There’s something you learn after you’ve been a journalist for a long time. The first is that it’s likely you have got some things wrong in the past, and you probably will get some things wrong in the future. When you get to some seniority where you are entrusted with writing a column in the most prestigious of publications, you learn another thing: never take yourself too seriously. Sure, you have experience; sure, you know how to write and you may actually know something worth sharing. But you reach a point where you can continue to write but need to acknowledge that sometimes you’re ignorant.
One of the most unfortunate things that can happen to a senior journalist is that you develop a sense of self-importance. You start believing in the superiority of your own wisdom over that of others, forgetting, as Thomas Hobbes said, that you are closer to your own knowledge than to that of others. A second unfortunate thing about being a journalist and columnist is that you fall into the trap of expectations. Readers expect you to make predictions and dispense wisdom. You can’t blame them. Readers have to make decisions every day of their lives, based quite often on what they read in newspapers. And journalists always want to be first to break the news.
A third trap is believing that facts speak for themselves. The belief is that all we do is present the facts, and that these facts tell the story. We make out that we, as humans, have no say in selecting facts and arranging them to tell the stories that confirm the biases we hold most dear. We forget, as John Maynard Keynes once wrote, that we “hear voices in the air” and are beholden to some academic scribbler of times gone by. In other words, we are exactly as ideological as we claim not to be.
SA is in the midst of a health crisis that may forever change the political and economic make-up of the country — or it may not. Either way, reporters who beat pavements have responsibilities and so do columnists. On my part, with respect to Covid-19 I am comfortable in saying I don’t know what will happen next week, or next month, or next year. I may have a hunch or two. I may even have some detailed insights. But going back to the first lesson referred to above, I have got things wrong in the past and will get things wrong in the future. Asymmetrical information is one of the many flaws in economic analyses. A whole branch of economics is dedicated to that.
The DA has asked for the models and data that President Cyril Ramaphosa used as the basis for his decision to extend the lockdown. The party is obliged to do so because it is the official opposition and the public has a right to have the data — they are directly affected. Among the dire outcomes of the past 25 years is the loss of trust in the government, yet the fact is, trust them or not, the government’s choices, decisions, policies and actions have long-lasting and potentially severe outcomes.
The question before us is: should we lift the lockdown and get the country back to work, and accept that many people could die? Or, should we lift it partially, and hope only a few people will die? Let me paraphrase a great Danish thinker: do it and you will regret it. Don’t do it, and you will also regret it, so do it anyway. Whichever way the decision goes, the question to market fundamentalists is this: is human life valued only for its contribution to the economy?
Anyway, a wise fellow shared with me last weekend that statistics show that of those infected, only 20% may need to go to hospital. Of those, an estimated 25% may need to be intubated, and of those, 5% or so may die. Statistically, then, the chances of an infected person dying are slim. However, we need to prevent infected people from being admitted to hospitals, where they will be exposed to any number of new bugs. It is therefore imperative to maintain physical distancing, and that the extended lockdown period be spent testing as many people in as many places as possible — especially in informal settlements — and keeping people out of hospitals.
As journalists or columnists, we have to avoid making judgments on the basis of information asymmetries. More information is always better. The problem, however, is whether full disclosure will lead to better outcomes or to spreading panic.
• Lagardien, a visiting professor at the Wits University School of Governance, has worked in the office of the chief economist of the World Bank, as well as the secretariat of the National Planning Commission.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.