After seeing the state of war with which the French State is subjecting its citizens, I begin to wonder if the remedy is not worse than the disease. At this point in the crisis unleashed by Covid-19, it is clear that there will be more victims from the brutal economic impact of the measures taken to combat it than from the deaths that the horrible bug may cause. The practically total suspension of production chains in much of the northern hemisphere, the sharp closure of borders, the paralysis of business for weeks and the confinement of citizens will have consequences that will be felt for many months, if not years. But I can't help but think of the tragedies in stadiums or theaters where people end up crushed by other people fleeing an emergency. Situations where panic is more damaging than what triggered it.
The European leaders began to compete with each other to see which of them had more sizes and went further, so to speak (in the end Angela Merkel will win, as always) and decided to put their citizens in a state of siege. I know this because the border closure took me in the south of France, during a tour for the translation of my novels (now suspended), and I have had to observe closely the draconian and authoritarian measures. I hope they work for you. What I am not sure about is that these solutions work for Mexico.
Social networks in our country have little less than crucified President López Obrador and his Cabinet for “murderous negligence” by delaying the implementation of similar measures. It is the same virus, right? We should have been doing the same thing for weeks, right?
Not necessarily. In fact, it is the same virus but not everywhere it behaves the same. Everything indicates that the spread is different in northern countries: it is a bug that likes the cold, says Manuel Elkin Patarroyo, a celebrity in the world of pandemics, and explains that experts have noticed radically different behavior in his propagation capacity above 22 degrees north latitude (San Luis Potosí, in the case of Mexico). A review of the real-time report of the World Health Organization, with the data from each country day by day, clearly shows that to the south of this line the few patients detected correspond to travelers (imported cases) but with little spread. Not so in Europe where the transmission is already eminently local.
Skeptics attribute the low record of cases to underdevelopment in Africa, Latin America or Southeast Asia, attributing it to neglect and backwardness of local health systems, but weeks have passed without the figures increasing significantly; That and the minuscule impact in countries like Australia or New Zealand, which have strong tourist and business ties to China, would seem to confirm "the geographical idiosyncrasy" of the virus (to see the WHO data, click here).
In other words, the rush of Europeans to apply massive chemotherapies that will sweep their economy can be understood, but that does not mean that we have to immolate ourselves with the same doses just to put the beards to soak or show that we are at the level of Europe.
On the other hand, even if the coronavirus were as devastating as in those countries, one might wonder if the shock strategy is feasible in our country. There is talk of bankruptcy of lines, hotels, thousands of businesses, the automotive industry and a long etcetera. To compensate for this in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, the presidents have mentioned astronomical injections to save the production plant when the health crisis wanes; the figures mentioned are equivalent to several times the domestic product of our country.
And that is not to mention the situation of ordinary citizens. European governments have waived taxes and payment of public services and offer salary coverage in proportions ranging from 80 to 100% during the weeks of confinement.
In weak public finance countries like ours, that would be a guajiro dream. And even if it were not, what to say to the majority of Mexicans, 57% of the population, who obtain their livelihood from the informal economy and would not have access to such benefits? That he stop eating for a few weeks so that he is not going to catch a virus that until now has not killed anyone? We live in a society in which some regions and the majority of the inhabitants are on the brink of the abyss, we would do well to think twice before imitating a solution scheme that does not correspond to our possibilities. The consequences for many could be apocalyptic.
Never before now is the old saying that when the United States had the flu, Mexico suffered from pneumonia, we would have to imagine what would happen if we applied the induced coma to which they have given themselves, knowing that they have the resources to revive themselves. I am not sure that our national mechanics can get us out of the hole that we would put into our flimsy productive apparatus.
This does not mean that the Government should sit idly by. Suspending massive events, classes in schools and public meetings that can be postponed makes sense. But it is clear that the best security policy is one that has to do with promoting reasonable behavior to minimize the risk of the epidemic: insisting the population on handwashing and keeping the necessary distance when talking to other people.
We would have to demand from the president a personal conduct consistent with the health standards promoted by the health authorities. But be it for bad or good milk, panic or misunderstanding mischief, one would have to think twice before demanding that the president give a bullet to the foot of an economy that is already limping in the other leg. "Be careful what you wish for," say the gringos, and they are right about that.
You can follow EL PAÍS Opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to the Newsletter.