LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2020 | Volume
: 64 | Issue : 6 | Page : 243--244
Indian response to COVID-19: Expertise and transparency
Professor and Head, Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition Unit, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition Unit, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
|How to cite this article:|
Saraya A. Indian response to COVID-19: Expertise and transparency.Indian J Public Health 2020;64:243-244
|How to cite this URL:|
Saraya A. Indian response to COVID-19: Expertise and transparency. Indian J Public Health [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 20 ];64:243-244
Available from: https://www.ijph.in/text.asp?2020/64/6/243/285622
Formulating and adopting policy responses ultimately is the responsibility of government leaders as they make strategic decisions, support coordination, and collaboration and provide public accounts of events. However, scientific and technical experts are central in policy responses to uncertain problems. For example, societies are relying on scientific and technical experts to forecast the COVID-19 pandemic's trajectory, to accelerate the development of vaccines, to navigate the complex health system-related decisions, and to explain the situation to a public. In addition, scientific and technical information is being used to inform and legitimize governments' choices as shown by the joint press conferences in the United States of America by President Trump and Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Toward the end of the extension of the nationwide lockdown (March 25–April 14; April 14–May 3; and 4 May–onward), India started reporting a surge in COVID-19 infections and deaths (more than two thousand new COVID-19 infections and about a hundred deaths every day from May 2 onward). This was contrary to the standard government position till then. This surge has led to contradictory responses by health leaders of the union government; thus, on May 4, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, stated that India's epidemic curve was “relatively flat” and that depending on how the public responds to the virus, the peak “may never come,” while the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, stated in an interview to a news channel that the number of novel coronavirus cases in India is likely to peak in next 1–2 months.
These confusing signals have likely cropped up because the public faces of the government for policy development and communication on this health issue are clinicians and bureaucrats (pediatrician, pulmonologist, and Indian Administrative Service officials), rather than epidemiologists and public health experts (e.g., the lead epidemiologist at Indian Council of Medical Research [ICMR] stopped appearing for press briefings of the government from April 21), and other scientists like virologists. It is reported in newspapers, though denied by the ICMR (#COVID2019india #IndiaFightsCorona) that the central government is not consulting the ICMR high-level technical committee of Public Health Experts for COVID-19 in framing its pandemic response. It would be odd if epidemiologists, no matter how scholarly, were to lead policy on clinical medicine issues.
Some public health experts have expressed concern about the inadequate planning and coordination of the COVID-19 response (e.g., inordinate reliance on lockdowns, low emphasis on testing, and contact tracing) and have suggested mechanisms for better planning and coordination. A joint statement by the Indian Public Health Association and the Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine representing the very wide community of public health academics, practitioners, and researchers in India has urged the government to form a Public Health Commission with task-specific working groups to provide real-time technical inputs to the government.
The success of any advisory group of scientists depends on a culture of openness, independence, and diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, this culture of openness has been conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the government's scientific advisory bodies on the pandemic, perhaps because most of them comprise government employees. Transparency in terms of making details of discussion and decisions of scientific advisors to the government public would give the wider scientific community a chance to offer constructive criticism on policies and perhaps help in course corrections. Further, open and transparent sharing of data with scientists, public health experts, and the public at large will strengthen pandemic control measures and help in building bottom-up consensus in India.
It should be emphasized that addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on society requires more than the actions of health-care professionals and policy makers alone. It calls for engagement of citizens, governments at all levels, and a diverse array of organizations and individuals involved in policymaking processes and policy implementation. In this regard, the government's leadership group also lacks social scientists and community voices, who could work on community engagement.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
|1||Weible CM, Nohrstedt D, Cairney P, et al. COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sci (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4, Published 18 April 2020. (Ahead of Print).|
|2||Krishnan V. Surge in COVID Cases Proves Centre Wrong; Pandemic Response Marked by Theatrics not Science; 07 May, 2020. Available from: https://caravanmagazine.in/health/surg e-in-covid-cases-proves-centre-wrong-pandemic-response-marked-b y-theatrics-not-science. [Last assessed 2020 May 21].|
|3||Rai SK, Zodpey S, Ghosh S, Kadri A. Joint statement on CoVID-19 pandemic in India: Review of current strategy and the way forward. Indian J Community Health 2020;32:170-4.|