To allow people to travel to affected areas and back is irresponsible, here's why
One argument reads that this virus is a rich man's disease. Yes, it is true that people who can afford themselves to travel and who did so during Sprink Break, have taken this infection with them from nothern Italy and other massively affected areas following the Wuhan outbreak of December 2019. One cannot hold someone accountable for traveling abroad when no one was noticed about the virus emerging in what would soon become high risk areas. But when a warning was emitted in our country, people still travelled to affected areas in order to return home, fallen ill to COVID-19.
People are always affected by other people's actions. To travel abroad to an epicentre is a choice that puts others at risk. A risk nobody has asked for and made many of us powerless. People with chronic diseases did not have a choice. They are, to a great extent, dependent on how others behave after contracting an infection. Furthermore, it has been very irresponsible to allow people to travel to affected areas.
The thought alone of limiting physical freedom by imposing travel restrictions, seemed not negotiable to many of our governments. It was decided to not impose travel restrictions from an economical point of view. Short term economical benefits prevailed over taking measures to ward off this virus as much and as long as possible. Also, a fear of acting discriminative has withheld governments from enforcing restrictive measures, such as containment.
Blame is only natural if institutions with authority and responsibility fail or refuse to take measures to prevent unnecessary damage. Delay leads to unnecessary damage. Unnecessary is damage evidently caused by leaning back and not acting upon a serious threat. An authority that trivializes problems and takes a wait-and-see-attitude, intervenes deeply in the lives of citizens. What's more: authorities have been acting contrary to containment. The prevention phase was a crucial phase, during which containment should have been the foremost strategy to keep the curve of patients falling ill to COVID-19 as flat as possible.
"Anything we say in advance of a pandemic is alarmist; anything we say afterwards is inadequate"- Michael Leavitt, 2006
Some say: scientists try to evoke panic and mass hysteria. How's that? People did not want their perception of freedom to be limited. How much is this perceived kind of freedom worth on a scale of life? People will actually experience what freedom really means to them, once they will have to live in a vacuum. The problem with people in general is that awareness before any kind of disaster is deemed "hysteria". Some of them say "we should not go overboard with measures" even before having taken any measures at all. Those people need to see it happen before their eyes to realise it might be mean. Ask yourself: is awareness really worse than neglect?
I'll tell you this: it's been 20 years since scientists have been warning the world for this outbreak. A virus is not a matter of revolution, it's evolution. Researchers have observed developments, in case mutations to RaTG13, and estimated an outbreak would happen in the course of 2019. I pulled my ACP Medicine out and searched for biochemical information on coronaviruses. A study written in 2007 reads that "Future outbreaks of nCoV should be limited by isolation of patients with suspected SARS for at least 10 days. In case of documented SARS, patients should be isolated for at least 20 days to prevent a spread." Sadly, to this date none of these recommendations have been taken to heart by governments, except for a few, like China. To come awake too late is bad. Being fully aware and not taking the right measures is downward terrible. By ignoring recommendations backed by scientific practice that has been developed for over the past 20 years, you, as an authority, are responsible for every death that occurs due to your negligence.
Taking recommendations backed by scientific evidence is not born out of a sense of panic, but very realistic and useful. We, as citizens, are responsible for taking measures to prevent further transmission.
Containment: what should be done now
Many West European people, especially the Dutch and German, praise themselves for having phlegmatic temperament. While being sensible would be recommendable, it is in fact indifference that a good amount of Dutch people consider to be 'nuchter'. Indifference, as in "lean back, wait and we'll see, because it is just another storm that will pass by itself" is not going to help society out of this epidemic. It is not going to contribute to containment.
The government has decided (well actually it did not make any 'decisions') to leave it up to people whether they want to restrict their daily activities. "Just use your common sense".
What does "common sense" mean with regards to COVID-19? People have to decide whether to stay at home or to continue their activities while being infected. People have visited hospitals and general practitioners after being infected with 2019-nCoV. One man has mentioned to have been tested seropositive for COVID-19 on 1 March 2020. He used public transport to visit the city's hospital, in order to be tested positive for COVID on 9 March 2020. Hence, people are given a responsibility that they cannot handle or understand.
Everything should be done to enable hospitals to treat their patients, without getting stuck in an overflow of people falling ill to COVID-19. A shortage of ICU beds (Intensive Care Unit) and ventilators is a threat that has to be avoided right now. If our governments fail to enforce all restrictions needed, hospitals will be faced by abhorrent questions of triage. Similar to wartime, people with compromised immune systems and relatively older people will have to be sacrificed to treat relatively younger, non-compromised patients. This is why there is no time left to overthink possible scenarios.
Rules of containment
- The government should suspend all flights, except for cargo. As of today, an impossible threat is still imposed on all of us, by admitting flights and travelers from high-risk areas in this country. This is a threat for for everyone within our borders. Do not consider the suspension of flights and other forms of travel too much of a draconian measure. It is sheer necessity to prohibit flights and travel in order to flatten the curve;
- Close the borders;
- All schools should be closed right now;
- Quarantine people who have been exposed to 2019-nCoV right now. Do not leave it up to people whether they should continue their daily activities and social commitmens;
- A regulation that reads that "gathering with hundreds of people or more is discouraged, gathering with a maximum of 20 people is recommended" is insufficient and does not comply with containment, nor does it comply with mitigation. It was estimated that every infected individual, asymptomatic cases included, has the potential to infect approximately three persons. Thus, a regulation limiting the number of people participating in meetings should be replaced by a rule of conduct stipulating that meetings should be avoided.
One argument reads that this virus is a rich man's disease. Yes, it is true that people who can afford themselves to travel and who did so during Sprink Break, have taken this infection with them from nothern Italy and other massively affected areas following the Wuhan outbreak of December 2019. One cannot hold someone accountable for traveling abroad when no one was noticed about the virus emerging in what would soon become high risk areas. But when a warning was emitted in our country, people still travelled to affected areas in order to return home, fallen ill to COVID-19.
People are always affected by other people's actions. To travel abroad to an epicentre is a choice that puts others at risk. A risk nobody has asked for and made many of us powerless. People with chronic diseases did not have a choice. They are, to a great extent, dependent on how others behave after contracting an infection. Furthermore, it has been very irresponsible to allow people to travel to affected areas.
The thought alone of limiting physical freedom by imposing travel restrictions, seemed not negotiable to many of our governments. It was decided to not impose travel restrictions from an economical point of view. Short term economical benefits prevailed over taking measures to ward off this virus as much and as long as possible. Also, a fear of acting discriminative has withheld governments from enforcing restrictive measures, such as containment.
Blame is only natural if institutions with authority and responsibility fail or refuse to take measures to prevent unnecessary damage. Delay leads to unnecessary damage. Unnecessary is damage evidently caused by leaning back and not acting upon a serious threat. An authority that trivializes problems and takes a wait-and-see-attitude, intervenes deeply in the lives of citizens. What's more: authorities have been acting contrary to containment. The prevention phase was a crucial phase, during which containment should have been the foremost strategy to keep the curve of patients falling ill to COVID-19 as flat as possible.
"Anything we say in advance of a pandemic is alarmist; anything we say afterwards is inadequate"- Michael Leavitt, 2006
Some say: scientists try to evoke panic and mass hysteria. How's that? People did not want their perception of freedom to be limited. How much is this perceived kind of freedom worth on a scale of life? People will actually experience what freedom really means to them, once they will have to live in a vacuum. The problem with people in general is that awareness before any kind of disaster is deemed "hysteria". Some of them say "we should not go overboard with measures" even before having taken any measures at all. Those people need to see it happen before their eyes to realise it might be mean. Ask yourself: is awareness really worse than neglect?
I'll tell you this: it's been 20 years since scientists have been warning the world for this outbreak. A virus is not a matter of revolution, it's evolution. Researchers have observed developments, in case mutations to RaTG13, and estimated an outbreak would happen in the course of 2019. I pulled my ACP Medicine out and searched for biochemical information on coronaviruses. A study written in 2007 reads that "Future outbreaks of nCoV should be limited by isolation of patients with suspected SARS for at least 10 days. In case of documented SARS, patients should be isolated for at least 20 days to prevent a spread." Sadly, to this date none of these recommendations have been taken to heart by governments, except for a few, like China. To come awake too late is bad. Being fully aware and not taking the right measures is downward terrible. By ignoring recommendations backed by scientific practice that has been developed for over the past 20 years, you, as an authority, are responsible for every death that occurs due to your negligence.
Taking recommendations backed by scientific evidence is not born out of a sense of panic, but very realistic and useful. We, as citizens, are responsible for taking measures to prevent further transmission.
 |
| ACP Medicine, a 2007 SARS study: prevention is key. Patients with suspected SARS should be isolated for at least 10 days. In cases with confirmed SARS, patients should be isolated for 10 days after the abatement of fever. |
Containment: what should be done now
Many West European people, especially the Dutch and German, praise themselves for having phlegmatic temperament. While being sensible would be recommendable, it is in fact indifference that a good amount of Dutch people consider to be 'nuchter'. Indifference, as in "lean back, wait and we'll see, because it is just another storm that will pass by itself" is not going to help society out of this epidemic. It is not going to contribute to containment.
The government has decided (well actually it did not make any 'decisions') to leave it up to people whether they want to restrict their daily activities. "Just use your common sense".
What does "common sense" mean with regards to COVID-19? People have to decide whether to stay at home or to continue their activities while being infected. People have visited hospitals and general practitioners after being infected with 2019-nCoV. One man has mentioned to have been tested seropositive for COVID-19 on 1 March 2020. He used public transport to visit the city's hospital, in order to be tested positive for COVID on 9 March 2020. Hence, people are given a responsibility that they cannot handle or understand.
Everything should be done to enable hospitals to treat their patients, without getting stuck in an overflow of people falling ill to COVID-19. A shortage of ICU beds (Intensive Care Unit) and ventilators is a threat that has to be avoided right now. If our governments fail to enforce all restrictions needed, hospitals will be faced by abhorrent questions of triage. Similar to wartime, people with compromised immune systems and relatively older people will have to be sacrificed to treat relatively younger, non-compromised patients. This is why there is no time left to overthink possible scenarios.
Rules of containment
- The government should suspend all flights, except for cargo. As of today, an impossible threat is still imposed on all of us, by admitting flights and travelers from high-risk areas in this country. This is a threat for for everyone within our borders. Do not consider the suspension of flights and other forms of travel too much of a draconian measure. It is sheer necessity to prohibit flights and travel in order to flatten the curve;
- Close the borders;
- All schools should be closed right now;
- Quarantine people who have been exposed to 2019-nCoV right now. Do not leave it up to people whether they should continue their daily activities and social commitmens;
- A regulation that reads that "gathering with hundreds of people or more is discouraged, gathering with a maximum of 20 people is recommended" is insufficient and does not comply with containment, nor does it comply with mitigation. It was estimated that every infected individual, asymptomatic cases included, has the potential to infect approximately three persons. Thus, a regulation limiting the number of people participating in meetings should be replaced by a rule of conduct stipulating that meetings should be avoided.
