[ad_1]
According to the director of the Center for Communicable Diseases and AIDS, although many decisions are made to manage the coronavirus pandemic and they are made well, they are often delayed.
“There is the same rule everywhere that preventive measures must be taken in a timely and appropriate manner. If we are late, we will lose people’s lives, if we apply insufficiently, it will be exactly the same.
From this we can conclude that a lot of good is being done with us, but it is being done too late or to an insufficient extent. Or when it is not explained correctly why one or another decision is made, its implementation is delayed and I have the same thing again, ”said Professor Saulius Čaplinskas.
According to him, when we were glad to have defeated the virus, the first stage, he forgot that he took the time to prepare:
“Therefore, I would compare the current situation with fire. When only the neighbor’s house smoked, there was a little smoke, we all looked at it, thinking that no one was threatening. When the house caught fire, we were concerned, some may have panicked, others think that the neighbor is not far and will not touch me. And we must take care that the fire both in my house and in that of my neighbor does not arrive. “
Until recently, you mentioned that Lithuania should forget the word “quarantine”. How do you assess the current situation, where municipalities are “turning red” one after another and submerged in new restrictions?
I would be of the same opinion that the total quarantine should definitely be forgotten. Another problem is that it may be necessary to return from time to time to certain partial restrictions and partial quarantines in a particular establishment, in a small area, but for a defined period of time. But we must have a very clear vision of what we are doing with such a restriction and what we want to achieve.
Now, one of those restrictions that has to enter our lives and, perhaps, for a long time, even when a vaccine comes out, is precisely the use of masks during the cold season, when we go where there are many people and we are indoors.
As regards the principle of the traffic light, these are very clear criteria on the basis of which they are applied. But I think the three-color traffic light is a bit crude, especially when it comes to its application in larger cities, like Vilnius. In other countries, there are even five-step restrictions.
What do you think could be done differently?
More segmentation is needed where the tools are needed. Vilnius is too big a city to speak of as a unit. It should be subject to certain point restrictions.
When the quarantine was introduced in Nemenčinė, the question arises whether it should have been introduced throughout the city. Maybe it just needed to be done at the plant where the coronavirus spread? And consequently take steps to ensure that those who have been in contact, family members and the like are in self-isolation, rather than automatically shutting down the entire city.
Imagine if we transfer such a principle to Vilnius. So if the infection has spread to one institution or another, do we shut down the entire city? For example, if there is an outbreak in a dance studio, is it really necessary to close all dance studios?
I am waving and suggesting that people should be better educated and explained. In addition, self-government, the administration of various institutions, so that everyone takes care of it. After all, everyone is interested in the institution working. So you need to help your managers explain to them that if the virus spreads, they will lose staff or the business will close, no matter who it is: a sewing shop, a bar, or a nursery.
We have heard many public intersections between the Ministry of Autonomy and the Ministry of Health. It seems that due to the timely (in) decisions, everyone points the finger at each other. Will benevolent initiative alone suffice here, or is a firm fist still needed?
As we move away from some personalities that are certainly important in decision making too, let’s look at it from the other side. Everyone will probably agree that it is better to live in some kind of cabin where you can get organized than in a bedroom. So, in the same way, we see that in a private business where things are managed like home, the results are better, decisions are made faster than in any large collective farm.
That is, if now there is a greater tendency for people to take better care of themselves, their health, their businesses and their well-being, then only general rules of the game should be established. Keep helping people know and follow those rules. And if they constantly change and are not told why they are done, or if at night they are told what to do in a completely different way, people are, on the one hand, confused.
On the other hand, they do not know how to implement it, so they begin to distrust who offers in one way or another. And then we can make them ineffective, ineffective, or worse, boycotted.
Some specialists even draw apocalyptic scenarios for Lithuania due to the spread of the virus. Are incidents difficult to track now the biggest problem?
Case traceability has been around for a long time. I drew attention to this many times before, but somehow my eyes were always closed. Here’s the problem that we don’t have normal data, its normal analysis. Only a few overall numbers are visible, but the question is how many of those untracked cases were early on as their dynamics changed.
And it has become clear in the past that the traceability of cases is deficient, because the anti-panic methodology is used: some kind of paper questionnaires are used, a person is called by phone, subtle questions are asked, that a person does not always wants to respond, it takes time, etc.
Let us now imagine what traceability means if 700 people are diagnosed, if they need to be contacted, heard about the contacts and then contacted … It has long been clear that this will not be possible.
In the summer, it was time to prepare for digital technologies, mobile applications, to allow voluntary traceability of contacts. But people need to be educated so that they can implement it and use it honestly. If they do not realize the need to participate, nothing will change.
You’ve already mentioned that wearing masks makes sense in some cases. Without a few exceptions, isn’t its universal use excessive, even in outdoor quarantined areas? Doesn’t the government return to the rake, provoking public outrage?
In my opinion, unequivocally. If people see that there are excess requirements somewhere, it can cause a negative rejection effect. And then you can’t use them where you need to.
The main factor that we have already had to understand is that it is only possible to get it from a sick person who does not know that they are sick, due to a virus released along with their exhaled air. If you are not close to that person, if you do not breathe the air that this person exhales, if you do not breathe much, you will not get sick. Therefore, there is a basic requirement to maintain distance. And when you can’t follow that, you need to wear a mask and be close to the person as little as possible.
Outside, UV-exposed virus particles are quickly blown away by the wind. Clearly, there is less in the winter, so the conditions for spreading the virus are better. But when it comes to the universal use of masks, then I don’t know if a person needs it when playing sports, he goes to the park. If you are walking down the street alone, you are one. If you approach another person and want to talk to him, you should put on a mask. I can only remind you once again of an important set of measures, one of which does not provide protection by itself. While this appears to have been known and repeated for a long time, it appears to be very little.
Thanks for the conversation.
[ad_2]
