"I Couldn't Remember Why Vietnam Exceeded the Philippines Last COVID-19!" Might Be the "Best Answer" Ever

24h.com

I wasn't planning on blogging today. However, I saw from my Facebook feeds, I found something in interesting on the ANC 24/7 Facebook page. This was what I found:

I read the full story on the ABS-CBN website. One reason why I'm critical of ABS-CBN is how they're very anti-reform. They tend to treat the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's so holy and pure, as if not one provision of it must be amended! Oftentimes, Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. and/or Atty. Christian Monsod, are frequently featured when it comes to the welfare of the Philippines. Now, I'd like to share an excerpt from the ABS-CBN website, which makes me cringe. 

Balisacan replied that the pandemic caused a bigger contraction in the Philippine economy compared to Vietnam. 

“First, Vietnam over the last decade has been growing faster than the Philippines. Second, during the 2020 pandemic, our economy contracted by almost 10 percent. Whereas Vietnam contracted only a little. That particular year separated us from Vietnam, we lost three years essentially of growth as a result of the pandemic,” he said.

During the pandemic, the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte implemented what has been described as one of the longest and strictest lockdowns in the world. News outlets like Nikkei and Bloomberg ranked the Philippines as among the lowest in terms of COVID recovery and resilience. Nikkei even said that the Philippines could recover later than other countries from the pandemic, as it ranked 120th out of 121 countries in its index. 

It's even funnier that Duterte's lockdown was also cited as a cause for the falling away 

Did they forget that Vietnam still calls itself a Communist country? It's still a one-party Communist state. Before Doi Moi, the Communist Party of Vietnam was a picture of what if the late Jose Maria Sison won the armed struggle (read here). However, Vietnam abandoned the old ways that the Communist Party of the Philippines still upholds. Instead, they went with Doi Moi despite identifying as a Communist country!

The National Library of Medicine cites Vietnam's really strict COVID-19 lockdown policy.  Here's the five steps that Vietnam has, which convince me that it's really stricter than what Duterte could've possibly done:

First, the Vietnam authority has prepared a potent preventive healthcare system from the grassroots level with valuable lessons from the previous respiratory epidemics including SARS (2002–2003) and avian flu (2009) (7, 8). The Vietnamese healthcare system can be classified into two main routes: central and local routes. Each province, or two bordering provinces, have facilities belonging to both the central and local routes. At the basic level, a massive number of “rapid response teams” were founded with members recruited from the local stakeholders (2). Universities and colleges of medicine have organized training courses that aim to equip their students with fundamental knowledge and skills to prevent and control the COVID-19. The students then can participate in the rapid response teams to provide a continuous backup force whenever a pandemic occurs. The force provided enormous local human resources, responsible for tracking all the contacts when new cases are detected, and disseminating necessary healthcare information and policies to the community.

Second, to control the COVID-19 pandemic, we must suppress the potential waves as soon as possible. This strategy can be applied in combination with several measures: detect new cases early, fast tracing and zoning areas of substantial/high transmission, and then applying isolation or quarantine. Residents have to send their health declaration online daily and self-declaration is compulsory in public high-risk areas such as hospitals, schools, or theaters. When a new case was detected, the patients (who are F0) would undergo isolation at once and must indicate their close contact (within a distance of 2 m). The individuals must comply with at least 14 days of isolation and need three negative PCR tests—one at the beginning and two at the end of isolation—to be discharged. Then, the local rapid response teams will thoroughly initiate contact tracing with the F0 following the case investigation prioritization hierarchy. All the close contacts of F0 (called F1) must be taken PCR test immediately and if it is negative, they must comply with 14 days centralized quarantine, later increased to 21 days due to the emergence of the new variants. Individuals who are under isolation need at least three negative PCR tests—one at the beginning and two at the end of quarantine—to be discharged. Then F2—people who closely contacted F1—must also be quarantined in the accommodation facilities. Similarly, F3, F4, and F5—people who closely contacted F2, F3, and F4, respectively—must have a 14-day self-quarantine at home. The entire process is operated and managed by the MOH (4, 9). Encouraging people to use self-testing at home (with COVID-19 rapid testing kit) was also a game-changer for the strategy. This test helped to detect new cases early, quickly, and accurately, especially asymptomatic cases, who can be highly transmissive. It was also easy to use and not expensive for most people.

Third, we need to prevent both the COVID-19 and the non-COVID-19 deaths. The non-COVID-19 deaths included those who were: (1) dead of lack of access to the medical interventions with curable diseases or (2) dead earlier than would be expected of an incurable disease. These non-COVID-19 deaths may also reflect an overwhelmed health system (10). We suggest a three-level model of management to solve this obstacle, which simply classified patients by the severity of the clinical manifestations. Level 1 facilities covered all the asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with medical support from the doctors. Medications should be readily packaged to deliver to these patients including antipyretics and vitamin supplements. Patients with low risk with modest symptoms can be self-managed at home after being examined and prescribed by the doctors with transparent guidelines if the symptoms get worse. The process can also be done via telephone or other mobile platforms. A large number of the COVID-19 cases were mild/moderate and self-limited; only a scarce number with specific risk factors became severe that required hospitalization or intensive care (11–13). We should not admit all the symptomatic patients to prevent system overwhelming in the later phase. Level 2 hospitals admitted moderate/severe symptomatic cases, who were at high risk of worsening. These COVID-19 vulnerable populations include people who are old (aged over 65 years); having some specific medical conditions (cancer, obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, etc.); or who have suffered long-standing systemic health and social inequities (ethnic minorities, disabilities, and slum dwellers) (11, 14). Additional advanced medications can be used such as corticosteroids, antithrombotic therapy, or oxygenation. Level 3 consists of tertiary hospitals with modern equipment and professional doctors, usually the intensive care units (ICUs). This level is in charge of providing supportive treatment with advanced medications and equipment for a small number of severe/critical cases only. Besides the COVID-19, maintaining treatment of other comorbidities should be reminded for a comprehensive care program. Medical mobilization and social mobilization are needed to establish more homecare services and field hospitals, if new cases were rising dramatically out of control. The model helps to allocate the resources appropriately, reducing the burden for the hospitals and ICUs, which resulted in better patient care and a possibly lower number of COVID-19 deaths.

Fourth, prioritizing the use of the COVID-19 vaccine is crucial. As the SARS-CoV-2 can hardly be eradicated, all the residents should have an adaptive immunity against the COVID-19 to begin “a new normal” state. There are two ways to achieve it through natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 or vaccination. Natural infections are proven to be effective to activate long-lasting immunity against the COVID-19 and might even be better than vaccine induced. With the global shortage of vaccines, it should be reserved for the COVID-19 vulnerable populations aforementioned, who are more likely to present severe or critical disease, if infected and who are at high risk of exposure with COVID-19 (i.e., frontline healthcare workers). After covering the people, vaccines can be rolled out progressively for middle- and then low-risk populations. Besides, most of the COVID-19 cases suffered modest symptoms with no complications. Despite being panic because of the daily reported cases, we should take a look at the CFR or total deaths per 1,00,000 population instead to have an exact view of the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. “It is as easy for the strong man to be strong, as it is for the weak man to be weak”—R W Emerson. This strategy with the prioritizing groups is quite simple and has proven to be effective in many countries. Israel was a symbolic illustration. By having fewer groups and a lower threshold for age, they made it easier for logistics, reduced roll-out delays, and burden on hospitals. They have controlled the COVID-19 pandemic with CFR = 0.6% and 81.05 deaths per 1,00,000 population, which is quite low in comparison to the average of the world (5, 15). Vietnam has been negotiating for more dosages through the COVAX initiative. With respect to the national vaccine production, four national corporations are participating in the research and development of vaccines. One of them, Nanogen (Nanocovax) finished phase I and II and has recruited more than 10,000 participants for the phase III clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04683484). The results of safety and immunogenicity were submitted and under review.

Last but not least, we suggest “publish with care.” The Covid-19 pandemic and intervention measures against it have challenged the mental health status of people, made them feel stressed, overwhelmed, and ultimately led to negative emotions. Social media affected how people perceive the real world. Misinformation on social media can bend reality and lead to unpredicted consequences. It can vary from the contents of the pandemic situations, the COVID-19 treatments to vaccination, or antivaccine. For example, according to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, thousands of new cases were daily reported and published in the media. As we discussed, most of the cases suffered no more than mild/moderate symptoms. We should instead focus on the severe or death rate. However, the number of thousands of new cases was frightening to many people. Images of shoplifting at supermarkets; chaotic crowds jostling for food, medicine, and essentials; or the scenario of cluttered, empty shelves contrast with hundreds of people awaiting payment have become quite popular. The situation reflected excessive panic of the people with the imagination of widespread, uncontrolled disease. We called it the “COVID-19 crowd syndrome.” Nothing is scarier than a crowd that is full of panic and fear.

This has to be ironic for people who put all their social media virtue signalling online. Some people have been rallying during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite concerns about how the virus can spread through social contact. I may heavily disagree with Rigoberto Tiglao's views about FDI. However, Tiglao was right in citing how rallies could've helped spread COVID-19. Vietnam still considers itself a Communist state. The Human Rights Watch doesn't even have a good report on Vietnam either! Would you even think lockdowns in Vietnam aren't stricter during the COVID-19 pandemic?!

Vietnam's stricter protocols made it possible to have fewer COVID-19 deaths. I wonder if Jover Laurio of the now-defunct Pinoy Ako Blog (I'm Filipino Blog) ever noticed that?! It's sad, but supporters of the Pinoy Ako Blog are short-sighted. Some people say that disobedient people aren't responsible, but just the Philippine government. Okay, I'll dare such people to try telling that to Vietnam, where freedom of speech is a lot more restrictive. 

Bigger issue: It's all about Vietnam's economic policies that allowed it to catch up during the pandemic

Vietnam has some disadvantages over the Philippines. It may be better said that Vietnam has the "problems" that some people cite towards our lack of FDI inflow and a better economy. If we must look into these weaknesses that Vietnam has over the Philippines, these are:

1. Vietnam's currency is much weaker than the Philippines. Do you even realize that PHP 1.00 is actually VND 460.84? We blame PHP depreciation as to why FDI doesn't want to do business, or why the economy is weak. However, the significantly weaker VND hasn't stopped Vietnam from becoming a powerhouse! So even if the PHP will become stronger than the VND by even more digits, poor economic policies are the bigger problem.
2. As mentioned, Vietnam is a one-party Communist totalitarian state. The Communist flag flies high everywhere in Vietnam. Communist fronts don't even need to hide as they literally occupy the seats of power. For example, the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union has free reign to recruit Vietnamese youths with the permission of the CPV.
3. Vietnam still has a high corruption index (read my post here about Vietnam and corruption). Last 2024, Vietnam's health was only 40/100 according to Transparency International. The same site also reports that the Philippines has a score of 33/100. It means that Vietnam isn't exactly much better than the Philippines, in terms of corruption! Vietnam ranks 88/180 countries, and the Philippines ranks around 114/180 countries.  

In reality, it's all about Vietnam's economic policies. I wonder how Filipinos who claim they truly read the late Lee Kuan Yew's From Third World to First, read it? I can lie all I want that I read Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad's book The Doctor is in the House, then lie that Malaysia enriched the country first before opening to FDI. However, Mahathir would probably slap my face or hit me with a cane (since he's a grandfather) if I said that, and he was there!

The real issue is that Vietnam's constitution doesn't include the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines' ridiculous economic restrictions. Yes, Vietnam still has restrictions, but these restrictions are balanced. If FDI was bad, why would the late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Do Muoi ask LKY how Vietnam can attract more FDI? That's a far cry from what CPP-NPA sympathizers and supporters have in mind. In fact, Vietnam went from isolationism to prosperity. For those looking for a local economist, I'm also going to point out what Andrew J. Masigan wrote in the Philippine Star:

I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.

The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.

So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.

The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.

From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.

Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.

Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.

Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.

As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.

The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.

The Philippines can gloat all it wants that it overthrew the late dictator, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., through peaceful means. However, some revolutions may end up becoming bloody. Take note that the Chinese students tried to mimic EDSA, only for the Chinese military to show them who's boss. Now, some people even blame President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as to why foreign investments don't come in. Such people fail to realize that the 60-40 policy is the bigger issue (read here), not political dynasties, not corruption in the government, not this or that, or whatever! 

Let's imagine one has a space for rent. However, the space for rent requires the lessor to only keep 40% of their net profits after taxes. It's because 60% must be given back to the lessor. One can stupidly say, "Well, you can keep 40% of your net profits. You give 30% to the lessor and 30% to the landowner." That is, if the building is built on somebody else's land. However, that doesn't make one keep the majority of the profits. Who in their right mind would want to have that kind of ridiculous arrangement? The net profits after taxes are barely half of the revenues. That's probably a result of thinking that your sales equal profit (read here).

You could blame the noisy neighbor, blame the barking dogs, blame the bikini bar next door, etc. However, nobody would want to rent overpriced rent. The Philippines' lack of investment is because our economic restrictions are like overpriced rent. We all need restrictions to keep things in check. However, too many restrictions can suffociate even the most law-abiding citizen!