From the first wave in Israel and around the world, we learned about the damage of full closure, along with its dubious benefit • This, especially for an extreme, excessive and disproportionate closure as it was in Israel

• Corona closure north of Tel Aviv

This week, the dangerous idea of ​​causing an initiated and useless catastrophe in the State of Israel was raised again by a full closure for a period of two to three weeks. Common to proponents of this idea is that they have no knowledge or experience in the field of public health or epidemic management, and are trapped in “tunnel vision” with no reference to the broader picture of dealing with a long-term epidemic. This is a clear example of a phenomenon known in history: the parade of folly. Historian Barbara Tuchman proposed three conditions for defining a policy as nonsense: the negative results will be clearly visible in real time, there is an alternative course of action, the policy is of a group.

A full closure today will cause Israel tremendous damage, an oil worth trying and evaluating before taking this step. From the first wave in Israel and around the world, we learned about the damage of full closure, along with its dubious benefit. This, especially for an extreme, excessive and disproportionate closure as it was in Israel, which reduces the freedom of movement to a hundred meters from home. Such a closure would likely result in the deaths of hundreds of people directly from a lack of access to acute or chronic medical care, and indirectly from the enormous social and economic damage that would particularly hurt the weaker and poorer populations. A condition for any discussion of closure is an advance assessment of these damages, the introduction of the assessment into the equation of considerations, and the determination of a plan to reduce the damage. This week, no data was disclosed to the public or professionals about these damages or a plan to reduce them.

We are at a stage where there is still widespread community expansion in Israel. However, in the last two weeks there is evidence of a trend reversal, and it is possible that a decrease in the rate of infection has even begun, which is reflected in a decrease in the infection coefficient below 1. This is a situation that requires vigilance and responsibility on the part of all of us in order to further reduce the infection, but there is no dispute that we are very far from the inadequacy of the health system, and it seems that the number of dead and seriously ill remains relatively low. As long as we are in a stable state, with a coefficient of infection close to 1 - even if the morbidity is high, full closure is not a legitimate means at all.

Proponents of the closure cite examples from the world and history, but are confused in understanding the concept of closure. Epidemiology closure is aimed at banning entry and exit from a defined area, in order to prevent the spread of disease from an outbreak area to an area where morbidity is low or non-existent. This is not a cessation of life in an entire country, which could, beyond the severe damage mentioned, even cause an increase in infections within the besieged houses and buildings. This, not to mention the inapplicability of the closure, due to the loss of public trust. Also, as currently decided, a differential policy according to risk areas ("traffic light") is recommended. It is absolutely clear today that there are alternative ways of action that have not yet been exhausted, and it is appropriate to act in accordance with the professional line outlined by Prof. Gamzo, the professional cabinet and the Ministry of Health. It is now appropriate to work together with the public to assimilate the principles of "wise in Corona" in accordance with the principles we must all follow.

Proponents of the closure argue that at such a high level of morbidity it will not be possible to open up the education system. Even if the morbidity level drops after a full closure, it will be an illusion, as it was in the first wave. As long as the systems that enable safe learning, such as learning in small groups, in the open air or effective online learning, have not been built, there will be a risk of infection in divisions and high schools. As long as we do not succeed in promoting health and changing the behavior of the population, out of an understanding of the immense importance of personal responsibility and mutual guarantee, a renewed spread is expected.

As long as the public health system, including the epidemiological investigations, is not strengthened in a professional manner, we will be missing in the first line of defense. As long as the required resources and the strength of the medical system in the community and in the hospitals are not allocated, we will be missing in the second line of defense. These are the conditions for opening the education system in divisions and high schools, and not an artificial condition for the number of cases, which in any case represents only the tip of the iceberg of actual infections.

The events of the past week have shown that the "Closure Sect" group faces a much larger group of the majority of the Israeli public, public health professionals, ministers and MKs, journalists and local leaders. This front will stand firm against the parade of folly, On epidemiological logic and broad discretion.