Face shields: An equipment of corruption

After a series of calls from experts petitioning the amendment of the mandatory use of face
shields, President Duterte finally made a statement last September 22. He informed the public
that these plastic barriers are only required in crowded and closed places, suggesting that face
masks are enough protection when going outdoors.

For a country lagging in COVID-19 response and unable to flatten the curve, it is obscure to
think that the Philippines is still using face shields amidst the surge in numbers for the last
months. Indeed, the plastic failed to protect the public from the variants, and it only became a
hindrance among commuters. Ironically, this thin plastic successfully covered up massive
corruption from the administration.

But as they say, secrets are bound to be exposed. The cover of the anomalous purchase of
personal protective equipment of the administration has been defogged. In the Senate inquiry
revolving around Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp., it was revealed that this company is the
supplier of allegedly overpriced and low-quality PPE’s. Since the Procurement Service of the
Department of Budget and Management (PS-BDM) bought them at high prices, it was
challenging to sell them to government agencies. Thus, face shields and face masks became
“slow-moving” supplies. To compensate for their losses, it’s not surprising that the
government implemented its mandatory use of face shields. This policy was done not to
protect people but to profit from the masses.

In the first place, the use of face shields was questionable. Suddenly, it was mandated for use
when going outside without proper consultation with medical experts and substantial studies.
According to the Department of Health Secretary Harry Roque, face shields are an added
protection from the virus droplets. But the World Health Organization (WHO) also stated that
it is not as effective as properly worn face masks. And it is only suitable for eye protection.

Studies from medical-scientific circles and engineers also say otherwise. In advanced
countries, face shields are deemed unnecessary and redundant. With COVID-19 being
airborne, a wind engineer from the University of the Philippines-Diliman studied the
aerodynamic effects towards the face shield. Negative pressure is acted between the face and
the plastic barrier, creating vortices that suck up the air. Since COVID-19 is proven to be
transmitted airborne and not just to droplets, this is detrimental because viruses tend to
suspend in the air. Additionally, face shields act as insulators which results in higher moisture
on one’s face. Moisture is an encouraging factor for viruses to stick into your skin.
However, there is still no complete study regarding face shields’ effectiveness up to this date.
So, in the first place, why did the government employ this impulsive policy if there is
insufficient research on the barrier’s usage?

The argument about the “added layer of protection from the virus” was overly exploited by
our officials for people to believe that it is necessary to use. It was just a facade to cover up
what’s brewing ー to leech people from the overpriced face shield they failed to sell. They
can’t stand to ingest their failure and decided to milk their constituents.

If there’s something in common to countries successfully controlling the pandemic, they

don’t require the use of face shields. The Philippines is only one of the few nations that
implement its use. Yet, here we are, still stuck at home, and nothing has changed that much
since the administration loves short-term solutions.

Just like the eternal lockdown name evolution over the pandemic, face shields are merely a
bandaid solution. If there is no mass testing, proactive vaccination plan, and proper budget
allocation, the country will just run around in circles.

Aside from face shields, another obsolescence that needs to be resolved is incompetent
politicians. So, hold on to that face shield and don’t dispose of it yet. Let it be a reminder to
choose the right leaders who prioritize people over their interests in the upcoming elections.

Sources:
1. https://interaksyon.philstar.com/trends-spotlights/2021/06/02/193048/juxtaposed-
philippines-face-shield-policy-vs-other-countries-without-such/
2. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/world-health-organization-face-
shields-not-effective
Superspreader of Fear

Religion is not an excuse to promote the anti-vaccine movement in a country where the
majority are Catholics.

By scrolling through social media, it is customary to see insights from netizens that say
COVID-19 is God’s divine ordained message to tell the world to change, especially in the
comment section of vaccine-related posts. These anti-vaxxers believe they are going against
the will of God and the government is depriving their choice of freedom. They believe that
this pandemic is only natural, and it will just go away if they remain faithful to the higher
being.

Reading this outdated ideology is highly frustrating, knowing that the country is racing
towards achieving herd immunity. Faith alone and citing Bible verses in social media will not
guarantee one’s safety against the virus. It is nothing but selfishness, making everyone
around them susceptible to getting infected.

According to the teachings of the church, one must love their neighbor as they love
themselves. But isn’t being self-centered a sin based on Romans 2:8? The verse states, “But
for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath
and anger.” If a religious anti-vaxxer can read this, they will have a taste of their own
medicine.

It is not the first time that vaccines have received backlash from religious entities. Dating
back to 1796, after Edward Jenner developed the first immunization, many clergy members
opposed its use as it “acts against God’s will.” Because of this, religious concerns about
immunization from vaccines branched out in many parts of the globe.

Although studies show few canonical bases for the denial of vaccination in major religions, a
scholarly article in 2013 from Merck reported that the reasons for the decline in
immunization revolve around safety issues or personal beliefs in a social network organized
around a faith community. In the Philippines, where more than 86% are Catholics, if religious
people propagate fear and misinformation that can influence the masses through their social
media platforms, it leads to negative implications. One short post using Catholicism to justify
their distaste for vaccines is harmful. Bandwagon can easily sway the mass and the less
informed citizens.
For Catholics still doubting whether the vaccines trample one’s belief, the Vatican’s doctrinal
office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), stated that it is “morally
acceptable” to get a jab against the virus. CDF also reiterated that Catholics are fulfilling a
common good to protect themselves, the weakest and the most vulnerable. The Pope himself
also encourages everyone to partake in the mass immunization. For him, it is an act of love to
get vaccinated, and it is a symbol of hope in this time of a pandemic.

Those who do not understand the Catholic teachings well see their religion as a reward and
punishment system ー often fueled by fear. Many believers tend to believe that they will go
to heaven if they follow the will of the higher being and go to hell if they do otherwise. But
they seem to forget that it is not always about themselves, and one’s salvation also involves
being considerate and responsible to the people around them.
Vaccine hesitancy is a massive hindrance in bringing the country back on track.
Misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories, and propaganda fuel this ongoing problem.
Continuous information and education campaigns about COVID-19 vaccines are needed to
combat this issue and a people-centered health paradigm.

In the end, it still boils down to one thing. People have the right to choose not to get a dose of
immunization; it is their free will. But in the time of a crisis, it’s beautiful to see Bayanihan
emerge by keeping oneself immunized and helping your country in flattening the curve.

If you choose not to get vaccinated, at least avoid being a vehicle for transmission of the
virus. And please refrain from using religion to promote anti-vaccination.

Be a Catholic by heart, not just on paper.

Sources:
1. https://theconversation.com/christian-nationalism-is-a-barrier-to-mass-vaccination-
against-covid-19-158023
2. https://www.bworldonline.com/vaccine-hesitancy-still-a-major-challenge-experts-say/
3. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-
vaccines-act-of-love.html
4. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18681930/religion-vaccine-refusal
5. https://www.cacatholic.org/CCC-vaccine-moral-acceptability
6. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/801419/are-face-shields-
effective-against-covid-19-wind-engineer-explains/story/
7. https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/9/22/Duterte-no-more-face-shields.html
Flexible Learning is Not the Future of Philippine Education

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chair Prospero de Vera III said on May 21, 2021,
that CHED had already adopted a policy of “flexible learning” that shall “continue in school
year 2021 and thereafter.” Flexible learning will be the “new norm” and that there’s no going
back to the traditional face-to-face classroom set-up. De Vera also states that going back to
the traditional set-up wastes investments and educators' training. However, ever since
educational institutions switched to distance learning in early 2020, students and teachers
have struggled to cope with its demands.

Flexible learning in higher educational institutions is a combination of digital and non-digital

technology to utilize learning. CHED’s initial plans about flexible learning being here to stay
is a bad idea, as flexible learning is not the future of education here in the Philippines.

Professionally, it provides questionable credibility. Sitting in front of a screen and listening to

lecturers demonstrate lessons does not paint the full picture of education. For skills-based
degrees such as medical sciences and engineering, distance learning could be the least
fulfilling for them. Online simulations and computer programs can never replace real
laboratory activities that have been helping students understand the most important concepts.
According to a study done by Adams and Defleur (2007) about online degrees’ credibility,
applicants were divided into three to take (1) a degree through the traditional setup, (2) a
degree through a virtual setup, and (3) a degree through a mixed virtual and traditional
coursework. Findings indicate that degrees taken virtually were not accepted as equivalent to
those earned in the traditional manner for seeking employment.

Mentally, it is too tiresome for educators and students. Distance learners and educators are
different from traditional face-to-face learners and educators in terms of the work-life
balance. In face-to-face, there are no overlaps between social time, work time, and learning
time. For people who have a hard time concentrating, the work-life balance for distance
learners is much more complex, as they need to put in the effort to balance these time
constraints and combine different temporalities as there are overlaps, according to a study by
Romero (2011).

Economically, it can widen the educational inequalities in our country. Some are quite at a
disadvantage, especially for educators who are not used to using technology to teach.
Usually, computers and other things are provided for in universities during face-to-face or
traditional meetings, but with distance learning, students are usually required to provide for
their own learning materials. People within rural areas are at a disadvantage as well,
especially in rural areas where there is little to no internet and electricity. Students have to
find solutions the hard way just for them to be able to access their online courses and
modules. According to a DepEd survey, 20% of their students use a computer shop or another
public place to access the internet or go online. For a developing country like the Philippines,
distance learning has only made apparent the wide digital divide.

That’s only the digital divide. Modular learning, the most common form of distance learning,
is an expensive feat for both DepEd and CHED. Thousands of books are compressed and
printed as hand-outs. The budget, in estimate, is at least PHP 93.6 billion for reprints. That
falls short within a small budget of PHP 35 billion in the educational sector. There have
always been public school educators asking for donations for bond papers and ink for these
modules, it reveals that even they are not confident with the government response in distance
learning implementations.

According to chief of education at UNICEF Philippines, Faingold, this is bad news for a
country where “there was an education crisis even before [the pandemic].” This can be
proven by the global survey in the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) where the Philippines ranked relatively low among 79 countries in reading
comprehension, mathematics, and science. According to the PISA reports, students who were
more affluent outperformed those who were from disadvantaged backgrounds. It’s obvious
that the pandemic aggravated the Philippine educational crisis.

The Philippines needs better support from the government if they plan on implementing
flexible learning even after the pandemic. Currently, flexible learning that has been
implemented is now more of a matter of compliance than learning. A solution is to avoid
“blanket rules” regarding educational policies across the country. Allow local government
units to decide on finding specific solutions that are in accordance with their needs, rather
than the usual top-down approach coming from the national government.

Flexible learning has had a fair share in the Philippine setup, but it looks like the cons
outweigh the pros. Flexible learning has had issues for students and educators alike in their
mental and emotional state, as much as it also presents numerous problems in the economical
state of the country. Better and more specific actions should be done in order to address each
students’ needs. No one should be left behind in the context of education in the Philippines.

Sources:
1. https://www.rappler.com/nation/ched-says-flexible-learning-new-norm
2. https://mb.com.ph/2021/05/28/are-you-for-or-against-flexible-learning-students-and-
teachers-weigh-in-on-the-issue/
3. https://elearningindustry.com/distance-vs-regular-education-which-is-better-for-you
4. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/distance-learning-philippines-
assessment-2020-2021
5.
6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1289949.pdf
7. https://eu.boell.org/en/2020/10/06/philippines-distance-learning-reveals-digital-divide