Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 37, Number 7, 1 Iulai 2020 — The Economy v. Health and Human Rights in COVID-19: A Misleading Choice [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The Economy v. Health and Human Rights in COVID-19: A Misleading Choice

J LEO ELELE ^ > TRUSTEE MESSSAGES f

On March 11, 2020, the World Heahh Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. In a rapidly evolving situation, states are trying — with different levels of commitment and effectiveness — to curb the progress of the disease. While the virus is a threat to the rights to life and heahh, the human rights impact

of the crisis goes well beyond medical and public heahh concerns. The heahh crisis itself, and a number of state measures to contain it, mainly isolation and quai'antine, are leading the world into an eeonomie recession. The consequences of the decisions taken by governments to address heahh and eeonomie issues reciprocally affect one another. When heahh is at stake, there is a need to ensure that normal operations do not erode heahh policies to control the spread of the disease and the associated risk of a collapse of public heahh systems. The laek of effective response from some governments to protect people's heahh through proven measures, such as social distancing and quarantines to flatten the curve, in favor of avoiding an eeonomie slowdown due to the pandemic, is concerning. The economy cannot stand in first position, especially since it allows for most people to have no personal safety net. Life and human rights must be at the center of eoneem. The "economy first" approach should not mean leaving people on their own to eope with the pandemic. This economycentric approach is accompanied by a laek of enthusiasm to reduce inequalities. Such a view of the economy cannot operate as a winner, especially as the broad economy must allow most people to have their eeonomie and social rights realized. Implementing robust public heahh policies that save lives and prevent heahh systems from collapsing should be eom-

plemented by policies to make it possible for eeonomie systems to produce and deliver goods and services to fulfil basic human rights while minimizing the long- term negative eeonomie effects of the pandemic. Not putting public heahh at the center of governmental action plans does not save the economy. I fear the recession will leave some with no ehoiee but to rely

on debt to meet their basic needs and rights. Without immediate relief, it is likely people forced into debt will face increasing debts. While household debt is not a human rights violation, it becomes particularly problematic when individuals resort to formal and informal lending networks to access their rights to healthcare, housing, food, water and sanitation, or education. What might be a lifebuoy today, becomes an ever-increasing eeonomie burden. Economy versus human rights is misleading because they ean be aligned. States must protect lives and economies so goods and services ean continue throughout the pandemic and, when it has passed, there are jobs for people. This must be done responsibly with public heahh and human rights impacts as the primary consideration. There are a number of measures that ean contribute towards achieving those goals. These include: expanding social safety nets and considering universal basic incomes; suspending mortgage repayments and evictions; halting cuts in public or private provision of services such as electricity and water; stipulations with respect to medicines and other related technologies; suspending private debtservicing for individuals unable to eope with the public heahh crisis and who are without ineome; and establishing universal heahh coverage. It is gratifying to see our government consider and implement many of these rights-based responses to the pandemic, thus protecting our people and economy. ■

Carmen "Hulu" Lindsey TrustEE. Maui