The net result is this centralisation of the decision making process has kept the real experts- the top ranking virologists of the country out of the policy making loop and thereby depriving the country of the most viable strategy to fight the pandemic. At his first address on March 24 declaring the first lockdown, Prime Minister said that the Mahabharata war took eighteen days and he wanted only twenty one days from the people of India for fighting the virus. This was like his address on November 8 night in 2016 when he announced demonetisation of the currency and sought only50 days to the Indian people for achieving his objective to removing the black money from the economy. What followed in the next three and half years is known to every Indian who has undergone the pangs of transition of demonetisation. Altogether about 120 persons lost their lives due to the direct impact of demonetisation which the Prime Minister termed as historic.

Similarly his constant bragging that India is doing much better than in other countries, has fallen flat. In the last two weeks, the surge of the virus in the country has gone to such an extent that India is now among the top five virus affected countries of the world. And the disquieting fact is that India's rise in infections will continue to rise while the other developed countries will gradually bring the number of infected people under control. The sudden decision to announce lockdown without any preparations and consultations with the industry and the experts, have not only devastated the economy and the livelihood of the people, especially daily wage earners, but this decision has also accentuated the surge in the present stage of the unlocking one period. This late surge could have been avoided if there were a planning before the first lockdown when the spread was limited.

Even now, the Government is no mood to have free and frank discussions with the experts who work in this particular area and who know best about the virus and its behaviour. The three top associations of the virologists and the public health experts have already drawn the attention of the Government to the communication gap that has been existing.

Towards the end of the extension of the nationwide lockdown (March 25–April 14; April 14–May 3; and May 4–onward), India started reporting a surge in COVID-19 infections and deaths (more than two thousand new COVID-19infections and about a hundred deaths every day from May 2 onward). This was contrary to the standard government position till then.

This surge has led to contradictory responses by health leaders of the union government; thus, on May 4, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, stated that India’s epidemic curve was “relatively flat” and that depending on how the public responds to the virus, the peak “may never come,” while the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, stated in an interview to a news channel that the number of novel coronavirus cases in India is likely to peak in next 1–2 months.

According to Dr Anoop Saraya, Head of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition Unit at AIIMS, these confusing signals have likely cropped up because the public faces of the government for policy development and communication on this health issue are clinicians and bureaucrats (pediatrician, pulmonologist, and Indian Administrative Service officials), rather than epidemiologists and public health experts (e.g., the lead epidemiologist at Indian Council of Medical Research ICMR stopped appearing for press briefings of the government from April 21), and other scientists like virologists.

Some public health experts have expressed concern about the inadequate planning and coordination of the COVID-19response (e.g. inordinate reliance on lockdowns, low emphasis on testing, and contact tracing) and have suggested mechanisms for better planning and coordination. A joint statement by the Indian Public Health Association and the Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine representing the very wide community of public health academics, practitioners, and researchers in India has urged the government to form a Public Health Commission with task-specific working groups to provide real-time technical inputs to the government.

According to senior medical scientists, the success of any advisory group of scientists depends on a culture of openness, independence, and diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, this culture of openness has been conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the government’s scientific advisory bodies on the pandemic, perhaps because most of them comprise government employees. Transparency in terms of making details of discussion and decisions of scientific advisors to the government public would give the wider scientific community a chance to offer constructive criticism on policies and perhaps help in course corrections.

Further, open and transparent sharing of data with scientists, public health experts, and the public at large will strengthen pandemic control measures and help in building bottom-up consensus in India. Still there is time to amend and contain the rising virus infections in the country. The Government has to give up its closed door policy and opt for a transparent covid management strategy by consulting the experts working in the field. Otherwise, it will be too late. (IPA Service)