What was wrong with the anti Covid measures
All that we have done wrong in economic policy and not just against the pandemic. Giuliano Cazzola's comment
The first anniversary of the pandemic has become a topic of debate in the media – especially on television talk shows – just at the moment when a new government and a new majority are called to define a strategy for when the prescriptions set by the government will expire in a few days. previous government.
The media confrontation focuses on limits, errors, delays because this seems to be the only way to provide information. Often – here is the same approach as the prosecutors – the political and health authorities are asked to account for not having adopted from the beginning – when fighting with a violent and unknown enemy – those measures that have also been reached through limits, errors and delays.
Instead, there are disturbing aspects that no one addresses. One of these concerns the risks of a judicial nature to which managers and health personnel are subjected – it is enough to talk to one of them to realize it – as a result of the complaints presented by the various committees of the relatives of the deceased, due to the increasing habit widespread to consider death not an episode of existence, but an error of the health system.
It would seem more appropriate – in this moment of transition from many points of view – to submit to verification the analysis that was at the basis of the strategy adopted in 2020, precisely in order not to continue to commit those same mistakes that are derived precisely from a analysis proved wrong.
Obviously – in my opinion – it is a reflection that we are able to set up today in the light of the experiences made, without which the considerations to be made now in view of the near future would not be possible.
I believe that the basic mistake was to impose a very strict lockdown from March to June of last year (this is the main cause of the economic crisis from which we have not yet recovered, despite the fact that the production apparatus shows an unexpected vitality curbed by the '' health constraint '' within the country and in international trade).
We should have become aware – and no longer fall into the trap – of the unreasonableness of the '' hammer blow '' doctrine: an extended and prolonged closure to drive out ('' everything will be fine '') the virus . An objective that was believed to have been achieved at the beginning of the summer, so much so as to encourage the start of the tourist season, to which – with a lot of straw – the start of the so-called phase 2 was attributed (while it was instead the only and single phase).
The prospect of the vaccine – prepared in exceptional times – has reopened the conviction of being close to the goal, of remaining in apnea for a while to be able to quickly return to the surface.
The consequences have been seen in the restrictions adopted in December around the holidays, measures that have dealt another severe blow to tourism and services. In essence, the perverse and improvised sequence made up of openings / closings / refreshments / cig from Covid / blocking of layoffs and so on has consolidated.
We have arrived at the paradox that economic activities – secured during the first months of 2020 – able to go on autonomously without public assistance have been closed or conditioned by law and while a real state unemployment is being created. Contagion mitigation measures have become the independent variable of the daily life of people and communities.
Obviously the right to health is the only one that the Constitution defines as '' fundamental '', but it cannot be a '' tyrant '' right that refuses to find a balance with other rights. Then, in view of new addresses, we look coldly at the situation.
The recent events that have occurred or the difficulties in the production, distribution and administration of vaccines, the emergence of always different variants (which have always been the normal evolutions of viral infections, completely predictable) outline a long-term perspective that cannot be it can be managed as has happened in the recent past by proposing other lockdowns.
In his speech on trust Draghi touched on a crucial point: '' Some think that the tragedy in which we lived for more than 12 months was similar to a long power outage. Sooner or later the light returns, and everything starts again as before. Science, but just common sense, suggests that this may not be the case. ''
Therefore, if the organization – todo way – of a mass vaccination is absolutely priority, sooner or later it will be necessary to identify the true cause of the economic and employment crisis. We can continue to observe not the moon, but the finger pointing to it.
But we cannot escape for a long time from a consideration that we pretend to forget: it is not only the epidemic that has caused '' deep wounds in our communities '', but also the measures taken, on several occasions, to mitigate its effects. Measures that increasingly resemble tribal sacrifices to appease a mysterious deity who has unleashed a pandemic on Earth.
This is why, as Draghi said, there cannot be two times: first you defeat the virus, then you start again as before, better than before. Because, explained the prime minister, there is '' a question that we cannot avoid when we increase our public debt without having spent and invested in the best possible way resources that are always scarce. Every waste today is a wrong that we do to the next generations, a subtraction of their rights ''.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/perche-la-cura-al-covid-ha-fatto-piu-danni-del-covid/ on Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:52:35 +0000.