Minus one: the Schrödinger protocol

I certainly did not write them myself, nor did I forge the digital signature of the revered signatories. Yes, these are the two versions of the famous "paracetamol and watchful waiting" home protocol.

and I think you can see that the music had changed a bit in the meantime, probably also due to what had happened in the Senate on 8 April :

in turn a consequence of what had always happened in the Senate on April 1st – in the linked video you see Bernini, Romeo, and others … indicating that some political weight had been put on the scales to get the pachydermic moving ministry: an initiative taken well in advance of the discovery of European hot water :

Now, I will not enter the various technical facets of these documents, which largely exceed my skills (not in the part where I could tell you how long it took to pass from the first to the second version: an epic that is partly in the records parliamentarians but under which there is a long appendix made up of contacts with technicians, colleagues of their own and other parties, external consultants, etc., with whom I do not bore you).

Let's say that with the revision of April 2021, the Ministry basically admitted that it had taken the wrong road by failing to mention NSAIDs, which were the drugs on which the attention of general practitioners who wanted to treat patients had focused from the beginning. (already in February 2021 – I speak from first hand experience – in North Rome the prescription of any doctor, but also of any pharmacist, following a positive swab on a subject not otherwise at risk was to go home and take ibuprofen – which is not paracetamol – and that has remained, generally with good results: the Ministry arrived later, by force of shoving; obviously I know, because if you know something, it means that I already know, that in other territories of the our country – typically: some areas of Piedmont – all this was widely known a long time before, but even in this I would not delay, for the moment …).

But I am amused by one thing about this protocol that according to some journalists would never have existed: the fact that, like Schrödinger's cat, it is both dead and alive!

Of course…

Because he basically died for the Council of State, when he tells us that " the document contains recommendations and not prescriptions ", which is why he cannot be accused of having improperly linked the professional activity of doctors, much less of having addressed it towards a specific therapeutic principle on whose appropriateness many authoritative doubts have been raised for months (we can now say for years) (because it affects the metabolism of glutathione: do not ask me what it is, relata refero , even if I think I can explain what there is enters this discourse more than certain authoritative trombones that we have seen confuse antipyretics and anti-inflammatories: maybe one day it will happen to me too to confuse a demand curve with an offer one, and that day, please, knock me down …).

But at the same time the vigilante waiting protocol seems to be also alive, given that it is used by doctors' orders to threaten with suspension or radiation (it is not clear) of doctors who have not applied it to the letter:

It seems clear to me that there is something wrong: and the first thing wrong is that it is not true that there is no judge in Berlin: there are too many; and it is not true that the problem of the times of (human) justice is that they are long: it is that they are variable. It takes patience, and we told ourselves (but it's just an educated guess ) that we will have to have it until September.

Now, I don't know where the wrong is and where the reason is, and luckily it's not my job to decide. However, in my university career I have studied private law, public law, public economic law and commercial law. Quantum law I have never studied it and I doubt that it is taught anywhere. Consequently, I would be a little careful about disqualifying doctors on the basis of non-compliance with a protocol that according to the Council of State contains "mere recommendations", if that is really what it is. The protocol is either alive (but then those who wield it must be careful first of all ) or it is dead (but then wielding it makes no sense). Mine, of course, is just an uninformed and disinterested advice from a poor man fond of Aristotelian logic: then, as always, if you do as you please, then I have more fun …

Meanwhile, tomorrow I'm going to the drive in . Of this, like so many other things, I didn't need to have direct experience, because my job is to know things . Unlike my illustrious and unfortunate predecessor, however, now that I've been through it, I also have proof as well as knowing. It goes without saying that you do not have to worry: we are all fine, and since he does not do science without assuming he understood it, you can imagine that two years spent in daily dialogue with the world's leading experts on the subject (who are not the sad Lombrosian tour company that you daily in the media) allowed me to face this potentially risky affair in serenity and safety (but in my case completely observationally equivalent to my usual pre-spring allergy to cypresses and mimosas: in any case, don't worry, I control everything, saturation is not never dropped below 97% and the temperature never rose above 36.9 …). We must be very careful: some friends have gone worse and paradoxically, in specific cases, which obviously I do not mention, precisely the more "rocky" ones. Undoubtedly this virus is insidious. It can affect you without you noticing it, it can happen that you find yourself with a very low saturation being practically asymptomatic, etc.

So: attention never hurts!

Also for this I do not enter, because it would not be responsible, in the infinite field of anecdotes, which are like another thing: everyone has their own. Don't even go into it: you know that certain topics cannot be touched upon in the public debate on social media . I wouldn't have even told you, because that's my business, if it weren't for the fact that tomorrow you would have heard from the journaille , and given our report it didn't seem nice to me: maybe you could have worried! I will limit myself only to observing that precisely because it is an insidious disease and difficult to refer to a checklist (right or wrong, and above you have an example of both) there will one day be a very serene and articulate speech about how much the patients of the SSN had equal access to the treatment they were entitled to.

Let us therefore let the imaginative exegetes who in these days revise the Constitution subjecting it to the distorting lens of their hallucinatory discriminatory impulses for a while longer, without commenting on their efforts. How many characters looking for a publisher mom didn't love enough when they were little! And these little personal tragedies, when they don't lead to literary masterpieces, lead to spectacularly ill-timed interventions, as someone said in a Debate which, even if you don't want to understand it, is exactly this debate.

Then it will get serious, and for those who now chat so nonsense the matter will become less fun. But since I do not believe in judicial solutions to political problems (or, more exactly, as I believe that judicial solutions also depend very explicitly on political power relations), before arriving at that moment if not the truth, at least the minor lie , it will be necessary, in this as in all the other sectors of our civil life, that political knots (one in particular) are dissolved. Here, too, if you could make less noise, it would be a good thing for everyone, starting with you. At the last, the sheep are counted. However, I have nothing to advise you: do as you like.

I slept well yesterday, I will sleep better today, and tomorrow I will do my duty, as will my colleagues.

I hope the same of you.