Prompt 7: Political instability and COVID-19

 At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, India proactively protected their 1.3 billion citizens through lockdowns and other programs.   While this was widely successful, the second wave of COVID-19 is beginning to take a toll in India, and politicians are doing little to combat the issue.  According to the New York Times, India reported 145,384 new infections a day (Mashal & Kumar).  While this is still relatively low for a large country, these numbers can quickly spiral out of control.  Indian politicians have also started to hold political rallies to gain support for future elections. Still, these events do not correspond with the public health efforts to lower the rates of transmissions.  Public health officials have urged the government to deploy vaccines to its own population (India is one of the largest producers of pharmaceutical products in the world). Still, the prime minister has downplayed the pandemic.  India only has administered  340 million vaccine doses, which is less than 5% of the population (Kumar).  There was also reporting of 14 people selling "covid vaccines" that were really just salt water; the police are currently investigating (Kumar). Public health officials also claim that Priminsiter Modi and the Indian government are vastly underestimating the pandemic's real toll.  Without a realistic and non-hypocritical response to this disease, the political nature of the Indian government will not be working for the people.  Politicians are overly worried about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting their political campaigns. Still, they forget that their actions in the present are actively changing the future.  In Delhi, a passed law stated that if a taxi driver was not wearing a mask, they would be punished, but on the same day, politicians held large gatherings and drove around the city unmasked (Kumar). The actions of local and national politicians should not be rooted in their security of a political future. Instead, they should start to make improvements to stop the disease like mandating lockdowns, distributing vaccines, reporting an accurate number of cases and deaths, and eliminating hypocritical actions to protect the citizens politicians represent. 

Kumar, Hari. “Indian Police Investigate Whether Scammers Gave Thousands of Shots of Salt Water Instead of Vaccine.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 July 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/world/asia/india-covid-vaccine-scam.html. 

Mashal, Mujib, and Hari Kumar. “Complacency and Missteps Deepen a Covid-19 Crisis in India.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/world/asia/india-covid-vaccine-variant.html. 

Prompt 6: The context of these approaches

    I believe that a country's cultures and history affect whether a top-down approach works versus a bottom-up approach. In the United States, the nation was founded on the idea that individual liberties are essential.  Frequently, people who are more right-leaning in politics believe that the government should not have the right to have a significant say in the individual's life.  This idea pertains to the economy, education, local and federal regulations, and even health.  Suppose people do not want the federal government to intervene in their life. In that case, they will not easily comply with a top-down approach. This can be seen today with the availability of the covid vaccine and unvaccinated populations. Areas that are typically more right-leaning have significantly lower vaccination rates than more liberal populations. 

    Personally, I am open to top-down approaches. When other people or organizations do the work (like creating a nationally available vaccine) and develop resources for the population to use.  I was very excited to get the vaccine when it first became available. I encouraged all my family members and friends to participate.  Many people in my family were not on the same page as I, and some are still unvaccinated.  Because of our different beliefs, I think that a top-down and bottom-up approach should be used simultaneously.  If a national campaign allowed all people to get a vaccine and local organizations and leaders encouraged their communities to participate in these programs, health initiatives would be more effective. 

Fry, Erika, and Nicolas Rapp. “Covid Vaccination Rate by State. See If Your State Met Biden's Goal.” Fortune, Fortune, 2 July 2021, https://fortune.com/2021/07/02/america-wont-make-bidens-july-4-covid-vaccine-goal-see-which-states-will/. 

Prompt 5: Top-down or bottom-up approaches?

     An example of a top-down approach in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is nationwide lockdowns.  Most communities around the world experienced some form of a lockdown, but the strictness and length of lockdowns varied from country to country.  The United States had "stay at home" orders implemented at the state level but never experienced a national lockdown. The first lockdown was put in place on March 17, affecting cities in California.  These measures were effective only slightly. Many people had to continue to work to keep up with bills and other expenses. Lower-income communities were disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and lockdown policies as they could not stay home for extended periods.  In New Zealand, the country took a tough stance on COVID-19 lockdowns. The entire country was on lockdown, and it effectively limited the transmission of the disease. All luxury or nonessential activities are closed overnight (restaurants, sports, schools, pools, and playgrounds), leaving only the essentials open (gas stations, hospitals, and supermarkets). These measures were highly influential.  According to the New England Journal of Medicine, New Zealand had declared the pandemic to be over only 103 days from the first positive case.  Compared to other top-down approaches across the globe, this is a remarkable feat.  

In my personal opinion, bottom-up approaches work better for individual communities.  In a pandemic, this can look like public health operations looking at individual counties and making decisions for their community.  For example, suppose a county is struggling with an outbreak. In that case, officials can encourage individuals to participate in their health, making their decisions more impactful for their community.  In the United States, some pockets of people believe that their individual liberties come before protecting people, leaving vulnerable and immunocompromised people to suffer. Suppose we can provide local resources to these people and have their health be their decision. In that case, it could change the responses and behaviors of all communities. After all, top-down approaches cannot work if the individual doesn't respond to them. If the government gave all citizens a vaccine, but no one took it, the whole is still unvaccinated. 

Others, D. Mevorach and, et al. “Successful Elimination of Covid-19 Transmission in New Zealand: Nejm.” New England Journal of Medicine, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025203.