The virus COVID-19 invaded the humans unannounced. It caught the world unprepared and caused massive damage sparing no continent, no country, no state. It engulfed the kings, political leaders, the rich, and the poorest of the poor, making no distinction. COVID-19 did not need much time to invade the whole of the globe. In a short span of three to four months since its appearance in Wuhan in Dec 2019, COVID-19 established its presence everywhere in the world from North to South and East to West. By April 19, 2020, the virus had infected over 2.2 million causing over 150,000 deaths . Many thousands had to be quarantined. Cities and countries were locked down, the economy crashed, and life came to a virtual standstill.
In many countries, the virus spread very fast; each day, many hundreds caught the infection, and the death toll rose alarmingly. Sri Lanka was able to contain the spread at a remarkably low level and confine it to a part of the country. Sri Lanka’s response shows some impressive features that led to its success. First, the response followed the fundamental principle of attacking all causes of the problem. Modern management theories teach that any intervention to a problem must address all causes of that problem. Addressing only some causes would not remove the problem. The problem here is the rapid and wide spreading of COVID-19. One can consider four immediate causes for its spread: (i) Immigration of persons with COVID-19 (ii) close contact with COVID-19 persons (iii) presence of people with COVID-19 in the general population and (iv) non-observance of preventive practices by people. These are the immediate causes. Each of these four immediate causes is a result of several other factors. They are called underlying causes. The Government intervened to remove all of the underlying causes. A brief overview of the actions is as follows.
(i) The immigration of persons with COVID-19 was stopped by closing airports, seaports, and other points of entry.
(ii) Close contact of people with COVID-19 was addressed by quarantining persons likely to have been in contact at quarantine centres, in their residences, and through lockdown of communities.
(iii) The presence of people with COVID-19 in the general population was addressed by finding them and hospitalizing them for care.
(iv) Non-observance of preventive practices such as hand-washing, sneezing, or coughing allowing droplets to jet-stream into the air and surfaces nearby, was addressed by public education programs.
The second factor that led to success is that the government followed the good practice of evidence-informed decisions. Scientific evidence and views of public health experts in the country guided the actions. Therefore, the actions were effective and led to the reduction of causes.
The third significant feature of the response is the effective and targeted mobilization of resources, especially human resource. The Government was able to mobilize the existing human resources very effectively. The network of service providers at community level – the public health officers, the police officers, and the grama niladhari – was optimally utilized. The health sector took the lead in promoting preventive public health measures and provided tertiary care for those affected by the virus. The forces and the police worked across the country in enforcing public health measures and making day to day services accessible to the people. The media came together in one voice to disseminate the messages. The Health Promotion Bureau formulated key messages and packed them effectively and provided to media, including social media. The intelligence service provided the all important information to direct actions the writer is a former regional adviser on monitoring and evaluation, UNICEF South Asia.
Thus, the Government addressed all factors causing the spread of the virus. The quality of the process of addressing these factors merits special appreciation. First, the entire operation was government-led. It was not directed by external agencies. The leadership of the country brought together the relevant sectors and mechanisms and provided an enabling environment to do the right thing and do them right. A common problem in disaster responses across the world has been the lack of coordination. COVID-19 response is well coordinated. The Health Ministry, the tri forces, media, and other government sectors adopted a common agenda, and defined roles and responsibilities, and their performance complemented one another. The coordinated effort which respected the roles of all partners helped to achieve the expected result of controlling the spread of COVID-19. Another expected, but rarely met feature of a disaster response is its coherence. The COVID-19 response was mostly coherent. i.e., the actions were synergized and also synchronized, thereby enabling the results to materialize.
The Government directed the entire response efficiently and effectively towards the expected result of controlling the spread of the virus. However, it was not merely a focus on the results only. The process that was adopted to achieve the results, too, was good. Although lockdown was in place, people’s day to day needs of food and medicine were made available. Most importantly, people’s right to information was respected. The Health Promotion Bureau kept people informed of critical data on the numbers of persons affected and their locations. The Minister of Health, the Heads of armed forces, and responsible officials informed, educated, and communicated with the public to instil a sense of urgency and commitment. The media made a coordinated and sustained contribution in keeping the people informed and motivated to play their role.
The Government accorded the highest possible priority to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, it did not ignore other vital aspects of administration. Special attention to agriculture, not neglecting children’s education by having online lectures, working from home are some examples. Vulnerable segments of the population were given special assistance through cash transfer programs. The arrangement of delivering food items at workplaces, sometimes at subsidized prices, eased the stress of people who dedicated their time to essential services. Thus, Sri Lanka’s response to COVID-19 is not only one that meets the criteria for successful disaster response, but it is also one with a human face. This will be remembered and studied for its success and its respect for people for decades to come. It would be a valuable case study for future disaster responses.
The driving force leading to this success is the country’s leadership – a leadership that has brought out the best in professionals and people within a well-coordinated and results-oriented framework of action, guided by evidence-informed decision making. People entrusted with the demanding and risky tasks such as, members of the armed forces, health professionals including support staff to specialists, went beyond the call of duty. People, by and large, cooperated by conforming to required procedures of lockdown and hygiene.
The quick analysis presented here is not a comprehensive study. It is an appreciative inquiry. It aims at drawing attention to some remarkable qualities of Sri Lanka’s response to COVID-19, and highlights how that response has met the standards for effective intervention and emergency response. There is no guarantee that the course of the pandemic would not change for the worse. Such a change could happen, if ALL causes are not addressed, or some causes are not addressed as effectively as necessary. Whatever is in store for the future, Sri Lanka has done its best for her people.
This appreciative analysis does not mean that there are no lessons to learn. Identifying and learning such lessons require credible and independent evaluations. Evaluations tell us whether all necessary actions were taken and whether they were taken effectively. Evaluative knowledge could contribute significantly to ensure better preparedness and good practices for future epidemics. Such evaluative knowledge is critical power, to serve humanity better.
(The writer is a former regional adviser on monitoring and evaluation, UNICEF South Asia).