The implications of COVID-19 legislation on chronic ailments patients: perspectives from Botswana

Abstract

Purpose COVID-19 is one of the greatest public health challenges in the 21st century. The World Health Organisation recommended physical distancing to halt the upward trajectory of the infections. Countries including Botswana imposed lockdown for non-essential workers. This paper aims to argue that lockdown as imposed by the Government of Botswana was a necessary measure given the nature of transmission of COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses exploratory research to unpack impacts of the novel COVID-19 regulations or be responsive to new concerns by breaking new ground through delving into new problem areas. The paper used a use case to explain a single outcome for a single case. Findings The restriction on the freedom of movement is necessary to protect citizens, particularly, those with chronic illness from contracting the deadly virus. The paper further observes that while the legislative intent of the GOB was to protect those with chronic illnesses from COVID-19, the lockdown resulted in near death experiences for some chronic ailment patients. These experiences result from unfettered discretion of functionaries who were policing and manning the streets and those who are conferred with authority to issue travel permits to seek and obtain medical assistance, lack of public transport and the processes of applications for the permits, which exposed citizens to COVID-19. Research limitations/implications The study was desk based. It may have yielded different results. Lockdowns limited mobility for non-essential services. The full impact of the restrictions and the attendant defaulting was yet to be fully realised. Observing the COVID-19 protocols and bureaucratic requirements for obtaining information from the government offices were major challenges. Practical implications Achieving total lockdown as an end in itself may amount to a pyrrhic victory – the authorities may successfully achieve total lockdown but with heavy costs on gains made in combating ailments. Botswana has fought many other pandemics and chronic illnesses still subsist and need to be catered for. For patients, there is not only the complexity of dealing with one chronic condition but also the work of trying to live “normal” lives in the face of co-morbidity, which can be overwhelming. The COVID-19 pandemic adds to the “work” that patients must do to manage and live with such health conditions and the psychological distress. Social implications Authorities need to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Abrasive actions may lead to a higher constituency of discontent. Botswana has had a good track record of being democratic, and this needs to be strengthened. Originality/value The implementation of the COVID-19 regulations particularly the requirement for a travel permit to seek health-care services may hinder access to essential health services and ultimately increase the pressure on emergency services or, at worst, increase mortality. Clear guidelines and sober interpretation of the regulations are necessary. This will also make it easier for the frontline security officers manning the streets to correctly understand the prevailing circumstances. In view of the massive gains garnered in combating chronic illnesses, it is important that such gains are not reversed, while the GOB fights COVID-19. People living with HIV/AIDS, the elderly and people with pre-existing health conditions are known to be at significantly higher risk of developing severe illness when contracting COVID-19. Achieving total lockdown as an end in itself may amount to a pyrrhic victory – the authorities may successfully achieve total lockdown but with heavy costs on gains made in combating other chronic ailments.

AD, Volume 48, n° 4, 2023 - Numéro complet

“…The lockdown effects were also severe among individuals with chronic diseases. Mandiyanike and Moeti (2021) state that individuals with chronic illnesses suffered because they could not get a permit to access medication and other health necessities as a result of the strict and uncompromising law enforcement. In essence, 'achieving lockdown as an end in itself may amount to a pyrrhic victory-the authorities may successfully achieve total lockdown but with heavy costs on gains made in combating other ailments' (Mandiyanike and Moeti 2021:241).…”

Guest editorial

“…The papers included in this Special Issue may be divided into two groups, i.e. papers dealing with broad, overarching issues relating to the process of managing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including democracy and accountability (Parry et al, 2020) as well as regulatory issues (Sokołowski, 2020); papers elaborating on national case studies, including the cases of South Africa (Naudé and Cameron, 2021), Botswana (Mandiyanike and Moeti, 2021), South Korea (Yeo and Lee, 2020), Indonesia (Hartanto and Siregar, 2021), Kazakhstan (Bokayev et al, 2021) and the USA (Johnson et al, 2021). The topics that the authors highlight include the efficiency and drawbacks of national responses to the pandemic.…”

“…These key actors have been failing to "pull together", leaving South Africa's citizens in between corrupt and incompetent officials on the one hand and lockdown skeptics on the other. The case of Botswana, examined by Mandiyanike and Moeti (2021), reveals that the restrictions on the freedom of movement imposed by the government, commonly referred to as "lockdown", resulted in near-death experiences for some patients with chronic conditions. Yeo and Lee in their paper on South Korea demonstrate that the successful response to the pandemic is attributable to a nationwide whole-community coproduction among multiple actors, including government, various industries, sectors and jurisdictions.…”