The scenarios designed by the “experts” almost never occurred. It is wrong to be paralyzed in the face of an emergency waiting for “everything to go back to normal”. Some ideas to resume living
The data of the Covid-19 they are clearly improving; all indices in constant decline and the discharges of patients from resuscitation in the order of dozens and from hospital wards in the hundreds, daily.
If we take the trouble to compare the headlines that stood out in the newspapers in the days of May 2020 with those of the same days in 2021, it is difficult to distinguish them. This observation, for better or for worse, tells us that maybe Sars-CoV-2 has a cyclical nature that doesn’t care about epidemiological studies as well as proved profound disinterest in the various legal devices limiting movements and closures.
Covid cycles and wrong predictions
Look at the epidemiological curve and compare it with political and “technical” decisions and you will see that after the expected ten or fourteen days the desired effects have not been obtained. Possible explanation? The Sars-CoV-2 has a four-week long “day” in which it lives actively, then a sort of evening of a few weeks in which it alternates between rest and work followed by a night of another four weeks in which it rests. When it awakens the cases inevitably increase (a virtuous individual behavior somehow mitigates but does not cancel the increase) and when it begins to enter the phase of quiescence the cases decrease (with a slower speed than that of the ascending phase).
It will seem a childish description but it is an observation that competes in scientificity with those of the many “experts” who have pushed themselves to design a future – in accordance with observations and “rigorous” studies – which has almost never occurred; last but not least the example of celebrations for the conquest of the Scudetto in Piazza Duomo in Milan. Pathetic experts when they predicted what happened armageddon, same pathetic experts in finding the justifications for the fact that there has been no noteworthy shift. We are talking about illustrious professors who have in their hands, among other things, the training of the future medical class.
It would be useful to deepen what they have in mind when they talk about method and how to communicate on scientific grounds; science does not state the truth but tries to give a “mathematical” explanation of the phenomena until a more rigorous explanation is provided.
Why are we still in “emergency”?
Is it still legitimate to speak of a “pandemic emergency”? Right now the numbers say no. It’s all OK? No. Why such a succinct statement? Why I can’t see the desire to manage and not suffer the future. At this time we should witness the dismantling of all structures for the execution of the pads in favor of lasting solutions and included in an ordinary management logic, such as the construction of pavilions outside hospitals and, above all, as the writing of protocols that identify the real center of gravity in the territorial assistance doctors and enable them, with a team of nurses and various health personnel, to be able to continue the detection of the virus.
Example: the suspected case stays at home where it is subjected to a “quick” swab. In the event of a positive report, the interested party must be immediately subjected to a molecular swab and epidemiological investigation that leads to rapid swabs on the people who have been in contact in the previous days, leaving to the following days (no more than five) those who have had contact less than 48 hours. In case of symptoms, immediate home therapy is undertaken with observation of the daily hospitalization; the transfer to hospital only in case of complications or multiple pathology.
In this way, civil protection, military health workers, Red Cross operators would return to their institutional occupations (while remaining attentive to listening) and health facilities in any way declined would resume their role at 360 degrees.
Vaccines and construction
Even the vaccination facilities – once the pre-established threshold has been exceeded, that is 70 percent of the immunized population – they must get out of the “emergency” to see oneself inserted into the ordinary dimension. Here too, the doctors of continuity of care in the area together with the outpatient structures must become the sure reference for those who still have to be vaccinated or for any recall cycles.
Then there is the need to plan the future; designing in its most material sense. We understand that school buildings, theaters, hospitals, cinemas must they be built taking into account the possibility of any other contagious health emergencies occurring? Are we thinking of projects involving a larger air cube with active ventilation and air purification systems? Can we think of halls for shows where the places available to the public can be spaced out in case of need?
The cases of Lombardy and Campania
A heretical consideration: these days the Lombardy region (20 percent of the nation’s entire population) had hospitalization figures between 200 and 300 in intensive care, between 1,200 and 1,400 in dedicated hospital wards, between 30,000 and 35,000 people in home isolation. The Campania Region fewer than one hundred patients in resuscitation, less than a thousand in ordinary wards but almost 70 thousand people in home isolation. Situation that has no scientific explanation but only political and that nobody seems to want to face. We leave out clichés that do not even have the right to mention and provide the most likely analysis. The inhabitants of Campania have slower access to health services than those of Lombardy. No one is responsible for the fact that a myriad of people have lost hours of life, hours of productivity, hours of affection because they had to wait for a tampon well beyond the time established by law? Should we let it pass as an accident of fate?
Smart working but not for everyone
What about the agile work formula (translation from an English – which is not such – of “smart working”) that it has left millions of workers at home and that, even with today’s data, continues to do so? Are we sure that this is not a form (at the moment, I mean) of theft of hours and money to the detriment of those who worked or, worse, of those who did not work but had to pay taxes anyway? Mine is not a criticism of the possibility of “producing” even while remaining at home or of being able to participate in “remote” meetings without burdening the community with unnecessary costs and pollution of the environment. My observation is that we are thinking that the mechanism can continue in the same way also for the categories of people (I am thinking of ushers, drivers, technicians) who can only carry out work in presence. Will all executives and directors paid to work and have their staff work be evaluated on the basis of their ability to direct their staff to “work from home”? Will we see a generalized absolution for these social sins?
It is necessary to think and rethink our future and that of our society. We need to write new pages of ethics (social, work, responsibility) that are then able to decline in real life.
We cannot believe that the pandemic will be over when we “get back to the way we used to”. This will never happen; the pandemic will no longer be an emergency when we stop suffering it and we would prepare ourselves to face it by allowing people to live and not survive.