[ad_1]
Some have defined them as “the non-essential part of the country’s productive effort.” The same voice – that of Giovanni Toti, who later apologized – joined the president of Lombardy Attilio Fontana and the president of Piedmont Alberto Cirio in proposing an isolation of the elderly population. The idea is very clear: let’s not stop an entire country with a emergency shutdown general, and let’s leave the finished retired. That, among other things, they are more likely to die from the Coronavirus.
In reality, the reasoning, as is becoming increasingly clear, is primarily economic in nature. The partial closure aims to promote a coexistence with the virus that does not sacrifice the productive performance of Italy. The evidence starts from a simple premise: although the debate has only now erupted at the media and political level, that of a closure on a personal level had already been evaluated, and discarded, by the virologists and experts who managed the first two phases of the ‘ emergency. But why?
Point one: we have a Constitution. The Bruno Kessler Foundation, which was in charge of drafting a useful document in the first phase to address the reopening of the post emergency shutdown, had not taken into account in its calculations any type of restrictive measure for the elderly – it is unknown whether they are over 60, over 70 or over 75. An indication of this type, in fact, being unconstitutional, could not be contained in any law.
As it is written in Article 3 of our Charter, Italy recognizes the right to equality and non-discrimination for all people residing in the national territory: we can certainly strongly recommend to the most fragile people not to expose themselves to avoidable risks, but not to design obligations for individual categories of citizens.
Point two: the strategy is ineffective from the epidemiological point of view. In the monitoring of the Higher Institute of Health, it is explained that, given an Rt index higher than 1.25 in all the Regions, things are destined to get worse and worse (towards scenario 4). A drift marked by data, unless it is possible to protect the elderly and thus avoid overcrowding of hospital wards.
But if a greater squeeze in this direction could have made a contentious sense in the first wave, in the current state of affairs, the proposal runs the risk of being unrealistic. There is a widespread belief among virologists, and also among scholars who have analyzed the proposal, such as Matteo Villa dell’Ispi, that it is almost impossible to prevent the elderly from coming into contact with the virus. As proof of the improbability of efficacy, there is the new wave of outbreaks in RSA.
The RSA case
The clusters of the first phase, from this point of view, speak to us relatively. We had not been prepared for the impact of the Coronavirus and, although even serious mistakes have been made (such as the regional resolution of Lombardy and Lazio that ordered the transfer of patients from hospitals to some departments of RSA), it is difficult to divide clear responsibilities.
Among the data collected by Milena Gabanelli, Mario Gerevini and Simona Ravizza for the Corriere della Sera – where the structural deficiencies behind the health failure in RSA stand out – however, there is a number that remains eloquent: during the first 4 months of the pandemic, 40% of the deaths that occurred in nursing homes are attributable to Covid -19
And now, in the red October of the new wave, the outbreaks have returned relentlessly. One of the most striking cases is that of RSA Mazzini in La Spezia, in Liguria, where all the guests (50) tested positive for the virus and 30% of the staff were infected. Along with the possible lightness of the management to take into account, it is enough to infect a vulnerable elderly person, an asymptomatic doctor in hospitals or an unconsciously positive health worker in residential structures.
Or even an infected family member who comes to your house to carry the groceries or to help. In short, the only way to save them would be to lock them in a solitary cell. An option that, fortunately, no one seems to have had the courage to propose.
Cover photo: EPA / DUMITRU DORU
Read also:
[ad_2]
