It seems to me that a certain feeling of fatigue is gradually manifesting itself in our fight against the Covid-19 pandemic in this country. Ostensibly the vim and aggressiveness that accompanied our initial response to the threat of the coronavirus are on the decline.
After almost four months of sustained efforts to stem the spread of the virus, we seem to be witnessing a growing sense of resignation in the face of the rising number of infections and the steady but slow inching of the death toll upwards. The steady growth in the numbers of recoveries, however, if they are to be believed at all, may be our only source of consolation for now.
It may be arguable whether one is justified or not in describing the current mood in the country as one of fatigue and resignation. However, a cursory look at what is happening around us can lead to such a conclusion.
In the beginning there was the aggressive contact tracing, testing and treatment of Covid-19 infected persons. As a complement to this, came the limited lockdowns in some major cities of the country in a bid to control community spread of the virus. Alongside this were the directives to observe various safety protocols including the practice of personal hygiene in the form of hand washing, the use of sanitizers, the wearing of nose face masks and the keeping social and physical distancing. Then as a final and decisive move came the Executive Instrument that backed the wearing of face and nose masks, thus taking the fight to the legal plane.
It is fair to say that each one of these measures has had some considerable measure of success in the fight against the virus, thanks to the commitment of the government and all the statutory bodies that had a role to play. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are now at a point where all these strategies are beginning to show signs of weakness and weariness.
The contact tracing, testing and treatment protocol is no longer as aggressive as it was in the beginning, which, admittedly, could be justified by the need to adapt to the emerging dynamics of the fight against the virus. Secondly, the safety protocols are not being strictly observed and practised by all and in every place throughout the country. Finally, the Executive Instrument which was meant to enforce compliance with the safety protocols, especially the wearing of face masks has, regrettably, turned out to be a mere toothless bulldog. This legal instrument which makes failure to wear a face mask or face cover a criminal offence and, therefore, punishable is being flouted everywhere throughout the country with blatant impunity, even by people who should know the law better.
To be sure, the enactment of this legal instrument had brought a lot of hope to many in the fight against the coronavirus. Where persuasion and appeals to the general population to follow the safety protocols was failing, the hope was that the strong arm of the law would do the trick. Sadly, this is not happening. It is business as usual as far as the enforcement of laws in this country is concerned.
The question is where do we go from here while we are still far from being out of the woods of this pandemic. This question is not made any easier by recent developments in our country which seem to compound the situation namely, the steady rise in the number of infections, the opening up of potential fertile grounds for the spread of the virus such as the reopening of our schools and universities, the easing of restrictions on social and political activities, the failure to enforce the law on the wearing of face masks etc. The debate and discussions on the merit or otherwise of these recent decisions by government are still raging. We need, however, to be focussing more urgently on the best way to contain the relentless spread of the virus in our communities.
While it may not be fair to say that the measures currently in place have totally failed, we should be honest enough to admit that we are being overwhelmed by the turn of recent events in our efforts to contain the spread of the virus. The wisdom of contact tracing, testing and treatment, widely acclaimed in so many circles, which may still be one of the effective combat strategies in the fight against the virus, is probably being hampered by problems of sustainability and an alternative to needs to be found.
The observance of the safety protocols and practice of personal hygiene, universally recommended as one of the most effective ways to keep the virus at bay is also facing challenges. The practice of handwashing, use of sanitizers, wearing of face and nose masks and the observance of social distancing have proven indispensable in the fight against the virus. Happily, this is something that is within the reach and ability of almost everyone in this country. The wearing of face or nose masks, in particular, is probably the least contribution that every single citizen is expected to bring to the fight against the virus. It is precisely, I believe, with the understanding that face or nose masks are easily accessible to most of the population, if not to all, that the law to enforce their wearing was enacted. Yet, we are facing challenges of compliance.
It is mindboggling, indeed, to see people leaving and retuning home or in public spaces without any face cover or nose mask, obviously a punishable offence, and the law enforcement agents simply looking on unconcerned. It is not farfetched to argue that we are witnessing here the ripple effect of the lack of compliance with this law, whereby the lawmakers themselves are paying lip-service to what they have crafted, the law enforcement agents not feeling obliged to enforce it and the citizenry, simply embolden by what is happening, flout it with impunity. The wearing of face or nose masks is still one of the best options for us in this fight as it could help cut down the spread of the virus drastically if we were to achieve at least more than 50 percent compliance throughout the country.
All of the above notwithstanding, the purpose of this article is to make a case for the crucial role that personal responsibility plays in the fight against the virus. This fight, to be sure, goes beyond a mere civic responsibility or any legal requirement. Ultimately, the responsibility to protect one’s life lies squarely with the individual person. To be sure, the commitment to protect and preserve our personal life and that of others is first and foremost a personal responsibility before it is corporate. The life of each one of us is in our own hands and we will be held accountable for the way and manner that we handle it.
Besides the fact that natural reason makes it clear to us that we are not the source of our own life and therefore cannot dispose of it at will, there are, happily enough, other more compelling reasons why we need to protect, defend and preserve this precious gift. These compelling reasons mostly stem from our religious and cultural beliefs. These beliefs enjoin us not only to protect and preserve and promote life but also never to destroy it or expose ourselves or others to anything that is inimical to it since we owe it to a Supreme Being.
In the context of our fight against the corona virus which threatens the gift of life we hold in trust, it will not be preposterous to argue that with over 70 percent of Ghanaians calling ourselves Christians, our attitude towards the fight against the corona virus should be a game changer. The Christian religious belief in the sanctity of human life is very clear and unambiguous; Thou shall not kill (Exod 20,13, Matt 5,21). When Jesus in his teaching on the sanctity of life deepened the mosaic law on murder to include anger, it is not out of step with this teaching to hold that any irresponsible conduct, wilful or by negligence, that puts our personal life or that of our neighbour’s in harm’s way is murderous. In this regard, for the Christian, the wearing of face masks and the strict observance of the safety protocols to protect our life and that of others is more than a mere civic duty. Failure to comply with this is in effect tantamount to the transgression of a religious obligation, irrespective of whether the civil law convicts us or not.
In the wake of the easing of the restrictions on public worship, religious communities have begun to gather for worship again, following strictly the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs. Many of these communities have endeavoured to follow these guidelines religiously, obviously informed by their religious belief in the sanctity of human life and the moral responsibility to ensure its safety. In this regard, one could describe most of our public places of worship as islands of safety in a vast sea of dangerous and reckless behaviour. Of course, this assertion is only tenable if the congregants or worshippers do not make these safety protocols merely part of their Sunday apparel, which they quickly put aside upon returning home and joining the crowd in its reckless conduct. This will certainly not pass for authentic responsible Christian behaviour.
There is a curious but important detail in the guidelines issued by the Catholic Church to her members on the return to public worship in our churches that is relevant for our argument here. The participation in the Sunday worship is a religious obligation for all Catholics. According to the laws of the Church, Catholics are obliged to attend Holy Mass on Sundays and on all holy days of obligation. In the wake of the threat posed by the corona virus this religious obligation has been waived by the legitimate authority, permitting members to skip the Sunday Mass as long as the pandemic lasts. With the return to public worship this waiver is still available to all those who legitimately feel it is still unsafe for them to go to Mass, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. The point is that aware of the grave responsibility that the law on the sanctity of human life enjoins the individual Christian, the Church has granted her members the opportunity to act responsibly by deciding freely what the best possible way is to protect and preserve their own life and that of others, even if this means staying at home on Sunday.
This Catholic practice, inspired by the need to protect life should make it clear that the ultimate responsibility to protect life lies with the individual who must account for it before his or her creator. In this regard, the debate whether people should or should not go out in the current situation of the pandemic for whatever activity, be it political, civil or religious should be a personal decision made by the particular individual. This cannot be forced by any law or authority except that the person’s profession or vocation requires it. It is important to observe here that if it is deemed appropriate to hand over such a judgment to the individual in the matter of a religious obligation, how much less in the case of human laws or regulations. The State and its agencies may have their statutory and constitutional obligations to fulfil and, indeed, if in their wisdom it is safe to carry these out in the present circumstances, I dare say, the ultimate decision to put one’s life at risk to participate in whatever activities are being organized lies with the individual Ghanaian. I believe nobody should be compelled or persuaded to put his or her life at risk by any person or group of persons. Deciding, therefore, to go or not to go out there for any public event in the current situation should be, in the final analysis, a matter of conscience and a free decision of the individual.
+Alfred Agyenta
(Bishop of Navrongo-Bolgatanga Diocese)