The pandemic has also produced positive things, says virologist Marc Van Ranst. “The collaboration between experts and politicians makes me hopeful. It could be a good example to use that model for other issues, such as pollution or the climate.”
The world after corona
…
We spoke to virologist Marc Van Ranst just when the delta variant of the coronavirus is once again infecting more people and when many European countries are taking new measures to contain the virus. Did Trends claim victory too soon with its post-pandemic series? Van Ranst has to laugh for a moment. “That question was also asked around this time last year, and it was very disappointing. But then there were no vaccines on the horizon, and that makes a very big difference. I think the optimism thanks to the vaccines is now much more justified. And the virus is coming back, in decreasing waves, but the impact won’t be the same.” And there may also be new, adapted vaccines against new virus variants? MARC VAN RANST. “True. There will be follow-up vaccines, just like with influenza. They will be necessary and useful, but how and when they are administered is a political decision. It seems unlikely to me that the vaccination centers will remain. In the future, they may routine vaccinations are becoming, just as we now offer risk groups the opportunity to be vaccinated against influenza, through their GP or their employer. We may even go to a joint vaccination against corona and influenza. But that is also a trap we should not fall into “In theory, we could decide as a society to also stop the flu. That works, we actually did that this year. But whether that is a good idea is another matter. I think we should not fall in love with zero risks.” Why is it a bad idea to try to eradicate the flu? OF RANST. “Because the social costs are far too great for that. Then you have to close everything again, take away a large part of the pleasure in life, with the only gain: there is no flu. We have gotten used to it as a society and we have The health system is set up so that every winter, depending on the severity of the flu, a few hundred to a few thousand people die from it, and yet we don’t do lockdowns against the flu and I don’t think we can enforce it. At a certain point you have to find a balance between which measures you want to accept and which social cost, with illnesses and deaths, you want to accept.” The coronavirus is therefore here to stay, but we can limit the social cost thanks to the vaccines. OF RANST. “That’s the reasoning. But actually we don’t know that. All we know is that there are coronaviruses that cause the more serious colds. We take them so little seriously that we haven’t even given them names – they are still called OC43, 229E, ML63 and HKU1 We thoroughly investigated OC43 in our lab around the first SARS outbreak, in 2004. Thanks to this research, we know that the origin of the virus, when it spread from cattle to humans, was around 1890, the time of the Russian flu, a pandemic that killed one and a half million people, lies on a world population of 1.5 billion. That virus has mutated from a deadly virus with symptoms very similar to what we see now, with loss of smell and taste, to a less deadly virus that causes a bad cold. The problem is that we don’t know when that big step happened and how long it took. So we don’t know when that will happen with this virus. We are already witnessing this: according to some, the delta variant would cause fewer symptoms. Others say the opposite. We haven’t figured it out yet, while people’s patience has become very limited.” Is there a danger that people will find it normal that vaccines are developed very quickly? VAN RANST. “You will never exceed people’s expectations can redeem. Some already thought that it took a long time before there was a vaccine. While the technology that is now available with mRNA vaccines makes it possible to make vaccines quickly. Most of the time goes into testing, to see if it’s safe. And those mRNA vaccines work amazingly well. We can only dream of that for influenza. This crisis was also a triumph for science, with major breakthroughs in vaccinology, with vaccines that have an efficiency that clearly far exceeds the potential side effects.” Is there also a danger in this triumph of science? VUB Rector Caroline Pauwels warned against too high expectations in this series. VAN RANST “When you think you are the master of the universe, the next day comes the big setback, I think. Not everything is solvable, or at least not at the moment. In a hundred and fifty years we will be able to solve other things. The great thing about science is that it is constantly changing. But we can’t do everything, and maybe that’s a good thing. If we could develop vaccines against all kinds of cancer, that would of course be welcome. But suppose science invents something that could make us live to be 500 years old, that would be a disaster.” Besides that triumph of science, have you noticed anything else during this pandemic? VAN RANST. “The speed at which some customs, such as the giving hands. We had learned that within a week, after centuries of shaking hands. Now it had become routine. If that comes back – and it will – I hope it will take on more meaning.” What does the speed with which that happened say about us? VAN RANST. “That we can unlearn a reflex very quickly if we understand the seriousness of the situation understanding. Seeing that was also reassuring. I thought: people realize how dangerous this pandemic is, then we’ll get it right. At the same time, we must realize that it is an emergency brake, just like the lockdown. Such a lockdown is terrible, but at some point you have to use that emergency brake. If we had not done that, millions more would have died in Europe. But everyone should realize that it is an emergency brake, which you cannot use every time.” Critics say that our freedoms were curtailed too easily. Do you understand that criticism? VAN RANST. “Not really. People who think that the government is going to fall in love with those measures and that we will live in a continuous lockdown? Why would anyone want that? I’ve hated just about every moment of that lockdown, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. But it was an emergency brake that was absolutely necessary. You always have the fact that experts turn up afterwards who, when all the information is available, suddenly come and say what should have been done differently, and an analysis of such a crisis must also be made. But in a crisis situation you have to make decisions with 20 percent of the available information. It takes courage.” You’ve studied older pandemics. Was this a textbook example? Or were some things really different? VAN RANST. “There are always differences, but for the most part this was a classic pandemic. The reactions of the people were also the same. In the beginning they sing beautiful songs about the virologists, but in the meantime they are sharpening the blades of the guillotine. You have to go through that phase. At a certain point, people look for a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong.” You do not shy away from debating with those people and even consciously seek it out via social media. Don’t you sometimes think about being a little more careful? VAN RANST. “That is a question I deeply hate because it implies that you have instigated attacks on yourself. But no, I’m not going to change anything, I’m not going to shut up. I’m against racism, against fascism, I think the extreme right is a dangerous movement, so I’m not going to shut up because people threaten me. Because then they win, because they just want me to shut up.” What happened to Peter R. de Vries in the Netherlands could also have happened to you. It didn’t matter much. VAN RANST. “Yes, but I can’t live with the fact that something like that would define my life. Neither does Peter R. de Vries. You cannot be influenced by that. The only bad thing is that I have to spend time on people who sue me, like the people from Virus Madness. They lose those lawsuits, but that way they do get some kind of power over my use of time, which I don’t tolerate. I’ll make sure they don’t win and they don’t enjoy it, but having to deal with this annoys me.” Do you have any idea what drives those people? VAN RANST. “Money and power. And eventually they try to turn their Virus Madness organization into a political party. Virus Madness is an organization that raises money to pay the lawyer who also happens to be the founder and driving force behind that movement. Their business model is winning souls and starting lawsuits, against the state, against the virologists, it doesn’t matter – because every lawsuit is a reason to have the donation button pressed again.” measures taken, or tried anyway. VAN RANST “Certainly, and that also makes us hopeful. Just like the collaboration between experts and politicians makes me hopeful. That combination works very well. Not without conflict, and it doesn’t have to be, but with good discussions and short lines of communication. The experts were always available and the politicians admitted them to meetings in the core cabinet. That has led to better decisions, better than those of experts alone or of politicians alone. It could be a good example to use that model for other problems, such as pollution or the climate. I strongly advocate doing that because I’ve seen it work. I don’t believe in a government of technocrats: you need politicians to eventually make and defend perhaps difficult decisions. But I think the cooperation in the preparatory phase is very important.” Can you give an example of a better result thanks to that cooperation? VAN RANST. “We are the first country to make CO2 meters mandatory in the hospitality industry. We are envied for this achievement worldwide, and Ireland is going to follow suit. That is the health gain that we can achieve: if we can improve the air quality in the catering industry, in schools, in residential care centers, in workplaces, this will lead to fewer illnesses, fewer colds, less absenteeism, fewer concentration problems. That is why we are going to try very hard to get this done in schools, preferably before September. We first made buildings fireproof, we equipped discotheques and concert halls with decibel meters, it is now time to make buildings more infection-proof. When that works, that’s the golden edge of this pandemic.”
– .
