[ad_1]
It sounds paradoxical, but in fact until the pandemic, lockdowns of this type were recorded only as an extreme scenario by epidemiologists who made proposals mainly because of the possibility of a flu pandemic similar to the one in 2018, rather than as an actual political choice.
The only thing that had been proven was the aggressive local quarantine practices that China had tried to treat SARS. But when the pandemic broke out and countries realized that epidemiological surveillance had failed and that mass testing, monitoring, and isolation were not easy, mainly due to poor preparation of health systems, European governments, like the United States government, decided they had no choice but to lock up.
Even the initially heard voices that some degree of dispersion had to be tolerated for immunity to begin to build in the population were quickly marginalized. This had to do both with the fear of escaping from the situation, which was reinforced by the particularly pessimistic, almost blackmailing projections of certain mathematical models (which were then and then strongly questioned within the scientific community), as with anxiety by the resilience of the systems. Health.
Of course, the experience was really mixed. The closures ultimately succeeded in significantly slowing the spread of the virus, primarily through the vertical drop in the frequency and density of social interactions.
However, in most countries they did not prevent a very significant number of cases and victims, to a significant degree related and places such as nursing homes. Even the only European country that opted for more restrictive measures, Sweden, ultimately did not prevent the large number of deaths in nursing homes.
At the same time, the blockades highlighted the problem of social inequality. In countries like Great Britain or France, the price seemed to be higher in populations of immigrant origin, as a result of social conditions that reinforced forms of vulnerability, a phenomenon even more pronounced in the United States. Blacks are much more vulnerable than blacks. whites, in large part due to accumulated health problems created by social inequality and unequal access to health systems.
The exit attempt
Even at different rates, most European countries seemed to overcome the first wave and return to a kind of normalcy. For a time it seemed that this did not imply an automatic expulsion of the victims’ cases. In fact, overall mortality appeared to be declining because there were fewer severe cases, as well as measures taken in places like nursing homes, and because therapeutic interventions were improved, due to much better knowledge of the COVID-19 disease.
However, with the beginning of the fall, the opening of schools and the end of the Christmas season, it seemed that there was a big increase in cases again. In the first phase, governments tried to insist on stricter measures such as the use of masks, but the incidence of cases was increasing.
What drives governments to return to blockades
The truth is that the panorama is quite different from that of spring. In fact, confirmed cases are on the rise. Of course, this also reflects the many more tests being done and the increased spread of the virus within the community. Mortality does not show proportionally increasing trends. However, the number of hospitalizations and cases requiring ICU is gradually increasing, although not yet at the levels of last spring. And, of course, in most European countries, the way of life is already quite “wintery”, that is, with a large part of the activities indoors.
This raises concern among governments that things could get out of control and see a situation similar to that of spring. Only in this case do they estimate that they would receive a great outcry and delegitimization.
Furthermore, most countries, while trying to strengthen health systems, are concerned about their limits of resistance. Regarding nursing homes and other shelters, most countries took action after the spring, but there is concern.
This again prompts the adoption of restrictive measures. They bypass standard lockdown, meaning they stay indoors all day, but impose heavy traffic bans at night and close restaurants and entertainment venues, in an effort to minimize dispersion but not to suspend large amounts of economic activity.
The limits of the confinement
The problem with all these measures is that they limit the rate of spread, without “stopping” the pandemic. They have value as a “time saver” as long as there is a visible horizon in which this time will be used. Otherwise, they simply change and “spread” the pandemic over time.
With the vaccine going to spring, in the positive scenarios, when obviously it will not be administered “immediately” to the entire population but hierarchically and over a long period of time, this implies a prolonged battle with the pandemic and therefore a social and equally prolonged social. financial costs.
After all, there is a difference between a condition of two or three months, immediately after the start of an aggressive pandemic and a reasonable fear and the current situation where there is awareness of social costs, symptoms of fatigue and insecurity about what another would mean. semester with adults. restrictions. The fact that European governments have tried to reduce social costs with relatively large income coverage schemes does not negate the uncertainty of the next day.
The difficulty of drawing an alternative
In this condition the question arises as to whether there is an alternative. It is no accident that many are looking back at Sweden, which, having grappled with the problems of nursing homes (which led to large numbers of deaths), shows that despite the large number of cases, it no longer has high mortality. or high rates of ICU patients, without requesting large-scale restrictive measures.
After all, there is a minority of epidemiologists in the scientific community who once again advocate the combination of protecting the vulnerable, especially the elderly, and seeking to build immunity in the population. Of course, this opinion, which was also reflected in the “Great Barrington Declaration”, has been met with a wave of backlash from most epidemiologists.
However, most governments do not choose this direction at this time. Most government scientific advisers believe that the risk of an uncontrollable situation persists if measures are relaxed, while communicators also run the risk of strong reactions if there are many victims again. This leads to the choice of decisions by restrictive measures, despite the individual reactions that exist.
However, as time passes and the social footprint of the measures becomes visible, the pressure of any measure that is included in a horizon will intensify and the debate will return about whether there is an alternative.
[ad_2]
