With the appearance of the Omicron variant of COVID-19, some lessons can be learned (or relearned) (I am aware that, after two years of pandemic, the little phrase has already become a hateful commonplace).
When this variant was detected in the southern part of the African continent, most countries did what the WHO had asked not to do: build an iron fence around South Africa and Botswana (which later spread to other African countries, although they were not in the southern region. Geography has never been the stronghold of governments, but votes have). The leaders of Western countries threw away the understanding and sympathetic words that they had issued months before, when they believed that the pandemic was under control, that this was everyone’s world and that we should help each other.
Soon, it was clear that the Omicron was already in enough regions of the globe to dream of containing it. Then a note from the Netherlands realized that this variant was already there before it was “discovered” in southern Africa. It did not matter, the flight restrictions continue to this day. The WHO qualification contributed to this fear: it is a “worrying” variety. What does this mean for the lay public? Well, it translated into: here comes the coconut.
It is no exaggeration to say that the detection of the Omicron caused a worldwide alarm. Traffic was restricted and in many places confinement measures were reverted. Finally, the reassuring news began to arrive: from South Africa, doctors pointed out that the variant was more contagious, but less aggressive; Anthony Fauci, medical adviser to the president of the United States, indicated that Ómicron is more contagious, but less severe than the Delta variant. Later, the WHO itself and the medical services of the European Union confirmed the above. A saving variant that probably comes to replace Delta, “a gift of nature”, as Dr. Francisco Moreno, from the ABC hospital, who has followed the evolution of the pandemic, said.
Was the quasi-global reaction to the appearance of Omicron exaggerated? The truth is that no, but this does not mean that the correct actions were taken. Despite the fact that there are now better tools against COVID-19, it tended to behave as in the first round when it comes to hoarding vaccines, medicines and reducing traffic. The truth is that Ómicron was not only a scare, but also a warning: as long as there is a large unvaccinated human mass, the virus can change again. Nothing guarantees that it cannot be transformed into something more contagious and aggressive. To make matters worse, the WHO has just concluded that vaccines begin to lose their effectiveness at approximately six months. This means that by the end of the year all those who were vaccinated in mid-2021 will begin to be more exposed.
But there is another idea that would be worth talking about in groups not only of medical personnel, but also of teachers, workers, students, philosophers, etc.: how is the pandemic changing us? At the beginning of COVID-19 there was talk of great changes and a new normal. Philosophers said that it probably meant the end of neoliberalism or the triumph of Asian discipline over Western liberality. We will have to do a serious analysis, but it is not yet the time to do it because the coronavirus and the economic crisis are still among us.
For now, there are some worrying data: the very rich are accumulating more resources; the poor worsen their situation, especially in emerging countries; the middle classes are reeling; inflation is a global phenomenon; freight transport has become saturated and more expensive, etc. And if in economic terms the damages are in sight, the social ones are appearing. It is known that family violence escalated, but there are other damages in education and sociability. Are all of these signs temporary or will they last for at least five years or more?
To President López, a faithful Juarista, the effects of COVID-19 and its variants do what the wind does to Juárez. In this December we entered a booster dose for older adults without having completed the full vaccination of adults, skimping vaccines for those under 15 years of age and without really knowing where more than 30 million doses are, which is the differential. of what has been received less what has been applied. Were they donated? Did they spoil? The truth will not be known because the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) allowed the government to block reports about vaccines against COVID-19, arguing that it is a matter of “national security.”
The house brand: opacity and inefficiency.
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx