Malta has reached a point where the measures to contain the COVID-19 are being gradually relaxed. This has given way to conflicting views between the health and economic sectors as to whether the economic situation should be slowly revamped at the cost of risking a much stronger wave of COVID-19 cases.
This feature gives an important illustration of how in some areas the authorities have miserably failed to co-ordinate between themselves, risking a spread of the virus. It is hoped that with the opening of several areas of the economy, Malta will not be worst off health-wise.
(Names removed for reasons of privacy and data protection)
On 7 May, Mr X had the unpleasant experience of being informed by a neighbour that a vehicle with medical staff and a police officer was parked in front of an apartment he leases to foreign workers. This information, which he later confirmed with the tenant, was indeed correct. The tenant and his colleague were being checked for quarantine reasons because his colleague, who is sharing the apartment with him, had contracted the COVID-19, 15 days before.
The information about this incident came to Mr X’s knowledge not through the tenant, health or police authorities, (who should have checked who the owner of the flat is and informed him accordingly), but through a neighbour who he coincidentally bumped into on the road.
Mr X promptly called the tenant and confirmed that the information given by the neighbour is correct. His colleague was indeed sick with COVID-19. The tenant subsequently sent him a soft copy of the medical report to show him that he is negative of COVID-19 and which read as follows: “Result for_________ COVID-19 NOT DETECTED. If you have symptoms, you must still remain home until 24 hours after the symptoms are gone. If you’re in quarantine, remain isolated. If you need medical assistance call your family doctor or a Primary Health Care Doctor (2122 2444)”.
Very concerned about this development of events in his property, Mr X phoned the District Police Station to ask them why he was in no way alerted to this case. They directed him to contact the Coronavirus Helpline on number 111. The staff of the Helpline replied by saying that there was a breach of regulations at some stage by the doctor examining the patient and by Mr X’s not being informed. They asked Mr X to phone the Police COVID-19 Section on 2294 44504/2294 4511. In turn, the Police COVID-19 Section informed Mr X saying that they do not intervene in such a matter and passed the buck on him again to contact the Coronavirus Helpline. Rightly and righteously angry, Mr X told the police lady answering the phone that this is a very bad show of a lack of customer care and no clear-cut delineation of responsibility and co-ordination between the police and the health departments.
If the containment of the virus and social distancing are to be seriously addressed and encouraged, this kind of treatment should never have been meted out to Mr X but he should have been shown more sensitivity in dealing with the issue to find out who is responsible for what. Imagine a person like Mr X, suffering from serious health conditions, going unawares to visit the apartment for some urgent matter and having to face a person who is positive with COVID-19. Moreover, Mr X has a wife and child and two elderly relatives at home whom he has to protect.
Mr X believes it is grossly unfair that the authority that should be held accountable and responsible did not inform him and he came to know about this serious matter only by pure chance.
Authorities please take note. It is useless having press conferences if customer sensitivity is not shown in such serious high-risk health matters.