The Tribune

Forecasting is a tricky business at the best of times. Just look at the lack of accuracy in predicting the weather in Britain’s notoriously fickle climate. Or what about the 2016 US presidential election when anyone who thought Donald Trump could win was simply laughed out of court? Then there were the economic predictions at the end of last year by august official organizations like the IMF and others which turned out to be wrong as they could take no account of the earth-shattering effects of coronavirus simply because, of course, nobody could have known about it.

So, you might think only the brave or foolhardy would now attempt to predict what will happen after the COVID-19 pandemic is fully over, not least because it is likely to continue in one form or another for some time. But, nothing daunted, there is a plethora of views on the internet about the subject. With a reasonable degree of certainty, they can be whittled down to a few likely scenarios - though, like all predictions, they could be derailed by some wholly unforeseeable event in the future.

History shows that countries have survived the spread of disease – from the Black Death which ravaged Europe in the Middle Ages to Spanish Flu in 1918 which was said to have killed as many as 50 million people across the globe and is regarded as the deadliest pandemic in history; and, more recently, epidemics like SARS and MERS. In today’s interconnected world, COVID-19 has put entire countries under lockdown, devastated businesses, killed hundreds of thousands and wreaked havoc to millions of lives, leaving the prospects for the global economy more uncertain than at any time since the 2008 financial crisis.

Despite the lockdowns being eased in many countries, including The Bahamas, the virus is bound to affect people’s lives in new ways in the foreseeable future. Although it has been partially contained in European countries, the danger of a second wave remains. It is becoming worse in some US states including Florida which, with the reopening of our airport, poses a potential risk of new infections here at home. Some people argue, however, that the higher number of reported new infections may not be that significant since many will have only mild symptoms or even none at all. Nevertheless, it is surely now incumbent on governments to tell people they must learn to live with COVID-19 which is not going away any time soon – and that they should take sensible personal precautions like wearing masks as much as possible and should protect, in particular, the old and infirm as well as the vulnerable.

People need to be realistic and calm rather than overly agitated about a virus likely to be with us at least until a vaccine is developed.

Amid all the horrors of coronavirus, it has also produced some benefits like lighter traffic flows and a ‘greener’ world with sweeter air and less pollution, while ongoing measures to control its spread might be good for the environment and a boost for renewable energy.

The lockdown has also unblocked a spring of good neighbourliness and community spirit that most people will hope can be maintained. But perhaps the most important issue is the continuing need for social distancing. There has to be a balancing act between that and the need for the public to be able to enjoy certain freedoms while reviving national economies with people returning to work or the creation of new jobs.

Companies in the UK leisure industry have found innovative ways to meet the new distancing requirements. But the re-opening there of hotels, bars and restaurants on so-called ‘Super Saturday’ this past weekend was not a ‘risk-free’ next step in easing the lockdown and it appeared most people mingling outside pubs in the centre of London simply ignored the rules - as was the case during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Social distancing rules are also a major headache for sports governing bodies where large gatherings of crowds are not allowed.

Another major long-term effect has been the enormous hit to the aviation industry. In a few short months this has gone from success to survival mode, with some airlines even facing possible bankruptcy. People around the world just stopped flying, partly because of a fear of catching the virus in a confined space but also because of new security measures at airports together with new testing and quarantine rules. As well as holiday-makers staying at home, there has been a reduction of corporate travel so that business executives have had to learn the art of the video conference that used to be the poor relation to face-to-face meetings but has now become the norm - and one knows the digital world has really arrived when the European Parliament starts talking about permanent online voting and virtual committee meetings. Moreover, working at home could become increasingly standard practice, resulting in a lower demand for office space in city centres with a consequent effect on the commercial real estate market. This would, in turn, mean less commuting and that would result in reduced business for shops, restaurants and other services in a city vicinity.

Among other on-going effects worldwide will be less reliance on China as a source of cheap goods and a shortening of supply chains for imports, not least food and medical items, as countries seek alternative sources and look to become more self-reliant about products that are key to national survival.

Here in The Bahamas, there are a number of other implications of the long-term effects of coronavirus; for example, in the education field more teaching online as school gatherings become more restricted. There will also be enhanced contact tracing and surveillance measures and possible compulsory medical check-ups. Such measures may be here to stay, but they are anathema to civil liberties groups as an assault on the privacy of the individual.

Overall, conditions post-coronavirus could demand a rethink of our way of life and how to reduce our reliance on other countries – including in relation to tourism and food and other supplies. This could lead to greater diversification of the economy, in particular development of the agricultural sector. Indeed, BAMSI as a relatively new project could take on a new significance by revitalizing the agricultural potential of the country that finally might be unleashed after long-term neglect and many failed projects over the years.

We can’t allow the fight against racists to be hijacked

In writing two weeks ago about a minority group of demonstrators defacing and tearing down statues and monuments in Britain, I pointed out that removing reminders of the nation’s past would not help genuine efforts to right the wrongs of racial and social discrimination and injustice that still exist in the country. I also drew attention to how Black Lives Matter UK, which is raising funds for its activities through its GoFundMe webpage, was not only seeking an end to such injustice but - alarmingly - had developed a far-Left agenda with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and abolishing the police.

This deeply disturbing development is now attracting increasing criticism that BLM UK has been hijacked by a group of far-Left activists and that it is using the murder of George Floyd for political purposes.

There are signs of a backlash by those who were willing to express solidarity with a high-profile anti-racist campaign and its laudable objectives but who now fight shy of endorsing a political movement. Prominent among these critics is the UK’s Premier League of the top 20 professional football clubs in the country which has made clear it is keen to stay politically neutral. This could now lead to players being stopped from wearing BLM badges on their sleeve. The stance by the Premier League is significant because racism has been a scar on the nation’s football for years – including personal abuse of black players - though there have been serious efforts by the authorities to root out racism in top-class football. Meanwhile, the BBC has decided that visual symbols of support for BLM should not be worn on screen.

The controversy about racial discrimination took an interesting turn last week when the British Prime Minister made it clear publicly that he would not ‘take the knee’ which has become a demonstration of support for BLM that has swept the world. Mr Johnson said he did not believe in such gestures and that people should not be bullied into making this one. Rather, he argued, the emphasis should be on ‘substance’ and the need to change society and its attitudes in order to stop discrimination against ethnic minorities and improve their opportunities to get on in life. This followed an earlier statement by Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab that he would not be ‘taking the knee’ which was, in his view, a symbol of subjugation and subordination. The origin of the gesture was, of course, an American football player who in 2016 knelt during the playing of the national anthem in protest against police brutality in the US.

It is notable that, after some UK police officers knelt during the recent demonstrations and riots in London, senior officers have instructed that this should not be repeated and the Armed Forces have taken the same line. The police ‘taking the knee’ during demonstrations which all too often turn violent can be a powerful anti-racist gesture that calms the situation - and in certain situations there can be a natural human urge to show empathy with the protestors’ cause. But I, for one, am uneasy about this because such a gesture can undermine the role of the police whose job is to ensure a safe event and not to make political statements or to be seen to be taking sides.

As mentioned in my earlier article, there is a danger that the violence of the recent riots could be counterproductive insofar as it shifts the emphasis away from reform measures to condemnation of its perpetrators. It must be hoped that the new cross-party parliamentary group at Westminster to look into the needs of minority communities following the Windrush scandal - which I wrote about last week - will be effective.

A certain level of bigotry and prejudice will always exist because, sadly, it is almost part of the human condition. But in the UK it is limited to a minority of people and government can control it by making those concerned accountable for their actions before the law.

More than 50 years ago, Britain passed legislation about racial discrimination – the Race Relations Act of 1965 – which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origin. But there is always more to do in relation to this important and controversial issue.

Imperfect but indispensable

Last month marked the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations, but there has been little publicity about this significant milestone in world history. The UN Charter, which enshrined the guiding principles of the equality and dignity of all people, was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the representatives of 50 countries including the main combatants in the Second World War while Poland signed later and became one of the original 51 member states.

This was the culmination of talks that started in April that year to discuss how to establish universal peace. The timing is interesting because these discussions began shortly before the ending of the war in Europe – VE-Day on May 8, 1945 – and the signature was before the cessation of hostilities in the Pacific in August the same year, though the Charter was not ratified until October. To quote the Charter, the UN was conceived to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and its founding mission was to bring nations and people together, to preserve peace and security and to improve lives everywhere.

There is insufficient space in today’s column to examine this further apart from mentioning that, even though the UN is a force for good in the world, it has had its share of failures. As former US President Barack Obama famously said, the UN is “an imperfect, but indispensable institution”.