The term “stir-crazy” originated in 19th-century London as a reference to the psychological effects of incarceration on jailed inmates, with “stir” a slang term for prison. Stir-crazy subsequently developed delightful US variations like “stir-bug”, “stir-nut,” and “stir-looney”.

These days we tend to use the term more loosely to describe someone experiencing deep frustration from being cooped up inside for long periods. And reading the recent proclamations of South African politicians on the matter of the Covid-19 pandemic, one can only diagnose some intense stir-nuttery afoot.

One of the DA’s most recent statements, attributed to the party’s Western Cape leader Bonginkosi Madikizela, refers to the Covid-19 lockdown twice as “house arrest”.

The same statement, arguing for the lifting of the “house arrest”, includes the following line:

“Death is something that will visit all of us at some stage, and we can’t stop living our lives because we are scared of it.”

A statement on 14 May by GOOD party secretary-general Brett Herron, critiquing the DA’s critique of lockdown, contains these consecutive sentences without any evident irony:

“A national disaster is not a good time for populist rhetoric or cavalier behaviour. It is not the time for buzz-words like ‘data-led evidence-based approach’ and ‘hotspot plans’.”    

These bizarre articulations would be darkly hilarious if there were not so much at stake.

In the case of Herron, it should go without saying that it is the absolute zenith of “populist rhetoric” to call for a rejection of “data-led evidence-based approaches” in the middle of a public health emergency.

As for Madikizela’s philosophising on the imperative to accept our own mortality, it is uncannily reminiscent of calls from fringe Republican politicians in the US. Like the lieutenant-governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, who told Fox News in March that he and other senior citizens should be “willing to take a chance on [our] survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren”.  

Or Indiana congressman Trey Hollingsworth, who said in April: “In the choice between the loss of our way of life as Americans and the loss of life, of American lives, we have to always choose the latter”.

The similarities between Madikizela’s statement and Trumpian rhetoric is given additional seasoning by his mention that it is “patriotic” South Africans who are calling for the lifting of lockdown, as if everyone else advocating for a more tentative approach is secretly yearning for social and economic collapse.

It’s worth remembering that South Africa’s relationship between government and medical experts and health activists has been characterised by conflict for decades, peaking during the shameful battle over HIV/Aids treatment.

What is it about the Covid-19 pandemic and its mitigation approach that is causing these kinds of responses?

One brutal possible answer – never explicitly stated, but simmering under the surface – is that not “enough” South Africans have died yet to warrant the cost of the lockdown.

This was an outcome that was ruefully predicted by epidemiologists globally at the outbreak of the pandemic: that if mitigation efforts actually succeeded in preventing widespread death, the “fuss about nothing” voices would grow ever louder, and the economic hit would ultimately be reckoned to have been unnecessary.

But in fairness to the sceptics, in South Africa, this response has been somewhat understandable in light of the absence of clear information as to the effects of lockdown. One estimate has it that 20,000 lives have been saved through the lockdown interventions – but these numbers are little more than guesses, and there is scant agreement between scientists themselves as to whether transmission has been controlled.

This is because public health outcomes are exponentially more difficult to measure than economic impact, which is being felt in a devastatingly direct way all over the country. The delicate dance that has to be performed between protecting health and protecting the economy is nightmarishly difficult, not least because the two issues are inseparably intertwined – as evidenced by South Africa’s current hunger crisis.

Now the (false) conflict between health and economy appears to be splitting the government’s own advisers on the pandemic, with weekend papers reporting that the ministerial advisory committee (MAC) is fraught with tension over the issue of the government’s phased lockdown easing plans.     

In response to criticism from health experts that some of the government’s recent lockdown regulations lacked scientific basis, acting health director-general Dr Anban Pillay was quoted as saying:

“When you have regulations on economic issues – the question of what you can buy in the supermarket or the question of open or closed shoes is not a decision that health made, it’s a decision that the economic cluster made.”

This smackdown of health experts not just exacerbates the perception that government is acting by arbitrary fiat, but also entrenches the public sense of a false dichotomy between health and economics: the choice between lives and livelihoods.

The previously-mentioned DA statement attributed to Madikizela states:

“The prolonging of the lockdown is about having control and power over people, and not about our interests. Dr Glenda Gray, who is on the ministerial advisory committee (MAC), summed it up very well when she called it ‘unscientific and nonsensical’ ”.

Gray has since clarified that her criticism was limited to the particularly controversial new regulations dictating which kinds of clothing could be sold.

“There is no basis to prohibit the sale of certain clothing goods et cetera. There is no evidence that certain clothes spread Covid-19. My reflections were only on that,” Gray told News24.

More significantly, Gray added: “We should focus on the epidemic. This is going to be a long haul”.

It’s worth remembering that South Africa’s relationship between government and medical experts and health activists has been characterised by conflict for decades, peaking during the shameful battle over HIV/Aids treatment.

On Covid-19, there has appeared to be a remarkable singularity of purpose between the different camps – up until recently, when things have seemed to begin fraying. There are hints of tension behind the scenes far more profound than the spat which hit the media this weekend: allegations of vested interests and funding conflicts threatening to derail cooperation.

The South African government has done itself no favours by failing to play open cards with the public on the paltry data it has collected to date on the Covid-19 outbreak in South Africa – and, more importantly, the interpretation of that data.

These are dangerous distractions. So too is the never-ending squabbling about lockdown regulations, with Minister Ebrahim Patel’s absurd clothing diktats having done the entire Covid-19 mitigation project a deep disservice by seeming to expose the phased lockdown easing plan as a farce.

But as far as is known from international examples, the idea of lifting lockdown in stages is entirely sensible, and being implemented in countries worldwide. In fact, the World Health Organisation (WHO) – a body itself imperilled by the “anti-expert” stance of Trump and his ilk – has warned that lockdown restrictions have to be lifted slowly, because “while Covid-19 accelerates very fast, it decelerates much more slowly”.

The terrifying reality is that there are absolutely no clear answers to any of this. Even in the Sunday Times article ostensibly showing that MAC members feel that South Africa’s lockdown should be lifted, individual quotes from the scientists involved revealed considerable differences of opinion.  

The South African government has done itself no favours by failing to play open cards with the public on the paltry data it has collected to date on the Covid-19 outbreak in South Africa – and, more importantly, the interpretation of that data.

Health Minister Zweli Mkhize has continued to point out that the World Health Organisation recommends six factors that should be in place before a country lifts lockdown. If anyone can read those criteria and state with confidence that South Africa has met those yardsticks, they are lying.

There is in general far too much false confidence flying around South Africa at a time when so little is sure; as Yeats had it, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Or as Dr Glenda Gray said, in what might possibly be her least quoted utterance: “We should focus on the epidemic. This is going to be a long haul.” DM