The fight against Covid-19 is a war and a war with very unique characteristics:
It is, therefore, a different, uncertain, long and difficult war. Although vaccines provide an assurance that, in the long term, we will win, the battlefield is made slippery by the need to continually redefine strategy. The enemy is not seen, he is elusive and, in addition, with mutant capacity. War body to body, where variables can be more or less controlled, has been replaced by war inside the body, where we still don’t know exactly how the virus works. Old firearms have become obsolete. Now they are research and knowledge, scientific tenacity and biotechnological ingenuity.
But not everything is new in this contest. The typologies of the actors involved remain exactly the same. Since Atapuerca, the roles to be played in wars remain unchanged over time.
Who is who
Let’s take a look at who’s who in this fight:
1. The troop. Except for very specific and unrepresentative groups, in general the public is being exemplary in terms of respecting the rules and accepting restrictions on freedoms and prohibitions. In order not to have had previous training, citizen discipline is proving absolutely exemplary. No but around here.
2. The essentials. From hospital workers to those responsible for food supplies, to state security forces or teachers, everyone carries out their respective tasks with priceless effort and an extraordinary sense of responsibility. Everything works. There is nothing to object here either.
3. The heroes. Recognized and praised by all, scientists, doctors and health workers have acted and continue to do so with spectacular professionalism, vocation, dedication and tenacity. Example for all. Role models. Social heroes. Of course, nothing to object and much to applaud.
4. The General Staff. The controls. Everything changes here. With very few exceptions, the management of the pandemic is being poor. I am sorry to be drastic in my affirmations, but there are many of us whose sense of duty and of pitching in in the common cause does not cloud our critical capacity. Big mistakes are being made with dramatic consequences because people die and, when it comes to dying, it doesn’t matter if it is because of fire friend. See some examples:
-
Contradictory actions in vaccination. It is absolutely clear and straightforward that vaccines are effective, essential and the only solution to stop this debacle. It is much safer to be vaccinated than not vaccinated and that should be the only slogan that is made available to the population. It cannot be that the scientific authorities insist on it in unison while some policies generate confusion by playing now yes, not now. It is one thing to put the principle of prudence before that of efficacy (as the health authorities do) and another to prioritize electoral profitability by neglecting both.
-
Arbitrary regulations. It is not understood that what today is a matter of state and national alarm, tomorrow will be a free will decision of the autonomous communities. Nor is it understood that Europe suspends the contracts for the purchase of vaccines that the European Medicines Agency approved days ago or that each country imposes different health regulations. The virus does not understand borders or political ideologies.
-
Permissiveness with media behaviors. Although security measures are respected in most television programs, many of us contemplate in amazement others where people hug, kiss and do not keep any distance. The viewer does not understand how these irresponsible behaviors are justified by attaching a ridiculous little sign to the bottom that the participants have undergone an antigen test. Even in the Congress of Deputies itself, there is no difference of a meter and a half between the attendees, not even remotely. Your Lordships, who are the first who should lead by example, seem to skip the rules that they themselves enact as if the virus were intimidated by their political credentials. They do not seem to have understood that science is one, international, objective, transparent and free of ideologies.
-
Official scientific communication and dissemination. It is flawed and contradictory. Universities are full of magnificent professionals capable of drawing clear, precise and defined ideas to inform the population. But of course, in that case scientific concepts would be disseminated, not political slogans, and no party is willing to hire it.
-
But what is incomprehensible is that those who make decisions in these delicate circumstances, the vast majority, do not have training on what a virus, an antibody or a vaccine is. And the excuse of the advisers (assuming they exist) is not worth it. At least, the ministers of health (or equivalent in other countries) would have to have a minimum of scientific and biosanitary training. It has never been logical that those who lead are less qualified than those who are led, but in these circumstances, much less.
5. The useful fool. After viewing Évole’s interview with Bosé, it is truly pathetic to contemplate the lack of argumentation, the contradictions, the ridiculous expressed with some enlightened gesturing gestures that the great revelation has received. It is painfully grotesque to hear conspiracy fallacies that denote nothing more than a supine ignorance of the most basic biological concepts. I assure you that I am an absolute defender of freedom of expression, that I respect all kinds of opinions and thoughts, that I enjoy visiting the speakers’ corner when I go to London but… seeing a star gone downhill making such efforts to gain an audience is very hard. I am not scientifically concerned (I do not think that those who support it reach a minimum statistical significance). I am ashamed of others.
–
