It was about a year from the beginning of the phase of the coronavirus pandemic phase, which can be described with the words "Oh God, it's all extraordinary!". So it is quite possible to look back and try to critically evaluate those fateful solutions that were then accepted.
It seems to me, it was necessary to answer two important questions. First: how much is a deadly threat to a new virus to justify the extraordinary steps to change our daily life? Second: These changes should be voluntary or implemented by politicians, ships and police?
In the UK, for example, they could not answer the first question for a long time, as a result of which the first coronavirus wave became one of the most fatal in the world. But in the end, the decision was made: it is not just a strong flu, the epidemic of which we can persist pass. It is too dangerous to "keep calm and continue in the same vein."
I have always suspected that it was aware of it helped heart-profile personnel from crowded Italian hospitals, but simulation was played by their role. In the sadly famous report Report 9, published by just over a year ago, the operational group to combat COVID-19 in Imperial College was predicted: "In the (unlikely) case of the lack of any control measures or spontaneous changes in the individual behavior of people will be infected with 81% of the population In the UK and the USA. If this happens, only more than 500,000 people die in the UK, said in the report.
I read a few explanations of why the findings contained in it were so far from reality. But that's what's interesting: I reread the report this week - and he does not seem wrong. Researchers correctly appreciated the situation as a whole: Cowid turned out to be very contagious, led to death 1% of the infected in the UK and could kill a huge number of people if it could not be stopped. Most of the dead, as mentioned in the report, turned out to be elderly.
Thank God, died much less than 500,000; But the number of victims of Coronavirus may well reach 150,000. Most deaths were caused by two terribly rapid infectious waves. If we at the beginning were collectively shrugged and did not make anything except coffins, the result would certainly be the very half a million deaths.
The Imperial College report also expressed the right assumption that Quarantine may have to declare almost indefinitely - until the vaccine appears. At that time, I did not want to believe it, but in fact, the researchers allowed us to look into the future, which was noted by repetitive lockers, following one after another more than a year.
Mentioning in the report "Measures of control or spontaneous changes in the individual behavior of people" reminds of the second choice, which we all have done together - with the direct participation of the media, politicians, medical officials and policemen. The question was to what extent can I trust ordinary citizens in making prudent decisions. The answer, as it turned out, is not very big.
It is enough to re-read the headlines of newspapers in order to understand that we all were then panickers, egoists and fools: the virus in a distant country was too afraid; wrote articles and posts with calls "not overdo it"; They bought all masks under the arm, long-term storage products and toilet paper; Making acts of unparalleled egoism, going after the announcement of quarantine in the park or on the beach.
All this did not help the fight against Cowid. First, an example of some people affects the behavior of others (this is sometimes called "social proof"). If we show us selfish kovidiotov, we are more likely to behave like egoers; But show us noble altruists - and here we are striving to be the same as they. Secondly, since they tried to shake those whose behavior was public, people were accused of completely safe actions - in the fact that they came out of closed premises on open spaces. Thirdly, if we believe that people are stupid and selfish, we must rely on written instructions, introduce strict rules governing, which is permitted, and what is not, and require their execution.
But these rules will inevitably be clouded. They are allowed that they should not be allowed (for example, to sit in a bad ventilated office or pub, the main thing is to observe the 2-meter distance), and prohibit various things that it would be possible to resolve. Last spring I watched the police make a remark to a woman who was sitting alone in the middle of the lawn. If she did squats, there would be no complaints - it was allowed to go outside for charging; But she read the book - and, therefore, violated the law. Absurd!
I suspect (although I can not prove) that a softer approach would better prevent the contamination of Cake, while making smaller incidental damage. One voluntaryness would not be enough, but it is possible a lot to achieve a lot with the help of altruism, public pressure and clear guidelines.
I am much better remembering the Japanese "triple" recommendation - avoid closed spaces, crowded places and close contacts than all this more than a strange combination of restrictions, installations and exceptions that operate in my own country.
There is every reason to believe that vaccination will put an end to the pandemic, but from any crisis it is useful to extract lessons. My such: a little less believing in the competence of the authorities and a little more - in mathematical models and the decency of ordinary people.
Translated Mikhail Overchenko
The author's opinion may not coincide with the position of the VTIMES edition.