawikain (o pagte-text ng salawikaing couplet o dalawahan na ang bawat taludtod ay tig-8 ang pantig). 

Sirang payaw sa Banawe 
Sumugat kay Idyanale. 
– Remigio Alva  

Kaya lang, sa halip na salawikain, ito ay nadugtungan ng bugtungan!

Habang ipinapatupad ito sa buong kapuluan, mayroon ding katulad at kasabay na patimpalak sa mga rehiyon.

Textigmo ang sa mga Sebuwano (o ang pagtetext ng tulang may dalawang tuludtod na dapat magkasindami ng pantig) na pinangasiwaan sa Cebu at Davao.

Ang mga sumusunod ay ang mga pinakamahusay na tigmo sa Kabisayaan: 

Mga mata maoy gipislat, ang agtang maoy nilurat 
(Mga mata ang pinipisak, ang noo ang lumiliwanag.) 
Sagot: cellphone
– Betsy Ferolino 

Samantala, sa Kamindanawan, dalawa ang naghati sa unang gantimpala. 

Kon giinitan ka, lisoa sya/ kay bugnawng hangin iyang ibuga. 
(Kapag naiinitan ka ito’y pihitin, at magbubuga ito ng malamig na hangin.) 
Sagot: aircon
– Raul G. Moldez 

Sa Iloilo, sa kabilang banda, Textpaktakon naman ang sa mga Hiligaynon (o ang pagtetext ng bugtong na may 3 o 4 na linya na maaaring hindi magkatugma sa bawat saknong) at heto ang mga pinakamagaling na palaisipan:  

Indi hayop, indi tawo
Wara’t baba, wara’t ulo
Pero may bibig nga naganganga
Kon mangagat, gapabilin ang unto.

(Hindi hayop, hindi tao, 
Walang baba, walang ulo, 
Pero may bibig na nakanganga 
Kung mangagat, ngipin ay natitira.) 

Sagot: stapler

– Genevieve Asenjo 

Nalathala noong 2010 sa International Journal of Mental Health Systems ang "Mental Health First Aid Guidelines for helping a suicidal person: a Delphi consensus study in the Philippines."

Isa sa mga sumulat ang aking kabiyak na si Ellay, na isang psychiatrist.

Dumalaw sa bansa ang isa sa mga awtor na psychologist – si Dr Erminia Colucci – para ilabas sa wikang Filipino ang Suicide First-Aid Guidelines upang palaganapin pa ang pagmumulat sa kamalayan hinggil ng lahat sa lusog-isip.

Ang lahat ng ito sa pamamagitan ng Foundation AWIT (Advancing Wellness, Instruction, and Talents, Inc), na itinatag para tulungan ang mga batang maykapansanan tulad ng anak naming si Awit na may Global Developmental Delay.

Noong 2012, para sa World Mental Health Day, ibinalik namin ng misis kong psychiatrist, sa pamamagitan ng aming Foundation AWIT ang Dionatext Kontra Depresyon. Apat ang itinanghal na TextMakata ng Linggo, pero isa ang itinanghal ng TextMakata ang Buwan:

Di na sana didilat
Pagkat walang natupad
Buti, libre mangarap!
– Ruel Solitario 

Oktubre 10 din nitong 2019 nang pinasulat namin ng tula ang mga dumalo sa ikatlong Public Health Convention on Mental Health ng Department of Health (DOH). Tinawag naming Post-It Poet of the Day ang mga nagwaging tanagang idinikit sa dingding ng booth sa isang fair sa Manila Prince Hotel. Umaga, tanghali, at hapon kaming pumili kaya 3 rin ang mga nagwagi subalit may isang namukod-tangi: 

Dahon ay sumasayaw,
Ibon ay humihiyaw.
Tayo ay h’wag malumbay
Sa buhay magtagumpay.
– JayAr Lamson 

Pagkaraan ng dalawang araw, inanyayahan kami ng maybahay kong si Ellay ng SheTalks Asia. Isa itong platapormang pang-media ng mga babaeng handang tumulong sa mga pagsusumikap na paunlarin ang inisyatiba para sa lusog-isip. Kinabibilangan ito ng kababaihang “influencer” na sina Iza Calzado, Bianca Gonzalez, Sarah Meier-Heredia, at Victoria Herrera. Sinulatan kami ni Eleanor Pinugu na isa sa mga tagapagtatag at chief operating officer nila para papagsalitain sa kumperensiyang kung tawagin ay I Matter na naglalayong pataasin ang pagtingin ng bawat isa sa sarili.

Deja vu, ikaw ba 'yan?

Natanto ko ito noong tila parang pumasok na kami dati sa isang malaking gusali sa Bonifacio Global City.

Ito ay walang iba kundi ang Globe Tower.

Hindi naman namin sila naging isponsor nito.

Sila nga lamang ang kauna-unahang promotor ng SMS noon. 

Daig pa ng Globe ang pumasan sa daigdig ng TexTula.

Naisip kong gawin doon at noon ang Textanagang sasalihan ng mga kababaihang naroon.

Mula sa humigit-kumulang 100, nakatanggap kami ng tula mula halos kalahati nito.

Tinulaan nila ang kanilang natutuhan upang patatagin ang kanilang loob o kung paano maging matibay at matatag tuwing may pagsubok o kung gaano sila kagaling sa paghawak ng kirot na dulot ng karanasang masama: 

Buhay hindi madali
H’wag alisin ang ngiti;
Pag-ibig manatili
Kahit may pighati.
– Ma. Corazon Aguilar 

May mas sasaklap pa ba sa mga nagaganap ngayon?

Wika nga ng mga Tsino:“Walang luha, walang tula.”

Kaya, gagawin nga nating bulawan ang basurang pangyayaring ito!

Gagamitin natin ang birtud ng tula laban sa virus.

Gaganapin ito mula Marso 21 hanggang Marso 31.

Sa loob ng 10 araw, ang ibig sabihin ng COVID ay Coronavirus Dionatweet.

Ito ay isang timpalak sa pagsulat ng diona.

Ano nga uli ang diona?

Ito ay isang tulang may 3 linya na ang bawat linyang magkakatugma ay may tig-7 pantig.

Bakit diona?

Una, isang katutubong uri ng tula ito na sumasalamin sa ipinapagawa sa atin ng krisis – ang bumalik sa basics o sa ating pinakasimpleng sarili – kagaya ng paghuhugas ng kamay.

Ikalawa, ito ay mas maikli kaysa tanaga at dalit kaya mas magiging siksik, liglig, at umaapaw ang diwa’t damdamin mo.

Ikatlo, ito ang pinakasikat sa 3 dahil ang mga text sa naunang DionaText ay galing pa sa ibang bansa, tulad ng Bahrain, Hongkong, Kuwait, Qatar, at Riyadh.   

Bakit tweet?

Dahil ito ay mas mabilis, mas malawak, at mas maraming mararating.

Itanong mo kay Ashton Kutcher.

Maaari mong kausapin ang virus mismo: 

Coronavirus disease,
Di ka namin mami-miss
Ngayon ka man umalis! 

O di kaya’y punahin ang ipinapagawa o pinaggagagawa ng mga Meron sa mga Wala o Walain:

Pinauwi sa bahay
Ang inang ang tahanan
Ay ang maruming daan. 

O basta mag-senti nang mag-senti:

Nakita kong lumaki
Ang panganay ko’t baby
Kasi di na 'ko busy. 

Paki-tweet ng mga diona ninyo at i-tag ang @rapplerdotcom at @tayabasining. O kaya'y gamitin ang hashtag na #DionaTweet. 

Sampung araw nating iselebra ang World Poetry Day.

Sa Abril, atin namang ipagdiriwang ang Pambansang Buwan ng Panitikan.

Abangan ang susunod na talinghaga.

– Rappler.com 

Sa ngalan ng siyensiya’t sining, tumutulong si Vim Nadera sa mga maykanser, may AIDS, nagdodroga, “comfort women,” batang kalye, inabuso, naipit sa mga kalamidad na likha’t likas, at mga nagdadalamhati. Ilan sa kaniyang mga proyekto ay Textanaga, Panitikabataan, panitikan.com.ph, Pistang Panitik, Pagpupugay sa mga Pambansang Alagad ng Sining. Conspiwriters’ Tuesdays, O.M.G. (Open Mic Gig), Kaakuhan, Word Jam, at Akdang Buhay. Itinanag nila ng kaniyang kabiyak ang Foundation AWIT (Advancing Wellness, Instruction, and Talents) Inc.  

Even before the global pandemic that is COVID-19 and the government-enforced community lockdown in Luzon, many jobs have started shifting their systems online. This has paved the way for work-from-home set-ups to be more feasible.

As a Rappler multimedia sports reporter, there are times that I don't have to be out on the field or at a coverage – let's say, international games – and things can be done from the comforts of my room. 

For many good reasons, you don't have to waste your time in traffic getting to your office. And some professionals may also have more time-consuming responsibilities at home – whether that would be cleaning your house or taking care of young children. 

It's a glamorous idea, being productive and efficient at home. But for many of us, succumbing to that snooze button is a greater temptation. (READ: #HustleEveryday: How to be productive when working from home)

Some may not be able to help themselves from taking "breaks"; breaks that can lead to an hour of scrolling on social media and even falling asleep in bed (which I'm sure your bosses won't take lightly on). 

On the other hand, others tend to overwork when they do tasks from home. This can also lead to mental burnout. Especially when you start and end your day (or just crash at night) doing no other thing but work.

I give you a glimpse of what my work-from-home day as a reporter can be like and how I can marry my career and home life. – Rappler.com 

I’m writing this as confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus continue to rise in the Philippines. I’m a doctor, but unlike other frontliners who are staffing hospital triage tents or coping with overwhelming ER consults of possibly infected individuals, I’m doing my share from the relative safety of a primary care clinic located in a mall. (READ: Braving a pandemic: Frontliners battle fear to confront the novel coronavirus)

This is an emotional time for many of us. We’re unsure of just how bad the situation will get, we fear for our loved ones who are vulnerable to the virus, and we doubt if we ourselves are being careful enough so as not to become carriers. 

In these uncertain times, one would think that patients will choose to stay home and defer going to a clinic to be seen by a doctor for non-emergency complaints. In the days leading to the Metro Manila lockdown, however, I’ve seen more patients in the clinic. Some come complaining of chronic problems: an intermittent back pain they’ve had for months, lingering insomnia, or a tenacious fungal infection. 

Some come for alleged symptoms that have already resolved, and beg for a medical certificate with advice for some days of rest so they can skip work. Those who do consult for mild respiratory symptoms come armed with a list of questions about the virus. They want to know if they have it, and ask if they can be tested. 

I tell them that the symptoms of a COVID-19 infection are nonspecific – that is, similar to that of many viral illnesses. That’s not very reassuring, so I proceed to patiently explain that a strict algorithm has to be followed before they can be tested, since testing kits are limited, and reserved for patients with severe symptoms, or those who are more likely to have been infected.

In an attempt to calm their fears, I tell them that I’m not too scared of the virus since it seems to have a high rate of transmission but low mortality. But I also tell them not to underestimate the danger of being infected; that they should stay home as much as possible and observe good hygiene. 

My role in these strange times, it seems, is to comfort the ill at ease. I’ve come to realize that the patients’ experience of their perceived illness and how it affects them matter more than the diagnostic tests I will request or the treatment I will prescribe. They need someone to listen to their apprehensions and attend to them fully without any hint of impatience or distraction.  Consultation time tends to run longer, but the patients appreciate the effort. (READ: ‘Your service is heroism’: Here’s a big thank you to our Filipino frontliners)

Of course the work isn’t just about being a beacon of calm in a sea of confusion. Sometimes, we get thrown into the confusion as well. In the past week alone, the algorithm for screening for potential PUIs and PUMs changed 5 times. The situation is evolving fast, and we have to keep up with and implement the latest mandates from the DOH. 

To be classified as a Person Under Investigation, one needs to have acute respiratory symptoms or diarrhea, plus a history of travel to a foreign country with local transmission. I understand the relevance of the foreign travel criterion, but it seems moot when there are already confirmed cases of local transmission in the Philippines. 

Honestly, it’s stressful to follow a screening protocol that isn’t quite consistent with current developments, but we stick to it so as not to categorize every other person as a PUI and consequently run the risk of saturating hospitals already straining under the weight of increased patient load. 

On the one hand, I’m proud of my fellow healthcare workers who continue to do their jobs even if it means putting themselves at risk of getting sick. On the other hand, to be truthful, the idea of being quarantined is also quite appealing to me. (READ: [ANALYSIS] Why Filipinos need to stay at home until June (or even longer))

How wonderful it would be to spend my days in the comfort of home, watching my teenage daughter do her TikTok dances, or playing with my amusing 2-year-old niece. How enjoyable it would be to have leisurely meals, listen to music, read a book, take naps, or cook for the family instead of spending interminable hours at work, attending to patients. But in the end, there will always be a good reason to go back to my post. 

I became a doctor to serve others, not myself; to do something meaningful for those who have less and derive fulfilment from my work. The way I respond to this crisis will surely test my competence as a physician, but more importantly, it will reflect the kind of human being I am. 

So even as I worry about not protecting myself well enough or who among my family and friends might get sick, I will continue to show up. Even as I worry that the Philippine healthcare system is ill-equipped to handle this state of affairs, I will strive to do my share of the work with as much courage, humility, and compassion as I could muster. – Rappler.com

Ma. Regina Luz Dañguilan-Misa is a graduate of Comparative Literature. She graduated from UERM Memorial Medical Center in 2017 and is currently training as a Family Medicine specialist. 

 

Preventing transmission of the COVID-19 disease requires that we consistently exercise proper health and hygiene protocols, both in our homes and in public spaces. Authorities have also advised that we all steer clear of large gatherings, avoid using public transportation, follow “community quarantine” measures, and seek prompt medical attention when there is exposure to the disease. While all these are sound reminders, there is one glaring problem – the poor will not be able to afford to follow these. 

Many jobs have no paid sick leaves. Irregular workers, including those who are paid on a per output, takay, or pakyaw basis, are particularly vulnerable. Working from home is not an option for all workers, as in the case of jeepney drivers and service workers. Crowding cannot be avoided in mass transport systems. In crisis situations, poor women and girls are affected the most because many of them form part of this workforce, but are still expected to do unpaid care and domestic work, which only tends to increase when caring for sick members of the family. (READ: [OPINION] Let’s not forget the poor during the coronavirus pandemic)

Poor people inordinately bear the brunt of economic shocks brought by this pandemic. Many informal, micro-, small-scale, and even up to medium-scale enterprises will take the hit as compared to the larger and more established businesses. Many may have to stop operations or close down because they would not be able to absorb the shocks to the economy. Hoarding of essential goods such as soap, alcohol, and basic food items only raises market prices and creates access barriers. Stocking up on food and medicines is impossible for those without regular incomes, savings, the unbanked, or those without access to financial services.

While it may be true that COVID-19 is not the proximate cause of these underlying problems, what is true is that it threatens the already fragile social safety nets of the Philippines. What pro-poor solutions could be considered to reduce inequalities in the time of COVID-19, particularly in ensuring access to water?

First, local governments could use calamity funds to subsidize water costs for the poorest sectors, particularly informal settler families (ISFs) crowding in the urban centers. Safe water is beyond the reach of poor communities because of access and cost barriers. For example, a recent study made by A Single Drop for Safe Water identified that in Pasig and Manila cities, an average person only has access to 12-13 liters of water per day. This is drastically below what the DILG recommends, which should range between 20-80 liters per person each day. For a minimum of 10 cubic meters, Manila Water and Maynilad charge around P88-130 per month, whereas the community pays between P500-900 per month to both formal and informal suppliers for less than 3.6 cubic meters. Oftentimes, this water needs to be fetched, and it ultimately puts limits on hygiene practices. The lack of access and the high costs of safe water puts the poorest and most vulnerable at risk since proper hygiene is a challenge. (READ: [OPINION] Water is a human right)

Second, partnerships with WASH-related private sector companies should be explored. There are companies willing and capable of subsidizing the regular supply of hygiene items for the poorest and most vulnerable, especially older persons, lactating and pregnant women, families with infants and small children. Incorporating a gender perspective into plans and strategies enables response operations to efficiently reach underserved and at-risk individuals. Local governments could also use calamity funds to distribute cash vouchers to low-income families to enable them to buy hygiene items locally.

Finally, it is important to work with poor communities to strengthen communications on hygiene and health promotion. Local governments, community groups, and the private sector can join forces and form a local network that could support poorest families in obtaining accurate and useful information on COVID-19, as well as provide free and immediate testing, quarantine and medical assistance for suspected cases. 

Safe water, adequate sanitation, and hygienic conditions are crucial to health and wellbeing, more so in this time of COVID-19. Let us make sure no one gets left behind. – Rappler.com

Mirriam Solleza is the WASH Advisor and Camille Adle is the WASH Portfolio Manager of Oxfam Pilipinas. Oxfam is an international confederation of 20 humanitarian and development organizations working together with partners and local communities in more than 90 countries. Learn more here.

A few nights ago, I was walking home at 10:30 pm. I live three blocks from the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). When one is on Surgical Pathology rotation, it is not unusual to be cutting specimens until late night or until the wee hours of morning just to finish. Walks like these are unavoidable. That night, the street was dead silent, with looming shadows from the street lamps. 

At a short distance, three men approached me. “Boss, saan kayo papunta?” (Where are you headed?) 

I instinctively grabbed my ID which hung on my neck and blurted, “Doktor po ako sa PGH!” (I am doctor at the PGH) 

I stepped into the light to show them my ID, and they let me pass. I knew they were probably just barangay tanod (village watch) officers, but I was kind of shaken by the experience. A month ago, the streets of Pedro Gil would have been teeming with jeepneys roaring past me, with street vendors selling balut and barbecue on the sidewalk. 

None of that now. We were on lockdown, and strict curfew was implemented. 

Community quarantine 

About a month ago, when we first heard of a novel coronavirus ravaging the city of Wuhan in Hubei, China we thought little of it. Just a distant problem of a virus infecting the residents of the city. We watched the news of their lockdown on television, seeing the panic and the desperation. It seemed so distant.

But they had underestimated the menace. People fleeing Wuhan brought with them the virus to other parts of Asia, Europe,and America and we watched stunned as the first cases were reported in Manila. 

Last March 12, the national government announced a community quarantine over Metro Manila. People panicked, some hoarded groceries and goods, some grabbed their suitcases in a mad rush to the provinces. At the central laboratory, we were told we were going on skeleton duty. The residents were divided into three groups, each to go on one week straight duty, and two weeks quarantine. 

I was part of the first team and it was chaotic. Meetings were held with the section heads on Monday, March 16, to discuss the skeleton schedule of all the laboratory personnel. We were severely going to be undermanned, but it was the only way to ensure that all services will be available with the staff having minimal exposure to the hazards at the hospital.

The two-week quarantine after exposure was necessary, it was the only way to guarantee that everyone can safely rotate. A chilling scenario if the skeleton duty was not implemented was that an exposure from someone sick can transmit the virus and render the staff ill and severely impact laboratory operations.

For our part, only a third of the residents will do the job of grossing, signing out, resolving backlog cases, and attend to referrals. 

Skeleton duties  

Later in the week, the national government announced an enhanced community quarantine– meaning public transportation will be halted, work suspended, curfews in place. Only groceries, pharmacies, and banks were open.

Problems arose in the already thinned out staffing, because of transportation and accommodations. Some medical technologists had to cram into a small space at the back of the laboratory information to sleep. Part of the blood bank was also used by the staff to rest in. Transportation was a problem even to those with private vehicles because checkpoints were strict.  (READ: Left in the dark: Little protection for government's coronavirus frontliners) 

It was a logistical nightmare that required coordination and a lot of paperwork. During most of our daytime duties we struggled to look for housing for the staff, arrange schedules, and get food for those on duty. Food was a challenge because most fast food chains and restaurants were closed. After a short deluge of donated food, it slowly trickled down to none. 

On top of this, we still had to continue grossing specimens which were surprisingly voluminous and of quality- with maxillectomies, whipples procedure, total prostatectomies, and even gynecologic malignancy specimens. We were told that despite halting admissions, they had apparently filled the surgical wards with patients prior to the lockdown.

Food that our consultants and some donors provided helped tide us over in this seemingly long first week of community quarantine. Delicious food helped keep the spirits up during the week. (READ: How to help healthcare workers, frontliners during coronavirus pandemic)

Then to our surprise, we were told Pathology residents will now help man the COVID triage area. That removed two more posts from the residents on duty. Now we had to cover each other during AM and PM duties, grossing and signing out.

Hope or uncertainty 

Recently we were told that PGH will be a referral center for COVID-19 cases. That posed a huge potential problem in a time where personal protective equipment like masks, gowns, gloves, and face shields are hard to come by. It would be like going to war without an armor. If health workers are exposed without adequate protection, they are going to be vulnerable to the virus, including their families, in turn.

Such strange times. I remembered my fourth year of medical school or clerkship and the strongest storm ever recorded in human history leveled Tacloban City and I was in ground zero. Except, this time, as I looked around the street that night, the infrastructure was intact, the electric lights still blazed. Regardless, I felt the same ominous feeling. 

People hoarding goods, and even our co-employees at the hospital grabbing donated food, is an ever present reminder of the human instinct to survive during times of disaster. It was similar to the looting incidents in the aftermath of Yolanda. It was not reassuring. 

I hope that the government does the right thing and support the frontliners in this health crisis of global proportions. Potentially, the next coming weeks could be rough for our country. (READ: Filipino scientists call on government to conduct mass testing for coronavirus)

But there is hope.

Every time I see dedicated doctors, nurses, medical technologists, other allied health professionals and even guards, soldiers, couriers, and street sweepers I encounter while walking the streets early morning, I am reminded of the resilience of the human spirit and the undying will and dedication to fight this battle. (READ: ‘Your service is heroism’: Here’s a big thank you to our Filipino frontliners) 

May God be always on our side. – Rappler.com 

Thaddeus C. Hinunangan is a Pathology Resident Physician at Philippine General Hospital and a columnist at Health and Lifestyle Magazine.

I’m putting these ideas across, hopefully to generate movement in both public and private sectors.  This was triggered by a report that Spain also had to nationalize private hospitals in the light of their COVID-19 crisis.

A. The move to designate the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP), and the Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital (DJNRMH) as COVID-19 centers is misdirected and may only exacerbate this crisis.

1. The ICU of PGH is under renovation, DJNRMH is underdeveloped, and LCP is reluctant to expose its existing patients with lung cancer and TB to COVID-19 patients. In short, all 3 hospitals are neither ideal nor ready to become COVID-19 Centers.

2. It will be difficult to segregate COVID-19 patients from the thousands of non-COVID patients in PGH who require just as important medical care, being the most highly sub-specialized government hospital in the country. Which hospitals in Manila will be able to take over this volume? From what we have experienced so far, it is very difficult for one hospital to serve both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Aside from the risk of cross-contamination, the care of COVID-19 patients takes a huge toll on health manpower and resources (quarantine, PPE, respirators, etc)

3. At present, the most number of COVID-19 patients admitted for care are in private hospitals, overwhelming their capacity, and forcing them to shut down many non-COVID services.

4. These private hospitals have the best ICU, ER, and infectious disease facilities and staff in the country. They also have a lot of vacant beds and spaces now as they have been forced to shut down non-COVID services. They are therefore in the best position to become COVID-19 centers.

5. These hospitals are already seeing large volumes of PUM, PUI and Confirmed cases – and it will be difficult to transfer these patients out to any other facility. Certainly wealthier patients may not want to transfer to government facilities.

6. The financial losses to these private hospitals and their patients will be substantial. Their consultants are not salaried and are also therefore vulnerable to the economic consequences of this catastrophe.

B. Given this dire scenario, the only viable strategy is for the Philippine government to temporarily nationalize and take over these large private hospitals, under the following conditions:

1. Service only COVID-19 patients, whether PUM, PUI, or confirmed.

2. Designate their staff to serve as full-time COVID-19 teams, with appropriate rest and quarantine, if need be.

3. Provide full financial support and reimbursement for these hospitals.

4. Expand their current capabilities by providing them with additional manpower, PPEs, respirators, etc, possibly from the other hospitals.

5. Salary their health workforce and provide lodging and quarantine facilities for them. Ensure optimal protection for them at all times, as well as psychosocial support.

6. Provide free services for all COVID-19 patients, irrespective of severity or economic status.

7. Keep other hospitals COVID-free, allowing them to provide services just as important for other types of patients.

This is a national emergency.  We cannot delay our response again. I can think of no better strategy, before this contagion engulfs all hospitals. Strong government leadership and decisiveness is imperative! – Rappler.com

Dr Manuel Francisco Roxas is Director of the Philippine College of Surgeons Cancer Commission and faculty member of the University of the Philippines College of Medicine and the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health. He is also affiliated with the Philippine General Hospital, The Medical City, Asian Hospital and Medical Center, and Ayala Healthcare Inc. His views do not reflect the views of the institutions he is affiliated with.

Dahil sa dami ng oras at suson-susong pangamba, manipis at maramdamin ako ngayon. Lalo’t nakaharap sa Facebook at nakabuyangyang sa newsfeed ko ang mga balita. Kaunting buyo lang, napipikon; makabalita lang ng hindi maganda, nagngingitngit, nagagalit, o napapraning para sa aking sariling kalusugan at kalagayan ng pamilya ko; makalanghap lang ng kahit katiting na positibong balita buhat sa mapagkakatiwalaang source, ipapamahagi.

Halos hindi ko na makilala ang sarili kong mapanuri, mabagal, laging nagninilay-nilay sa maaaring implikasyon ng anumang ise-share ko, o sa mga status ko na, sa kabila ng madalas na kakuwelahan at pang-aasar o maximization ng sarcasm, ilang ulit sumailalim sa komplikadong pag-eedit at pinag-isipan nang husto. Naks. 

Noon, ipinangako ko sa sarili ko, hindi dapat ako ang taong click muna bago think. Kapag naaanyayahan akong magsalita sa mga paaralan at unibersidad, lagi kong ina-advocate ang responsible social media use. Ipinapaliwanag ko ang dynamics ng herd mentality ng mga influencers of the private and public types, lalo sa bansang itong adik na adik sa social media. Tinatalakay ko rin na ang number of followers ay hindi tagasunod kung hindi number of subscribers lang naman talaga sa account ng kahit sinong may social media; na ang thread ay madalas nagiging batayan ng mga social media lurkers para maghanap ng katuwiran o papanigan, kaya lagi kong pinaghuhusay ang diskurso kahit na troll ang sumasagot sa kabilang dulo. Kapag nai-raise ko na ang point. Block. Singkahulugan ng drop mic. 

Mistulang alam kong lahat ito. Katunayan ang pagbuo ng social media dynamics bilang elective subject at pagtuturo ko ng New Media sa graduate school ng antigong unibersidad na pinaglilingkuran ko. Ang saya ko habang itinuturo ko ito noon. Sabay-sabay kami ng mga MA at PhD students ko na tumutuklas ng karunungan sa tulong ng mga awtoridad at practitioners na inimbitahan namin (karamihan ay kinulit ko lang talaga para dalawin kami sa klase with an ungodly schedule of Saturdays, 8-11 am). Last semester iyon. December last year ang katapusan ng huling semestre. Nito lang. Katatapos lang. Pero sa dami ng nangyari, para bang napakatagal na ng lahat. Napakatagal na. Ang laki na ng itinanda ko mula noong Disyembre hanggang ngayong tinitipa ko ito. Hindi talaga sa edad nasusukat ang tanda, sa dami ng dapat tinandaan. At sa dami ng dapat kong matandaan, may ibang gusto ko nang kalimutan. O iisang-tabi muna.

I practice what I preach. Maingat ako. Dumaraan sa maraming layers ng pagkilatis kung mapagkakatiwalaan ang impormasyon bago ko i-share, bago ako magkomento o pumuna. Friendly ang mga status ko. Funny most of the time. Polite madalas kahit umuusok na ang malalaking butas ng ilong ko sa galit. Kailangan kong maging mabuting halimbawa kung paano irerespeto ang platform na kinahihibangan ng maraming Pinoy. 

Iyon ay kung hindi ganito ang panahon.  

Kunsabagay, walang mag-aakalang sasapit tayo sa ganito. Stranded sa loob ng kani-kanilang bahay, mansiyon, o barong-barong para mapahupa ang salot sa paglaganap, habang kaliwa’t kanan ang pagpapa-testing ng mga asymptomatic na senador at matataas na opisyal at sipsip sa pamahalaan.  

Marami tayong time. Lalo’t hindi naman apektado ang serbisyo ng kuryente at telcos. Lalo’t narito pa rin ang platform ng karunungan at pagmamangmang: ang social media. Pero hindi ito ganito kadali. Apektado rin ang ating pagkatao sa tuwing haharap tayo sa monitor ng gadget na kargado ng mabigat na damdamin. Dito nagiging epektibo ang nagpapakalat ng maling balita. Sa panahong ito, kahit na ang inaasahan ko minsang mapagnilay na indibiduwal ay nabibiktima rin ng maling impormasyon. Kaya nga, di ba, manipis at maramdamin ako ngayon. 

Gaya ninyo, marami rin akong Facebook group. Bawat facet ng social existence ko ay may kinapapaloobang grupo. Mahilig ako sa vintage watch? Check. Grupo na mahilig sa isang brand ng relo? Check. Dito pa lang, sa variety pa lang ng mga relo, ilan na agad. Puwera pa ang pagkahilig ko sa fountain pen. Ibang grupo pa rin. High school at elementary FB groups? Meron. College? Meron lalo. Sa trabaho? Lalo na. Bawat committee na kinabibilangan ko – believe me, marami ito – may kinaaaniban akong grupo. Iba pa ang writers’ at literary orgs na kinaaaniban ko rin. Marami. Kaydaling maging bahagi ng birtuwal na grupo sa panahong ito. 

Kung hindi ko ia-unfollow o imu-mute ang mga grupong kinabibilangan ko, mistula na sigurong orchestra ang tunog ng notifications ko sa dami ng walang magawa kung hindi mag-forward ng balita at impormasyon. Hindi nakapagtataka. Saklot tayo ng pangamba at kawalang katiyakan. Hindi rin ako magkandatuto kapapaalalang fake news ang kanilang nai-share. Lalo kung ang paksa ay mga tungkol sa mga secret cure sa COVID-19. Mabentang-mabenta ang mga ganitong uri ng disimpormasyon. 

Sa ngayon, ang sinusundan ko ay ang mga legitimate – meaning, may pananagutan sakaling mali ang ibalita – na news agencies. Nakalulungkot nga lang isipin na ang mga nagbabalita man at mga tao sa likod ng produksiyon ay unti-unti nang nababawasan dahil sa panganib na dulot dun ng COVID-19. Mabuti’t may mangilan-ngilan pang nagko-cover ng balita dito sa ating bansa. (BASAHIN: My heroes, our journalists)

Bueno. Ngayon higit kailanman, be informed. Armas din sa panahong ito ang tama at sapat na impormasyon. Maghanap ng matatalino at may pinagbabatayang opinyon at haka-haka hinggil sa sitwasyon natin. Huwag manalig lamang sa isang source. Narito na rin lang tayo sa masalimuot na internet, humanap na rin tayo ng ibang pang panggagalingan ng maayos na balita. Alam ko, sa paghahanap natin ng pag-asa, napakadali nating maniwala sa mga impormasyong susuporta sa ating pinananaligan: lilipas din ito, mawawala o magagamot ng vaccine. (BISITAHIN: Novel Coronavirus Outbreak: News, Advisories, Explainers) 

Maging masinop. Huwag lang puro screen-grabbed at forwarded messages. Tamang humanap ng positibong istorya para gumaan ang pakiramdam natin, pero magtira ng espasyo sa isip na nananatiling nakatapak sa katotohanan ng laban na ito na, masakit mang isipin, wala pang katiyakan kung kailan matatapos. – Rappler.com 

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng creative writing, pop culture, research, at seminar in new media sa Departamento ng Literatura at sa Graduate School ng Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, research fellow din si Joselito D. delos Reyes, PhD, sa UST Research Center for Culture, Arts and Humanities. Siya ang coordinator ng AB Creative Writing program ng UST. 

This Monday morning, March 23, senators and members of the House are scheduled to deliberate on President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposed declaration of a national emergency that will give him more powers than he already has.

We do not doubt that we are in an emergency. What we doubt is the Duterte government’s understanding of it and its skills to address it. (READ: A call to nationalize hospitals)

Since it imposed a Luzon-wide lockdown on March 17 to address the coronavirus, the administration has spawned chaos and confusion through conflicting orders, statements, and rules that make a mockery of the “Laging Handa” (Always Ready) branding for their daily advisories.

It should be obvious to us by now – except perhaps for the trolls who continue to spread lies at our expense – that the government has not thought and planned this through and is now trying to make up for it via its usual shotgun style.

Duterte pooh-poohed the crisis early on, its enormity and complexity escaping a mind that is averse to the unfamiliar and the unknown. Or he got cold feet – hesitant to issue anything far more complicated than shoot-to-kill and which would impact his voter base such as the OFWs.

As late as March 9, he scoffed at suggestions of a Metro Manila lockdown, saying it was too early to do anything extraordinary when the confirmed cases at that point were only 24 (which tells us about his level of knowledge of the virus' exponential spread). (READ: Available testing centers in the PH)

When he finally listened to the alarm bells, his Cabinet scrambled for a haphazard plan, because of course he wants everything pronto. We know what happened next: disaster.

Obsessed with containment, these crisis managers sidelined two equally urgent tasks: supporting the frontliners and protecting the vulnerable sectors. Each task need not be independent of each other, as the Pasig mayor knew fully well. Which is why when he implemented all 3 with the savvy of a crisis veteran, his elders in Malacañang got spooked, shamed by their lack of common sense.

To illustrate: Vico Sotto talked to the owners of Dahlia Hotel to convert the drive-by motel into a quarantine center. He did not need extra power or muscle to do that. In contrast, our senior government officials scanned the few state hospitals that they could easily command and made them isolation centers – when they could have, from the get-go, mobilized the entire private sector to lend their hospitals, hotels, motels, buildings as temporary clinics.

The Cabangon family, which owns a chain of hotels and motels, already jumped in over the weekend to do just that. Businesses already pooled P1.5 billion to feed the poor during the lockdown. All this without government intervention.

This is the context of our misgivings about today’s legislative-executive agenda.

Where is this government's plan? Who is in command? Who are the key bastoneros on the ground who will implement it? Who is thinking long term? Who is in charge of the day to day? 

If granted emergency powers, will this president even reasonably and judiciously use them given his poor track record in the sober application of the law?

What happens after April 14, the end of the lockdown? What if this drags, as many experts think it would? How interconnected are the measures beyond local and national boundaries? 

Does the government seriously think it has not lost political capital in the last week since the lockdown? Distrust, despair, and cynicism have hit the roof – the propaganda overdrive notwithstanding.

To regain public trust, our leaders need to do better. For starters, show us the plan.

But it appears there’s a dearth of thinkers and planners in Malacañang. Do they need to be reminded that the country has a deep bench of experts and crisis managers out there?

Some of them, in fact, already have a plan. Here, Mr President, serve us better by finding time to read the study of UP economists along with Dr Alfredo Paloyo, who shared the plan on Twitter here. Just 11 pages, promise. (Watch out for our Rappler Talk with Dr Paloyo on Monday, March 23. Bookmark this page.) – Rappler.com

I wrote this article after I received my admission letter from the Harvard Kennedy School. It’s quite overwhelming since it took me more than 10 years to face my fear and finally apply. Like many of you, I had so many reasons or excuses for not even trying before. 

Lo and behold, I made it to Harvard! It was really a childhood dream coming true.

But the first thing that came to mind really was how do I go now to Harvard with the total lockdown due to COVID-19 Pandemic? How can I celebrate when many people are dying around the world and poor people are starving and begging for help in my own country?

The truth is, I can only do so much.

Social media and vanity

Social media has long been plagued by man-made viruses, bashers and haters. Nobody wants to listen. Everybody has their story to post. Whether it's the truth or a lie, it doesn’t matter anymore. 

Social media has made us entitled, vain, self-righteous, and less personal in dealing with each other – even calling somebody, who we barely know, as our “friend” in Facebook.

Some businesses have become more commercial in advocating for the environment, the poor or a better world but couldn’t even take care of their waste management, their employees, or provide a conducive work environment for everyone. And the best strategy applied is cost-cutting on salaries, benefits, overhead and even on taxes. 

Is business really just for profit? Is corporate social responsibility just a marketing ploy? 

These are the questions I ask not only the CEOs of big conglomerates but also entrepreneurs like myself.

While we celebrate acts of heroism, kindness, and other good deeds of others shared online, we regularly bash our government leaders, our church, our employers and anyone we dislike. 

There’s no more respect or discretion in expressing what’s in our mind.

While we advocate for equal rights, anti-discrimination and anti-racism, we bully online those who choose to have a different view or opinion especially in politics. We create memes of those who look ugly and stupid. We are obsessed to have social media presence, to gain more likes and followers – even trolls. Gossiping became a trend via group chats. Twitter, along with other social media, became a public forum to discuss and share fake news, sex videos, and investment scams. 

In this time of crisis, we should really ask what we can do to help.

The big conglomerates heed the call of the President to release the 13th month pay of their employees. Others even gave more than the basic and reassured their employees of getting their regular pay even during the month-long Enhanced Community Quarantine. 

Reminders

Individual and corporate donations are flooding as usual, but I wish to make an appeal and remind those who are generously donating:

First, like what some corporations have already one, prioritize your employees and family (for individual donors). Let’s secure first the needs of our employees. Small businesses may not be able to release the 13th month pay early, but at least find a way to release the basic salaries without delay;

Second, even if the deadline of filing annual income tax return (ITR) has been extended, those of us who can pay online, must file and pay early to help the government collect the target revenues for the month of April. This is especially for the large taxpayers who contribute at least 60% of the total income tax collections.  

Even if the micro and small businesses won’t be able to pay on April 15, the tax payments of the big conglomerates will be more than enough. That’s why we need them together with all other large taxpayers to pay first their income taxes before donating millions of pesos. 

Third, while it is our obligation to pay taxes, charitable contributions or donations given during this time of crisis are also tax deductible. Individual and corporate donors must document and file it to avoid the 6% donor’s tax. 

Any donation in excess of P250,000 without certificate of donation will be subject to 6% donor’s tax due thirty (30) days after the date of the donation is made.

With or without tax due, donors must file BIR Form 1800 to claim the charitable contribution as a deduction from gross income subject to income tax.  

'Mahirap maging mahirap'

My opinion about the Duterte administration has nothing to do with my realization after my two-week hiatus. As a taxpayer and a Filipino citizen, I still feel we pay first world taxes and get third world services from our government, especially the poorest of the poor who need it desperately.  

Sometimes I wonder, if the rich donating to the poor is a sign of charity or a show of power. While some of us are at the comforts of our home watching Netflix (myself included), the poor and powerless are queueing and waiting for relief goods which may not even last for a day. And we expect them to observe social distancing?

But why do we need donations from the private sector when we have paid so much taxes?

And here come our elected officials from barangay to national government acting as if we owe them for doing what they’re supposed to do. I know it’s a thankless job, but you chose it. Please don’t make us feel as if we owe you. You ask for our votes, and fortunately or unfortunately, we elected you to serve us. 

We pay taxes! We deserve better services. 

I don’t intend to discredit those who are really working hard in government from our President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries especially DOH, DTI, DOST, and DILG (DSWD?), including local executives like Manila Mayor Isko Moreno, Pasig Mayor Vico Sotto, Quezon City Mayor Joy Belmonte, and many others, but please stop giving us excuses when you don’t do your job well. 

Please don’t brag about the relief goods and financial assistance you give to poor families – they’re all from the taxes we pay to the government. 

Sometimes I blame the poor who keep voting the corrupt and incompetent Barangay chairperson, mayors, congressmen and even senators who are only after power, money and VIP testing. At the same time, I feel sorry for them who never benefitted from these traditional politicians. As one poor soul cried out loud, “mahirap talaga maging mahirap!”

In 2022, let’s all vote for those who perform and serve us well during this time of crisis. 

Let’s stop electing representatives and senators who only distribute relief goods or who are more present in social media than in sessions. We need independent legislators who are intelligent, honest and capable to make laws which will better serve and protect our people e.g. healthcare system, efficient tax system, etc. 

No need for emergency power

In my honest opinion, the President does not need emergency power.  

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “this is, above all, a human crisis that calls for solidarity.” We need solidarity, hope and political will to see this crisis through together.

Filipino people are staying at home. Our doctors and nurses are taking care of the patients. 

What we need is a mass testing especially for those who are high-risk and exposed to COVID-19 virus. What we need is a fast and efficient distribution of food, water and vitamins for all poor families gravely affected by the lockdown. What we need is to stop the spread of the virus before we shut down businesses due to a prolonged community quarantine.

What we need is to stop spreading fake news. 

We trust our President, our Vice President and all public servants, especially our mayors and barangay officials to handle our health crisis with proper care, caution and circumspection. 

Lessons to be learned

The young generation can learn from this crisis. They can find creative ways to learn or unlearn habits which can make them more confident but unassuming. In the meantime, stay at home, practice good hygiene and talk to your parents. 

Employees can make use of this free time to learn new skills, improve performance and clear backlogs to focus on creating values. Work from home can be proven effective if employees will manage their time and discipline themselves to finish specific deliverables before the deadline. Help your employers keep you and the business through these trying times. 

Self-employed and professionals including freelancers may use this time to revisit their vision, mission and core values. What’s in it for big companies to work with them? Don’t operate like politicians who don’t keep their promises. Deliver results on schedule.

It’s time for the rich and big businesses to step up. After paying your income taxes, donate not just your extra money but share your expertise, resources and even people who can help us stop the virus. 

The President doesn’t need to carry the burden by himself. Both government and private sector must work together to fight COVID-19! 

We need people power, not emergency power. – Rappler.com

Mon Abrea is the Co-Chair of the Ease of Doing Business (EODB) Task Force on Paying Taxes. He was recognized as one of the 2017 Outstanding Young Persons of the World, 2016 Digital Mover, one of the 2015 The Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines (TOYM), and an Asia CEO Young Leader because of his tax advocacy. Currently, he is the Chairman and Senior Tax Advisor of the Asian Consulting Group (ACG) and founding Trustee of the Center for Strategic Reforms of the Philippines (CSR Philippines).

I believe that in times of crises such as today, it is imperative on the part of government to act swiftly and effectively. It is tempting to invoke emergency powers – and definitely the draft bill that has been widely circulated does that.

But our national experience tells us that emergency powers have frequently been based on a false premise: that the President needs them to address an emergency. It also makes a false promise: that their exercise will solve the problems created by that emergency. (READ: [EDITORIAL] Emergency measures? Show us the plan first)

According to the proposed bill, the President is authorized to, among others, temporarily issue rules and regulations regarding measures to prevent or minimize further transmission of COVID-19. He is also given authority to temporarily take over or direct the operation of privately-owned public utilities or businesses affected with public interest, public transportation, and telecommunication entities. (READ: Duterte's request to take over private business 'merely standby power')

Further, the bill has provisions on the conservation and regulation of the distribution and use of power, fuel, energy, and water. It also authorizes the President to temporarily reprogram, reallocate, or realign any appropriation in the FY 2020 General Appropriations Act (GAA) for whatever purpose the President “may deem necessary and desirable to fund measures to address and respond to the COVID-19 emergency.”

This is not the first time a president has asked for emergency powers.

In the early 1990s, I was asked by the Senate to review the exercise of emergency powers by President Cory Aquino, powers granted to her by Congress after the 1989 coup attempt devastated the economy. I have also studied the exercise by President Fidel V. Ramos of emergency powers to address the power crisis of the 1990s. I have also observed how Presidents Gloria rroyo and Joseph Estrada declared states of national emergency during their respective terms.

More recently, I've also observed President Duterte’s issuance of Proclamation 55 when Davao City was bombed, and his putting Mindanao under martial law for nearly two years. President Noynoy Aquino could have done the same in the Zamboanga siege and after Typhoon Yolanda, but he wisely did not take this option. And before all these presidents, we had, of course, President Marcos, who took upon himself to exercise legislative powers and do what he pleased as a dictator.

There are lessons to be learned from all of these experiences. The first is that the president really did not need such far reaching powers to solve whatever issue needed to be addressed. In fact, my study of the Cory Aquino exercise of emergency powers concluded with the finding that none of her issuances during that time exceeded the powers she already had as president. The same can be said of our most recent experiences of Duterte’s Proclamation 55 and martial law in Mindanao. 

As for Marcos, we know the outcome of giving him emergency powers, including the ability to enact legislation. That corrupted many of our institutions and left us a bankrupt country. 

The better approach is surgical, addressing specific problems. Giving the President broad powers is not as effective as giving attention to the particular concerns at hand. A law that is limited to addressing concrete issues and challenges is much better than a law that would grant the President extraordinary powers. The latter law is for the lazy and unfocused, for the incompetent, for those who are at a loss on what has to be done. A broad grant of emergency powers is like using a bazooka, when sniper guns with telescopic sights are more effective‬.

For example, a law that grants relief to businesses, workers, and the poor would be a good law. 

A law that would allow the government to mobilize private hospitals and transportation companies for the greater good would be useful at this time. However, a take-over, even if temporary, is not advisable as the government has no capacity to manage such operations.

A law requiring wide-spread testing and providing the budget for it would be essential. 

All of the above can be in one omnibus law responding to the COVID-19 emergency.

Whatever law Congress enacts, rights must be absolutely protected. 

Our right to information and freedom of the press is in peril under the draft law because of the provision on telecommunications. There are concerns that state-controlled telecommunications might become a source of indoctrination, misinformation, or underreporting, which are not baseless. 

The rights of business owners are also endangered by the takeover provisions. Similarly, the autonomy of local governments will be seriously diminished under the draft bill.

In this time of grave danger to our nation and our people, we need more than ever a free press, dynamic local governments, and a vibrant private sector. This bill, if it becomes a law, endangers such a press, will severely restrict the options of local governments, and destroy the private sector. It will have the opposite effect and undermine our efforts against COVID-19.

By providing criminal penalties for violating its issuances, the proposed emergency powers act also threatens individual rights.

Finally, Congress must not easily surrender its power to legislate, as well as its oversight and budget powers. ‬It can provide flexibility to the President and enact supplementary budgets.

In sum, emergency powers should only be a last resort, because they ultimately grant to the executive a wide array of powers that is heavily guarded against by the Bill of Rights and the provisions on the independence and separation of the 3 branches of government. – Rappler.com

The struggle to save lives and to keep society functioning amid the coronavirus pandemic means hard choices lie ahead for our national leadership.

These are 3 possible strategies going forward:

First, allow the course of the epidemic to run unbridled.

COVID-19 has a basic reproductive number (R) between 2 to 2.5, which means each infected individual will, in the course of his/her illness, infect two others on average (using the lower estimate) at the beginning of the epidemic. (READ: FAQs: Ano-ano ang alam natin tungkol sa 2019 novel coronavirus?)

The infection spreads exponentially through the susceptible population until most people have been infected. The outbreak is contained when about 60% of the population has contracted the disease and the threshold for herd immunity* is reached. At this point, perhaps 6 months from the start of the epidemic, the R will decline to close to zero for the lack of susceptible hosts.

About 60 million Filipinos will contract the disease before the epidemic fizzles out on its own. In this scenario, the health care system will buckle and fail to cope with the deluge of cases, and many of those infected will be left untreated or receive suboptimal care. Conservatively, around 600,000 Filipinos will perish from the coronavirus. 

*The concept of herd immunity against the coronavirus is that if the virus keeps spreading, eventually so many people will contract the disease and (if they survive) become immune, that the outbreak fizzles out as the pool of susceptible hosts dwindles. At this point, the virus will find it difficult to infect susceptible individuals as they are now cordoned off by a wall of immune individuals who have recovered from the disease.

Second, total suppression of the epidemic through a lockdown.

By bringing society to a stop, and shutting everyone in, the government is able to keep a lid on infections. But with the virus so widespread locally and with multiple foci around the world, the threat of subsequent waves of infections keeps society in an indefinite or repeated lockdown until a potent cocktail of anti-retrovirals or a vaccine becomes widely available. (READ: Luzon lockdown: What are the do's and don'ts?)

A vaccine, if one works at all, would not likely be available in 18 months' time. The economics of an indefinite or repeated lockdown would be catastrophic. The halt in production will lead to scarcity in food, medicines, and other necessities. Support systems will collapse.

Lockdowns carry heavy social and economic costs that will disproportionately be borne by the poor. Class struggle will come to fore as the masses, young, hungry, and unafraid of the virus, clamor for work against the wishes of the elite who wish to retreat behind their gated communities and their full cupboards. The government will struggle to maintain peace amid the ensuing unrest. Deprivation and violence will claim many lives. 

Today, many countries are taking a leaf out of the Chinese experience in implementing Wuhan-style lockdowns on their population, unprecedented in peace time, in an effort to control the spread of the virus. This is misguided.

First, China is led by an authoritarian one-party regime which can marshall the full strength of the state in imposing the lockdown, in securing the supply chain, and in maintaining social order. No government other than the most repressive ones can realistically keep their society in a prolonged lockdown.

Second, it’s wrong to be tempted to think that the ongoing lockdown of Wuhan has worked. True, Chinese cases have come down dramatically, with imported cases allegedly exceeding cases from domestic transmission. But with the relaxation of restrictions, it is not far-fetched to imagine the epidemic roaring back in China.

Experts believe there was one transfer event that introduced the coronavirus to the human population. This worldwide pandemic started with a patient zero who unwittingly caught the virus from a yet to be identified animal source. One person is enough to spread a contagion. This illustrates the impossible task of containment/suppression. Let one asymptomatic case go undetected, and the epidemic will again rear its ugly head.

Third, a compromise between two extremes – disease mitigation

The epidemic is allowed to run its course, but its intensity is tempered by measures to promote physical distancing and to protect the most vulnerable in a society allowed to grind on. Physical distancing is the act of putting some distance between you and the people you interact with, or foregoing some of these interactions altogether. This serves to decrease the probability of disease transmission among individuals and thereby slows down the spread of the disease. (READ: PH coronavirus cases in maps and charts: What the data says)

By "flattening" the curve, the number of Filipinos who will eventually become infected with the coronavirus will not change (about 60 million), but the rate at which the population is infected will be brought down to a more manageable pace. 

Compared to the situation where the epidemic was allowed to rampage unrestricted, more lives would be saved. This is because more infected individuals will be able to receive appropriate care extended by a health care system able to cope better, and the vulnerable like the elderly and the sick will be shielded from the worst of the epidemic.

Modeling by the Imperial College in London suggests, at least in developed economies, that imposing quarantines on infected people and their contacts, and protecting the elderly through physical distancing, cut the height of an epidemic’s peak by two-thirds and pushed it back for a month (a flattened curve). The model also suggests we can prevent half of all deaths.

Still, at best, we are looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths locally before the end of this worldwide pandemic with just these measures. Aggressive testing and meticulous contact tracing done by Singapore and South Korea, not modeled by the Imperial College in London, have helped their societies keep case loads down while not imposing the kind of sweeping restrictions against work done in Italy or China.

––

Truly, our national leadership is under tremendous pressure during this unprecedented crisis. They are presented with the agonizing choice of preserving the fabric of society at the cost of saving lives.

Soon, they won’t have a choice. The public has to wake up to the realization that this crisis will likely stretch on for months to years, and has to lose its expectation that the government can save everyone from the coronavirus. The virus is here to stay and many lives will be lost.

The present lockdown serves to distract the government from the real work – supporting frontliners while simultaneously building health care capacity, aggressively testing suspected cases, and doing exhaustive contact tracing. Quarantines must be strictly enforced on those infected and their contacts. We have to support and perhaps isolate the elderly and the sick until the outbreak is controlled or until the population develops herd immunity.

The public has to understand and cooperate with these measures. But life must be allowed to go on for the rest of us. – Rappler.com

About a month ago, we were advised by university officials that all student activities would be suspended. Moot court competitions, sports competitions, college weeks, and other activities for 30 or more participants had to be suspended.

Weeks after this suspension, we received news that there would be a week-long suspension of all classes in Metro Manila. Days after, the week-long suspension turned into a month-long suspension. Should coronavirus cases continue to increase, are we to expect a longer period of suspension? Probably a year long? Or an indefinite one?

Everything is a blur, but this is the unfortunate reality. (READ: [OPINION] Why I think the lockdown won't work)

Internet troubles

As a way to cope with the pandemic, schools have established e-learning communities. Different online platforms were resorted to just so classes could still push through. 

When we were told that classes would be conducted online, there was a mixture of reactions. I got both excited and worried. Excited because this is something new to me, and worried because I am not convinced our internet connection can properly handle class video calls.

I made a list of places I could go to in case our wifi at home stopped working. I planned on going to a 24-hour coffee shop located outside our municipality, or to my grandmother’s house which is one barangay away. I could also try to exceed the internet usage limit allowed by my phone service provider. 

This is a shared problem. Some of my friends and classmates are in a similar situation, and other students’ situations are even worse. Not all students have gadgets that easily connect to wifi. And with the Luzon-wide lockdown and all other preventive measures, how can they access alternative solutions like computer shops? How can students get access to their own education? (READ: Students urge suspension of online classes during coronavirus lockdown)

Yes, professors have to be commended for still wanting to impart knowledge to their students, but virtual classrooms just remind us of our pressing social inequality. By implementing online classes, some will not be able to participate.

However, our problems as students do not end there. 

Physical distance

Not everyone can afford to leave their apartments or dorms just to be with their families during this pandemic.

Some have opted not to leave for home because they're scared of being carriers of the virus and do not want to infect their loved ones. Others don't want to deal with the struggles of commuting. These reasons are both valid and worrisome.

The physical distance between these students and their families puts both parties in distress. 

For a month (or probably even longer), what can these students do? They can watch movies or series, read books, write articles, compose songs, play indoor sports, and other similar activities, if their resources permit. But it is inevitable for these students to feel alone and sad in the midst of this pandemic. Sadness can affect one's perspective and even one’s ability to think. (READ: 'It's like someone's hit pause on life': China turns to therapy amid virus lockdown)

It's difficult not to be with anyone, especially a loved one, in times like these. Because of the lockdown, these students might only get to see their loved ones via their gadgets – if they have one and if their internet connection permits. 

This long-distance set-up is new to some, and who knows how long it will last?

This pandemic has opened our eyes to the realities our people and our country (and other developing countries) face. Problems with our education, our technology, the widening gap between the rich and the poor – they have always been there. They are not new to us. This pandemic only reminds us of how unfortunate life is for most of us. 

While this social reality is clear, what comes ahead is not. Should this pandemic be addressed, how do we proceed? And even if it isn't addressed in the end, how, still, do we proceed? – Rappler.com

Maria Frances Faye R. Gutierrez is taking up her Juris Doctor degree at the University of Santo Tomas. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Sociology from the same university. 

It's just been a week since Duterte put the entire Luzon under enhanced community quarantine, and we can already see the repercussions of this executive decision. It’s crazy to think that some of us have the privilege of staying home, scrolling through social media or watching series we've missed. To think that people are dying out there and our frontliners are risking their lives; it makes sense to feel guilty about doing nothing.

But we are unknowingly doing something that helps us in this crisis. 

This is not a calamity where we can physically connect with people to help them. Indeed, it’s the other way around: you have to avoid people in order to hopefully save them from COVID-19.

While our frontliners are doing their jobs as best as they can, we do not have to go out there and risk our lives because we feel guilty about doing nothing. Isolating ourselves is the least that we can do.

But of course, it's not the only thing we can do.

Besides staying home and washing our hands, sharing factual information and calling out the incompetence of the government and the insenstivity of certain social media personalities are just some of the things we can do in order to help fight this pandemic. 

So how does ranting and calling out incompetence and insensitivity on social media actually contribute? The more we do so, the more we compel our government and other institutions to take immediate action. We must not settle for bare-minimum policies and orders, because this is a matter of life and death.

And what if we refuse to do these things?

It all starts with the question: Ano bang ambag mo?

As if gaslighting fellow citizens just because they choose to criticize the government will actually count as a contribution. As if cursing our workers who have no choice but to walk to their jobs will address our national health emergency. As if downplaying our situation and comparing this pandemic to our grandfathers' war enlistment will kill the virus. Being passive, insensitive, and ignorant has no positive contribution to this crisis. (READ: [OPINION] 'Pasaway' commuters amid lockdown? These people don't have a choice)

It's painful to see the adage “the Philippines doesn’t have the worst government; it has the worst citizens” circulating online. It’s hard to decipher how people can still turn a blind eye when years of corruption, incompetence, and selfishness is being brought to the fore by this pandemic.

This is more than just a health crisis – we are suffering from a lack of efficient public transportation, employment security and benefits, poverty alleviation assistance, and many more socio-economic needs. Our countrymen can follow orders, but they should also have safety nets to protect them.

This is the time to be on the right side of the dilemma, and fight the oppressive system that divides the Filipino people. – Rappler.com

Christian Ralf Dugan aims to be a photojournalist. He tells stories on the human condition and social structures. 

Recently, someone sent me a message calling me a Dutertard for showing no support (apparently referring to a Facebook post of mine) for his own ideological and political stand on militarization amid the coronavirus crisis.  

He asked me why I wasn't educating people and contributing to the free marketplace of ideas, being a person who knew more about politics. I replied that I do not force others to believe in my political opinion based on my personal political biases. I told him that this was not the best time to choose a side on the political spectrum. He got angered with my reply, and and we entered into a testy exchange. He even posted a Facebook status in reference to what we had discussed.

This is surely a sad time for us. It is even sadder to see people attacking each other in the name of politics, when we should be more united in these times of crisis. 

For the record, I am not a DDS. I admit, I strongly supported Duterte during the 2016 presidential elections out of utter disgust at the prevailing system, and the anger brought on by the incompetence of the Aquino administration. But things have changed since then. Today, I consider myself neutral in politics (with no political color to support), but still critical on matters affecting the interests of the general public.

I criticize this administration when there is something I do not agree with. No matter how much I hate people's ignorance, I do not post about it on social media. I do not call the opposite side bobo, ignorant, walang pakialam, etc. I instead express my sentiments through other more engaging means, such as talking about issues during dinner or snacks with my family, trying to explain to them the importance of dissent in issues that are of greatest immediacy, and listening to both sides of the fence and giving my balanced view on the topic at work.

It is not proper in these times of crisis to fight over politics. It is best to educate and spread awareness without subscribing to the monopolistic idea that your views are way better than others', and without attacking a person for not agreeing with your opinion.

It was also during the testy exchange I mentioned earlier that I explained to this person the importance of the armed forces during domestic crises. I ended up getting ad hominem attacks from him for being in favor of militarization.  

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The COVID-19 crisis is such a serious matter that locking down entire cities has been imposed by many countries, including first world countries such as Italy and Spain.

Do we need the military to support the enforcement of our lockdown? Based on my personal observation (now that the community quarantine is enhanced), I would say yes. Because the combined total number of our law enforcers in Luzon is not enough to guard the ingress and egress points of our cities and provinces, and to accommodate the government's response to every given scenario.  

Since the military has no police power, will they be given some powers beyond their normal legal functions? The answer is in the negative. The presence of the military is only limited to assisting the police in enforcing the lockdown.

Does the presence of the military equate to martial law? Duterte already made himself clear that it is not. 

I understand some people who are against this government's actions, but given the logistics, and the enforcement and mobility problems we are currently facing, it is appropriate (at this point in time) that we seek military assistance in dealing with these problems. 

Take a look at what happened during the Batangas crisis. Were it not for the government's debilitated response in the wake of the Taal Volcano eruption, we could have saved two souls. The two recorded casualties in Taal were due to the poor implementation of the forced evacuation by local authorities. They returned to the island despite government warnings. 

In this case though, we are talking about the spreading of the virus through active transmission channels, and that the stubbornness of one person may lead to the increase in virus infections. The government anticipates that people will not adhere to the rules, especially in these times when paranoia, chaos, and fear are rampart. It is a parallel measure decided upon by necessity. So it is fair to say that the government is correct in this decision on the military.

Furthermore, it is not only the Philippines that is using the military to contain the virus. The US, UK, and Canada have enhanced military participation in their respective contingencies. And these are developed countries with more effective law enforcement mechanisms! 

We should be thankful for the military men and women choosing to serve us instead of being with their family in these tough times. They will be more exposed to the virus on the frontlines (together with our heath worker heroes), but still they decided to heed the call of public service. Casting doubts on their loyalty to the country is utterly unreasonable at this time. 

Also, abuse by the military, which is feared by many, is not likely since most of the population are inside the comfort of their homes. And if there would be any, the state would be more than willing to prosecute these errant military men. (READ: LOOK: In Parañaque, curfew violators sit under the sun as punishment)

We are all victims of this crisis. I'd spent 4 hours commuting home one night – two hours before I was able to take the bus, and another two hours due to the traffic gridlock in Balintawak Interchange. I also walked whole kilometers just to get to my destination because of the lack of transportation. With the completely paralyzed transportation system, I'm afraid I will have to endure the same experience again in the next few days. (READ: WATCH: Traffic builds up on first morning of Metro Manila lockdown)

I earnestly pray to God that He send help, especially to the mostly affected, and for the government to provide the best solutions for the day-to-day problems arising from this lockdown. All countries are struggling to fight this disease. The Philippines is no exemption. The government should learn from this experience, and I think it is doing its best to combat the world’s number one enemy today.  

Freedom of expression is at the top of the hierarchy of rights. It is well-protected and exercised in many civilized places. It is just so powerful that it can shape public opinion overnight, or worse, overthrow a government quick as a wink. But with every right are always corresponding limitations and repercussions. As the legal adage goes, "Your rights end where the rights of others begin".  

There is always time for politics. But respect is what we need in these trying moments. Exercise your right to freedom of expression in such a way that it makes the discussion healthier and more meaningful. Throwing insults to advance political ideas does not, in any way, help. We can still consistently criticize this government until actions are being done. It is part of our political right to participate in the affairs of the government, as enshrined in many legal texts and protected by no less than the Constitution. But we must always be responsible citizens especially today, when unity is needed more than ever. – Rappler.com 

Leandro C. Tulod is a student from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and a former campus journalist.

On March 15, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) announced that it would suspend a number of its social welfare programs to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This has cut off a critical source of support for the millions of people receiving cash transfers from the DSWD, who are now confined to their homes under the Luzon-wide quarantine.

Instead of halting these programs amid the growing health crisis, DSWD should be expanding its social safety nets by distributing cash transfers (with no strings attached) to poor and newly-vulnerable populations. More than 30 other countries, including Australia, Hong Kong, and Thailand, have rolled out similar cash transfers, also known as basic income programs, to ease the economic impacts of COVID-19. Others like the US and India are considering similar policies. These should be rolled out in the Philippines immediately; proposals are already being discussed in the House of Representatives, and should move forward as quickly as possible.

On March 16, IDinsight, a data analytics, advisory, and research organization shared a list of evidence-based policy recommendations for the Department of Health and other government agencies to consider as part of their response efforts. Drawing on effective response efforts from similar crises around the world, one of our key recommendations was to distribute no-strings-attached payments – otherwise known as “unconditional cash transfers” – to help the poorest people cope and keep money flowing through the economy.

Why give cash?

Cash transfers with no strings attached have been proven to help vulnerable families continue to purchase food and supplies during crises. Already we are seeing people unable to work in the Philippines because of the lockdown. Cash transfers will allow these families, already on the brink of survival, to avoid excruciating choices between food, health care, and shelter. In other crises they have increased the amount of food a family consumes, while also giving them the flexibility to respond to other pressing financial needs. 

Cash transfers also make economic sense: they can help support the economy at a valuable time, because they allow recipients to buy groceries and supplies from small businesses in their communities.

Why cash, and not food? 

Food distribution was helpful to deal with the immediate shock, but ongoing food and other in-kind donations are not particularly cost-effective. They would require ongoing food preparation and in-person drop-offs, which could create opportunities for COVID-19 transmission. They also lead to lower prices, which hurt small business owners when they need more help than ever. In contrast, cash transfers are cost effective and also have the effect of creating demand that local businesses can respond to (while only minimally increasing prices). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a role for direct food distribution, but cash is a better solution to providing ongoing support to these families. 

Some argue against cash, suspecting that people will spend it on alcohol or tobacco or other non-necessities, but numerous studies from around the world have found that is not the case. 

To whom and how?

With limited resources and movement restrictions, the government will need to reach households that need the cash now to survive. But how do you identify and find these people? To launch these payments quickly for those in Luzon, DSWD should immediately distribute cash through the 4Ps infrastructure, which has already identified poor families. There is a precedent for this: DSWD did the same to help those affected by Typhoon Haiyan in 2013-2014, with top-ups from UNICEF and the World Food Program. Nearly 90% of these beneficiaries received their payments through cash cards, meaning disbursement will not require human contact or increase risk of coronavirus transmission. 

Beyond current 4Ps beneficiaries, DSWD should reach other vulnerable families, using the Listahanan. They can expand the scope to recipients of the Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) program. There might be many more affected, such as workers in the informal sector who have lost their source of livelihood. For these, DSWD should look for relatively safe ways to register households. We know this is risky; if they would have to register in person, this puts them at risk of spreading or contracting COVID-19. But if people are starving, COVID-19 is likely not their biggest fear. 

As much as possible, these transfers should be done digitally, but there are a few ways that DSWD can mitigate the risk of spreading the virus while still distributing cash. First, they can invite eligible households by phone (rather than in person), and give strict instructions for staggered arrival at DSWD offices to minimize crowding. Second, they can use each household’s visit to disburse a cash payment and to simultaneously enroll the head of household in a digital payment platform whenever possible. This could be a bank account, or e-wallets like GCash and PayMaya. Third, they can enforce strict physical distancing protocols for those visiting offices to register for digital payments. Finally, DSWD staff should be given personal protective equipment and paid sick leave in case they show signs of COVID-19 symptoms. 

While the execution will be challenging, the goal is simple and essential: get cash into the hands of those who need it most as quickly as possible. Let’s make sure people most in need can keep themselves and their families alive. – Rappler.com

Meg Battle and Aya Silva lead IDinsight's work in Southeast Asia from Manila. IDinsight is a research organization that helps social impact programs generate and use data and evidence to inform decision-making. 

Editor's note: A longer version of this article was first published on Medium on March 10, 2020. It is being reposted with the author's permission. Watch and read the transcript of his interview with Rappler's Maria Ressa. 

With everything that’s happening about the Coronavirus, it might be very hard to make a decision of what to do today. Should you wait for more information? Do something today? What?

When you’re done reading the article, this is what you’ll take away:

The coronavirus is coming to you.
It’s coming at an exponential speed: gradually, and then suddenly.
It’s a matter of days. Maybe a week or two.
When it does, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed.
Your fellow citizens will be treated in the hallways.
Exhausted healthcare workers will break down. Some will die.
They will have to decide which patient gets the oxygen and which one dies.
The only way to prevent this is social distancing today. Not tomorrow. Today.
That means keeping as many people home as possible, starting now.

As a politician, community leader or business leader, you have the power and the responsibility to prevent this.

You might have fears today: What if I overreact? Will people laugh at me? Will they be angry at me? Will I look stupid? Won’t it be better to wait for others to take steps first? Will I hurt the economy too much?

But in 2–4 weeks, when the entire world is in lockdown, when the few precious days of social distancing you will have enabled will have saved lives, people won’t criticize you anymore: They will thank you for making the right decision.

Ok, let’s do this.

Country growth

The total number of cases grew exponentially until China contained it. But then, it leaked outside, and now it’s a pandemic that nobody can stop. 

As March 10, this is mostly due to Italy, Iran and South Korea:

There are so many cases in South Korea, Italy, and Iran that it’s hard to see the rest of the countries, but let’s zoom in on that corner at the bottom right.

There are dozens of countries with exponential growth rates. As of today, most of them are Western. 

If you keep up with that type of growth rate for just a week, this is what you get:

If you want to understand what will happen, or how to prevent it, you need to look at the cases that have already gone through this: China, Eastern countries with SARS experience, and Italy.

China

Source: Tomas Pueyo analysis over chart from the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on raw case data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

This is one of the most important charts.

It shows in orange bars the daily official number of cases in Hubei province: How many people were diagnosed that day.

The gray bars show the true daily coronavirus cases. The Chinese CDC found these by asking patients during the diagnostic when their symptoms started.

Crucially, these true cases weren’t known at the time. We can only figure them out looking backwards: The authorities don’t know that somebody just started having symptoms. They know when somebody goes to the doctor and gets diagnosed.

What this means is that the orange bars show you what authorities knew, and the gray ones what was really happening.

On January 21st, the number of new diagnosed cases (orange) is exploding: there are around 100 new cases. In reality, there were 1,500 new cases that day, growing exponentially. But the authorities didn’t know that. What they knew was that suddenly there were 100 new cases of this new illness.

Two days later, authorities shut down Wuhan. At that point, the number of diagnosed daily new cases was ~400. Note that number: they made a decision to close the city with just 400 new cases in a day. In reality, there were 2,500 new cases that day, but they didn’t know that.

The day after, another 15 cities in Hubei shut down.

Up until January 23rd, when Wuhan closes, you can look at the gray graph: it’s growing exponentially. True cases were exploding. As soon as Wuhan shuts down, cases slow down. On January 24th, when another 15 cities shut down, the number of true cases (again, gray) grinds to a halt. Two days later, the maximum number of true cases was reached, and it has gone down ever since.

Note that the orange (official) cases were still growing exponentially: For 12 more days, it looked like this thing was still exploding. But it wasn’t. It’s just that the cases were getting stronger symptoms and going to the doctor more, and the system to identify them was stronger.

This concept of official and true cases is important. Let’s keep it in mind for later.

The rest of regions in China were well coordinated by the central government, so they took immediate and drastic measures. This is the result:

Every flat line is a Chinese region with coronavirus cases. Each one had the potential to become exponential, but thanks to the measures happening just at the end of January, all of them stopped the virus before it could spread.

Meanwhile, South Korea, Italy, and Iran had a full month to learn, but didn’t. They started the same exponential growth of Hubei and passed every other Chinese region before the end of February.

Eastern countries

South Korea cases have exploded, but have you wondered why Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, or Hong Kong haven’t?

Taiwan didn’t even make it to this graph because it didn’t have the 50 cases threshold that I used. 

All of them were hit by SARS in 2003, and all of them learned from it. They learned how viral and lethal it could be, so they knew to take it seriously. That’s why all of their graphs, despite starting to grow much earlier, still don’t look like exponentials.

So far, we have stories of coronavirus exploding, governments realizing the threat, and containing them. For the rest of the countries, however, it’s a completely different story.

Before I jump to them, a note about South Korea: The country is probably an outlier. The coronavirus was contained for the first 30 cases. Patient 31 was a super-spreader who passed it to thousands of other people. Because the virus spreads before people show symptoms, by the time the authorities realized the issue, the virus was out there. They’re now paying the consequences of that one instance. Their containment efforts show, however, that as of March 10, Italy has already passed it in numbers of cases, and Iran will soon pass it.

Washington State

You’ve already seen the growth in Western countries, and how bad forecasts of just one week look like. Now imagine that containment doesn’t happen like in Wuhan or in other Eastern countries, and you get a colossal epidemic.

Let’s look at a few cases, such as Washington state, the San Francisco Bay Area, Paris, and Madrid.

Washington state is the US’s Wuhan.The number of cases there is growing exponentially. It’s at 140, as of writing.

But something interesting happened early on. The death rate was through the roof. At some point, the state had 3 cases and one death.

We know from other places that the death rate of the coronavirus is anything between 0.5% and 5% (more on that later). How could the death rate be 33%?

It turned out that the virus had been spreading undetected for weeks. It’s not like there were only 3 cases. It’s that authorities only knew about 3, and one of them was dead because the more serious the condition, the more likely somebody is to be tested.

This is a bit like the orange and gray bars in China: Here they only knew about the orange bars (official cases) and they looked good: just 3. But in reality, there were hundreds, maybe thousands of true cases.

This is an issue: You only know the official cases, not the true ones. But you need to know the true ones. How can you estimate the true ones? It turns out, there’s a couple of ways. And I have a model for both, so you can play with the numbers too.

First, through deaths. If you have deaths in your region, you can use that to guess the number of true current cases. We know approximately how long it takes for that person to go from catching the virus to dying on average (17.3 days). That means the person who died on 2/29 in Washington state probably got infected around 2/12.

Then, you know the mortality rate. For this scenario, I’m using 1% (we’ll discuss later the details). That means that, around 2/12, there were already around ~100 cases in the area (of which only one ended up in death 17.3 days later).

Now, use the average doubling time for the coronavirus (time it takes to double cases, on average). It’s 6.2. That means that, in the 17 days it took this person to die, the cases had to multiply by ~8 (=2^(17/6)). That means that, if you are not diagnosing all cases, one death today means 800 true cases today.

Washington state has 22 deaths, as of March 10. With that quick calculation, you get ~16,000 true coronavirus cases. As many as the official cases in Italy and Iran combined, for the same period. 

If we look into the detail, we realize that 19 of these deaths were from one cluster, which might not have spread the virus widely. So if we consider those 19 deaths as one, the total deaths in the state is 4. Updating the model with that number, we still get ~3,000 cases today.

This approach from Trevor Bedford looks at the viruses themselves and their mutations to assess the current case count.

An update about what we're able to infer about the Washington State #COVID19 outbreak from screening and viral sequencing by @UWVirology and @seattleflustudy. 1/12

— Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 10, 2020

The conclusion is that there are likely ~1,100 cases in Washington state as of writing.

None of these approaches are perfect, but they all point to the same message: We don’t know the number of true cases, but it’s much higher than the official one. It’s not in the hundreds. It’s in the thousands, maybe more.

San Francisco Bay Area

Until 3/8, the Bay Area didn’t have any death. That made it hard to know how many true cases there were. Officially, there were 86 cases. But the US is vastly undertesting because it doesn’t have enough kits. The country decided to create their own test kit, which turned out not to work.

These were the number of tests carried out in different countries by March 3rd:

 Sources for each number here

Turkey, with no cases of coronavirus, had 10 times the testing per inhabitant than the US. The situation is not much better as of writing, with ~8,000 tests performed in the US, which means ~4,000 people have been tested.

Here, you can just use a share of official cases to true cases. How to decide which one? For the Bay Area, they were testing everybody who had traveled or was in contact with a traveler, which means that they knew most of the travel-related cases, but none of the community spread cases. By having a sense of community spread vs. travel spread, you can know how many true cases there are.

I looked at that ratio for South Korea, which has great data. By the time they had 86 cases, the % of them from community spread was 86% (86 and 86% are a coincidence).

With that number, you can calculate the number of true cases. If the Bay Area has 86 cases today, it is likely that the true number is ~600.

France and Paris

France claims 1,400 cases and 30 deaths as of writing. Using the two methods above, you can have a range of cases: between 24,000 and 140,000.

Let me repeat that: the number of true cases in France is likely to be between one and two orders or magnitude higher than it is officially reported.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the Wuhan graph again.

Source: Tomas Pueyo analysis over chart and data from the Journal of the American Medical Association

If you stack up the orange bars until 1/22, you get 444 cases. Now add up all the gray bars. They add up to ~12,000 cases. So when Wuhan thought it had 444 cases, it had 27 times more. If France thinks it has 1,400 cases, it might well have tens of thousands.

The same math applies to Paris. With ~30 cases inside the city, the true number of cases is likely to be in the hundreds, maybe thousands. With 300 cases in the Ile-de-France region, the total cases in the region might already exceed tens of thousands.

Spain and Madrid

Spain has very similar numbers as France (1,200 cases vs. 1,400, and both have 30 deaths). That means the same rules are valid: Spain has probably upwards of 20k true cases already.

In the Comunidad de Madrid region, with 600 official cases and 17 deaths, the true number of cases is likely between 10,000 and 60,000.

If you read these data and tell yourself: “Impossible, this can’t be true,” just think this: With this number of cases, Wuhan was already in lockdown.

And if you’re telling yourself: “Well, Hubei is just one region,” let me remind you that it has nearly 60 million people, bigger than Spain and about the size of France. (To be concluded) – Rappler.com

*Tomas Pueyo is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and behavioral psychologist who specializes in exponential growth. He wrote the Medium post, "Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now," which was read by tens of millions of people around the world. 

The COVID-19 pandemic is the second major crisis of globalization in a decade. The first was the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, from which the global economy took years to reach a semblance of recovery. We did not learn our lessons from the first, and this is perhaps why the impact of the second has been even more massive.

Trillions of dollars of paper wealth went up in smoke during the 2008 crisis, but few cried for the out-of-control financial players who had triggered the crisis. More serious were the impacts on the real economy. Tens of millions of people lost their jobs, with 25 million in China alone in the second half of 2008. Air cargo plunged 20% in one year. Global supply chains, many of whose links were in China, were severely disrupted. The Economist lamented that the “integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front,” adding that “some critics of capitalism seem happy about it – like Walden Bello, a Philippine economist, who can perhaps claim to have coined the word [deglobalization] with his book, Deglobalization, Ideas for a New World Economy.”

Challenging globalization

What was this “deglobalization” The Economist was so wary about?  It was, among other things, about making the domestic market again the center of gravity of the economy rather than the global market, and to do this, it not only proposed using tariffs and quotas to preserve local industry and agriculture from being overrun by the products of transnational corporations, but also putting into effect an activist trade policy to build up the capacity to support the national economy in a sustainable way.  

But it was not simply specific policy proposals that the partisans of globalization feared, but its fundamental perspective, which questioned the very basis of social relations under capitalism.  Deglobalization, we wrote, “is, at its core, an ethical perspective. It prioritizes values above interests, cooperation above competition, and community above ‘efficiency.’” This perspective translates into “effective economics, which strengthens social solidarity by subordinating the operations of the market to the values of equity, justice, and community…To use the language of the great Hungarian thinker Karl Polanyi, deglobalization is about ‘reembedding’ the economy and the marker in society, instead of having society driven by the economy and the market.”

Globalization recovers

Deglobalization was not the only alternative way of organizing economic life that emerged during this period of crisis. But contrary to the Economist’s fears, and to our dismay, all were brushed aside and, after the depths of the recession in 2009, there was a return to business as usual. Though the world entered what orthodox economists called a phase of “secular stagnation” or low growth with continuing high unemployment, export-oriented production via global supply chains and world trade resumed their forward march.  

In China, most of the $585 billion stimulus earmarked for social spending by the government amid the crisis was hijacked by the dominant export lobby, which channeled the funds to the enterprises and local governments of the eastern and southeastern coasts of the country that had become the center of a global “Sino-centric” division of labor in manufacturing industries. (READ: China: An imperial power in the image of the West?)

Connectivity: The new catch phrase

Carbon emissions had decelerated in the depths of the crisis, but they now resumed their upward trend. Air cargo traffic rebounded and air travel grew even more spectacularly. After declining by 1.2% in 2009, air travel grew annually by an average of 6.5% between 2010 and 2019. 

“Connectivity” in transport, particularly air transport, was supposed to be key to successful globalization. As the director general of the powerful International Air Transport Association put it, “Dampening demand for air connectivity risks high quality jobs, and economic activity dependent on global mobility…Governments must understand that globalization has made our world more socially and economically prosperous. Inhibiting globalization with protectionism will see opportunities lost.”

Aside from the desire to speed up the flow of commodities through global supply chains, the demand for air connectivity was fueled by the desire of the global airline industry to cash in on the explosion of outbound Chinese tourism.

In 2018, the Chinese made 149 million overseas trips, a figure that exceeded those of other countries, including the United States. Not only the airlines but large parts of the service sector of many countries became dependent on the massive inflow of Chinese tourists, who spent over $130 billion overseas in 2018. In Thailand, the country most visited by Chinese tourists, over 11 million of whom came in 2019, tourism accounted for a whopping 11% of GDP. 

The extreme right hijacks deglobalization

In the global North, center right and center left governments focused on saving financial institutions at the expense of people, with much of Europe, especially in the South, marked by economies in recession and high unemployment, and with the United States still having more people unemployed by 2015 than at the beginning of the financial crisis.

While the established elites remained unquestioning in their adherence to globalization, radical right-wing personalities and parties saw a golden opportunity in the bitterness of workers at continuing unemployment, and their widespread concern that they were losing their jobs as corporations continued to move their operations to China or consigned them to Chinese subcontractors – like Apple did with Foxxcon, which was notorious for its exploitative labor practices.  

Formerly identified with neoliberal economic proposals, many extreme right-wing parties opportunistically hijacked parts of the anti-globalization critique that had been espoused by the non-establishment left, like calls for protection of workers’ livelihoods and bringing back industries, but giving them a racist or anti-migrant twist.   

Workers’ defection from the Democratic Party or their sitting out the 2016 presidential elections in key mid-western states resulted in Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections in 2016. And in office, Trump delivered on his promise to labor that he would dump President Obama’s pet project, the borderless Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Even more radical was his administration’s labeling China an “economic aggressor” and rooting the US’s predicament not in failed neoliberal policies but in a conspiracy allegedly fomented by China, transnational corporations, and out-of-touch establishment elites. Death by China screamed the title of the influential book of Trump’s key economic adviser, Peter Navarro.

China champions globalization and connectivity

China, meanwhile, took advantage of the US’s retreat into economic nationalism by promoting itself as the new champion of globalization. At Davos, in January 2017, President Xi Jin Ping said that “the global economy is the big ocean you cannot escape from” in which China had “learned to swim.” He called on world political and corporate leaders to “adapt to and guide globalization, cushion its negative impacts, and deliver its benefits to all countries and all nations.”

More than this, Xi offered to back up his words with a trillion dollar mega-program: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that evoked the fabled “silk routes” through which trade between China and Europe was carried out in early modern times. This ambitious program consisting of dam-building, road and rail construction, setting up coal plants, and extractive ventures was geared to promote what Beijing called “global connectivity.” Originally meant to “link” Asia to Europe, BRI was opened up to every country on earth in 2015, so that there was no longer one belt and one road but multiple routes, including a “polar silk route.” (READ: Capitalism with Chinese characteristics)

While the pro-globalization claque clapped, others were more skeptical. Some saw the whole thing as simply a way to export the surplus capacity problem dogging Chinese heavy industry by lassoing countries with loans into massive capital intensive projects. Focus on the Global South described it as “an anachronistic transference to the 21st century of the technocratic capitalist, state socialist, and developmentalist mindset that produced the Hoover Dam in the US, the massive construction projects in Stalin’s Soviet Union, the Three Gorges Dam in China, the Narmada Dam in India, and the Nam Theun 2 Dam in Laos.  These are all testaments to what Arundhati Roy has called modernity’s ‘disease of gigantism.'”  

In 2019, despite a worsening trade war between China and the United States, globalization not only seemed to have recovered from the financial crisis 10 years earlier but was having fresh wind in its sails. Despite rising production costs, China was chugging along, the undisputed workshop of the world owing to greater connectivity with the rest of the world. More and more countries were buying into BRI’s promise of connectivity. Air travel was booming, with corporate executives, government officials, and NGO top brass brought closer together by connectivity, which also brought exponentially increasing Chinese tourists to all parts of the world, making local destinations happy and asking for more.

Corona connectivity

Then the virus. Air connectivity becomes the medium for the transmission of a virus that seems to move at internet speed. The global economy grinds to a halt not only because of lockdowns to stop the virus but also because China’s production lines stop, exposing the folly of having supply chains based on the principle of locating them where the unit costs of production are lowest, which is the raison d’etre of globalization. The costs of subcontracting so much production to China are painfully revealed in the lack of essential medical equipment like COVID-19 test kits, syringes, even simple face masks in the United States and Europe, not to say the rest of pandemic-stricken world.

Silver lining?

Yet, if there is any silver lining to this tragedy, it is perhaps that it has happened today rather than later, when the BRI might well have even more fatal consequences. As Sonia Shah recently pointed out in The Nation, viruses leaping from their animal hosts, to whom they bring no harm, to humans, to whom they do, has become increasingly frequent because humans are invading the habitats of wildlife by cutting down forests. 60% of microbial pathogens that have emerged over the last few decades come from animals, and two thirds of these come from wildlife.

The World Wildlife Federation points out that the BRI will negatively impact on 1,700 biodiversity hotspots and about 265 species that are already at risk. Among the animals that face possible extinction or habitat destabilization from BRI are the rare Tanapuli orangutan, Sumatra tiger, Sunda pangolin, white winged flying fox, slender-tailed cloud rat, rare civet cats, Philippine eagle, and Philippine deer. Many of these animals serve as hosts to species-leaping viruses like the novel coronavirus. 

Blowback

What is often overlooked is the “revenge” of wildlife to the disruption of their living quarters. Viruses leaping from their hosts to humans is one of the forms of blowback. There are others. According to one study published in Current Biology, BRI’s network of roads, railways, and pipelines could introduce more than 800 alien invasive species – including 98 amphibians, 177 reptiles, 391 birds, and 150 mammals – into several countries along its many routes and developments, destabilizing their ecosystems. As shown innumerable times, nature has a way of punishing those that disrupt living arrangements that have existed for aeons, and the irony is that humans, through processes like globalization and connectivity, help facilitate this blowback. (READ: China's economy: Powerful, yes, but vulnerable)

Should it continue, the blowback from BRI could well be more severe than COVID-19.

The 2008 financial crisis failed to put an end to globalization. Instead, a new phase of globalization, “connectivity,” emerged, with China providing the political leadership and economic clout. COVID-19 has killed connectivity, and globalization, hopefully for good. – Rappler.com

Walden Bello is the author of Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy (London: Zed, 2000) and many other books. He is also the Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton and senior analyst at the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South.