[ad_1]
Rome, March 7 – 2021 – Researchers from Emory and Penn State University, in the United States, have relaunched the idea of trying to live with the Sars-Cov-2 virus without exaggerating with generalized lockdowns, considering that this enemy will recur again, among ups and downs, like a cold. Humans, this is the starting assumption reported by the journal Science, we have always been exposed to infectious agents: you pay an initial price, but in the end we turn the page. In Italy, on the contrary, with slow vaccines, we will get out of this in twenty years. Would it be worth it to be less intransigent? We talked about it with Paolo Spada, …
Rome, March 7, 2021 – Researchers Emory and Penn State University, in the USA, have revived the idea of trying to living with the Sars-Cov-2 virus without exaggerating with generalized confinements, considering that this enemy will reappear again, with ups and downs, as happens with a cold. Human beings, this is the starting assumption reported by the journal Science, we have always been exposed to infectious agents: you pay an initial price, but in the end we turn the page. In Italy, on the contrary, with slow vaccines, we will get out of this in twenty years. Would it be worth it to be less intransigent? We discussed it with Paolo Spada, vascular surgeon, author of Pills of Optism, who boasts of good connections with the Emory University circles.
Doctor, what could be the long-term solution?
Obviously, no one can expect everyone to shut up at home for months and months, I hope that the idea of the confinement thus conceived is overcome forever. Also, this virus is not expired. The hope of an acceptable coexistence was shattered in October, we are now immersed in this continuous tug of war between us and the virus. So it is not a peaceful coexistence, but in the end we will accept it. However, we are still far from that scenario. “
The measures have an enormous economic and psychological cost.
“The solution dictated by common sense says to find a middle ground. On the one hand the idea of closing everything to avoid the virus prevails, on the other hand the idea of reopening everything to return to full life. There are good reasons for both. the parts. If we closed everything we would have incompatible repercussions for this company ”.
What side are you on?
“They are for focused and calibrated containment actions, possibly limited in time and space, as well as in the activities to be closed. Finally, we are beginning to consider measures on a limited territorial basis, without harassing adjacent territories where there is low circulation. of the virus “.
In different ways, other nations (Sweden, Israel, India, the United States) seem to be close to herd immunity. Why are we still paralyzed?
“We allow ourselves to be carried away by fear of viral variants, by fear of school outbreaks, which are instead modest and of little impact. The school should be closed only as an extreme measure. Apart from the inconvenience it causes to families, we will have repercussions very serious pupils and students “.
Wouldn’t it be time to relax the measurements?
“In our team we have never been openings. We will win thanks to the achievements of science. There is no total openness, but openness where it is possible. The theory of the two rocks, avoid the pandemic on the one hand, avoid social and psychological repercussions on the other. To circulate the virus freely now would be irresponsible, we still have many unvaccinated fragile people who run the risk of dying ”.
The more the virus circulates, the sooner we get to herd immunity?
“A theory that has been spreading for a long time, the idea of letting the virus circulate in the robust population. In practice it doesn’t work, the British have tried and had to close with severe blockades ”.
Ultimately, when will we get out of it?
“When we come to accept a price to pay, such as for the flu, which also involves 8 to 10,000 deaths a year, we have always tolerated it without masks and confinements.”
© All rights reserved
