Transparency throughout the COVID-19 Outbreak

Opinion analysis by Michael Sadek, Staff Writer

May 7th, 2020

In a world that readily advocates transparency and accountability, it’s quite impressive how promptly these two tenets break down during health crises.

In the mid-20th century, the infamous Asbestos cover-up saw governments conceal the health risks associated with asbestos exposure from miners and factory workers. Accordingly, countless cases of lung cancer and mesothelioma reported in laborers were hailed a mere ‘coincidence.’ 

More recently, China reported 44 cases of SARS virus in Beijing during the 2002-2003 outbreak. It was only a matter of time before reports revealed that Chinese politicians were veiling patients from WHO officials; the actual number of cases turned out to be more than 300. 

And today, the COVID-19 pandemic is no different. 

By the time Chinese authorities had cautioned the population of an impending pandemic on January 20th, more than 3000 people had been infected with the virus. Unsurprisingly, the government took no blame for this delayed warning, with the National Health Commission (NHC) asserting it had publicized information in an “open, transparent, responsible, and timely manner.”

Could the delay have been a sincere mistake? A product of the rigidity and bureaucracy so deeply entrenched in the structure of the Beijing regime? This could have made for an adequate justification, perhaps, were it not for the evidence that exposed a scheme to keep the public in the dark.

Earlier in December, prominent Chinese ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, in an online chatroom, notified his colleagues about an uncontrollable virus that triggered SARS-like symptoms. This message was intended as a warning for the other physicians, an alert that Wenliang hoped would “remind [his] university classmates to be careful,” as he informed CNN. Just days later, however, the man was called upon by Chinese authorities to be chastised for spreading “false rumors” and stirring public fears: a direct threat to stability on the national scale. 

Likewise, internal reports show that Ma Xiaowei, head of the NHC, had deliberated the transmission rate of the virus with pioneers in the health field 6 days before the government’s warning. Framing a detailed timeline, the government was effectively made aware of the swiftness with which COVID-19 could spread. Hence, the regime concealed information that could have been particularly useful in the early stages of the virus. 

But why would the Chinese government bury data that it knew had the potential to save millions of lives?

Reputation. 

Simply put, the regime had exhibited recklessness in the initial management strategy of the virus, as it “carried on with large-scale political meetings and holiday festivities despite mounting contagion risks.”  If truth be, China’s fear of international criticism paved the way for opaqueness and concealment at the governmental level, whereby key information was withheld in order to cover up negligence and maladministration. 

And it isn’t only China that has breached transparency touchstones.

Human Rights Watch, in a multidimensional report assessing Indonesia’s response to COVID-19, reported inadequate access to information regarding the outbreak. In fact, there existed a vast discrepancy between statistics provided by the Indonesian National Ministry of Health and those made public by provincial administrations, a reality that has prevented the Indonesian populace from truly understanding the extent of the coronavirus’ spread.

Comparably to China, the lack of transparency may viably be justified by the need to obscure mistakes, for it is safe to say that the Indonesian government radically underestimated the virus during its early stages. After a Harvard University report advised the government to “rapidly strengthen” its monitoring efforts, Indonesian Health minister preferred to focus on “praying” as a means to counter the disease. Until today, COVID-19 testing in Indonesia remains very limited, with certain segments of the population disenfranchised and unable to access healthcare facilities. Inhabitants of both rural and suburban areas, as per national media outlets, are far from understanding the true weight of the crisis. 

But nothing remains hidden forever, right?

Indeed, censorship becomes quite exciting when we factor in whistleblowers: those brave enough to bring to light what has purposely been put in the dark. And, of course, bear the consequences. 

While their revelations may not have been as dramatic or groundbreaking as Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks, there are many who have paid the price of upholding transparency in favor of the public interest during this pandemic. 

Seattle: ER doctor Ming Lin is laid off for reporting “inadequate protective equipment and testing” in an interview with a local newspaper.

China: Human Rights attorney Chen Quishi disappears after he posted a video showing coronavirus patients dying outside a medical facility in Wuhan.

India: Physician Shinu Syamalan is fired for raising concern about a traveling patient from Qatar who did not want to get tested for COVID. 

More than just a matter of ‘snitching’, this whistleblowing culture has paved an indirect route towards embracing transparency. These brave individuals more or less ‘take one for the team’ so as to protect the general population, fortifying the fundamental right to know. Indeed, they have enabled the public to better recognize the menaces of the virus and gain insight into self-preservation methods, far from an atmosphere of false hope.

So, will we need those whistleblowers forever? 

Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality is not a light task, especially when the muckiness and murkiness of politics come into play. It is not something that can be achieved by enforcing adequate legislation, for it entails a sense of moral duty towards the general populace.  

And when there are morals involved, things tend to get quite complicated. Especially when there’s a virus ravaging the planet, and a single finding can destabilize the world in an instant.

Nonetheless, this cannot be an excuse for concealing information. Fostering trust between a government and its citizens must be prioritized, a prerequisite for the combatting of any health crisis. As a matter of fact, this relationship stems from the understanding that reputation is short term, while trust is forever arguably. A lie, in the long run, can be more perilous than any temporary disruption of stability. 

“Epidemics always have become political,” said Jonathan Mayer, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the University of Washington. “Governments seem opposed to admitting that things were handled imperfectly, yet it is only by identifying the imperfections … that things can be addressed to do a better job next time.”