If Kariņš's government does not have an action plan, I can offer plans A, B, C

Before we start talking about action plans, let's clarify what we mean by that. For this purpose, I will use the analogy described by historian Viktor Suvorov. In his research, he points to fundamental stylistic differences in how German and Soviet generals describe events in their memoirs on the fronts of World War II.

The commanders of the German army write very specifically - the task was such and such. I had such forces at my disposal, the opponent, according to intelligence, such. The specifics of the situation to be taken into account were this and that. It was possible to achieve the set goals by doing the following, this or that. After considering all the conditions, I chose option A (B or C). The result was this and that. The memoirs of the Soviet generals, on the other hand, were nothing like that. General phrases about the difficult situation on the front (even when it was very favorable), weak provisions (even when the superiority over the opponent was noticable) and individual (against the background of the common warfare) episodes about the heroism of individual soldiers or units. All this has been mixed with patriotic bravado, ideological levies and exaggeration of their own significance. Respectively, in one case it is as accurate as a game of chess, but in the other, it is what can only be called - blah, blah, blah. Namely, empty words.

Now, armed with this "plan evaluation" tool, let's look at Kariņš's government's actions on the pandemic front. Is there an action plan that is in line with the plans of the German generals - with baseline data, achievable goals and an action plan to fulfill the task? Admittedly, perhaps in the beginning there were some signs of a plan, where the goal was not to overload hospitals, to follow the principle of traffic lights and to keep the situation under control until vaccines appear.

With some reservations, it can even be said that this task has been achieved. There was no moment when Latvian hospitals would have been so overcrowded that there would be a lack of beds. With mostly acceptable figures (may the relatives of those who died forgive me), we awaited a situation where anyone who wanted to could be vaccinated freely. There are enough vaccines. Just like hospital beds.

Once the previous strategic task has been completed (let's not try to assess how successfully and by what means, as this is not the aim of this article), then a new plan should be developed, which clearly defines the goals to be achieved and the plan to achieve them. It would be desirable (following the example of the German generals) if the public were even offered several plans, and each could weigh to what extent the government's decision corresponds to their own ideas about the best solution. Unfortunately, nothing like that is happening. Instead, there is whining (following the example of Russian generals) about the difficult situation on the front (even when it is very favorable), scaremongering with even greater dangers in the future (new strains of the virus) and chaotic action today.

In order not to be just an empty talker, I offer my plans, which I would enjoy seeing implemented by the government. So, the baseline data as of June 30, 2021. In Latvia, on average, about 90-100 people die from various ailments every day. The incidence of Covid-19 has decreased significantly in recent weeks (a 14-day cumulative rate of 57.2 and it continues to decline). Mortality with Covid-19 remains low, with 11 deaths in the last 7 days. There are 154 Covid-19 patients in the hospital, 37 of them with a severe course of the disease. The proportion of vaccinated is 34%, and their growth is gradually slowing down.

What is the task (goal to be achieved)? There are several options. Option A. Achieve near-zero morbidity and mortality rates with Covid-19. Option B. To ensure the functioning of the population's health care system in a normal daily routine (similar to before the pandemic). Achieve Covid-19 morbidity and mortality rates at such a low level that they do not pose any threat to the functioning of the entire health care system. Restore the normal rhythm of life in the country as soon as possible (as it was before the pandemic). Option C. Maintain the various restrictions and focus on one central issue in the country, Covid-19, for as long as possible, as this will make it easier (while maintaining an "at war" situation) to rule, absorb resources granted for combating pandemic and, above all, maintain a sense of irreplaceability, since we are the only guarantors of stability.

How to achieve these goals?

Objective A (morbidity and mortality close to zero). As achieving this goal in the long-term requires a disproportionately high price - almost complete isolation from the world and extremely strict lockdown, until the proportion of vaccinated people exceeds 90%, this objective is canceled for now.

Objective B (normalization of the situation). Since the morbidity and mortality have decreased significantly; there is no threat to the health care system; the government has provided vaccination opportunities for absolutely everyone, then there is no longer an objective need to maintain restrictions. Time to return to a normal lifestyle. Consequently, after the end of the transition period (15.07.2021 or at the latest 01.08.2021), all (I emphasize, all) restrictions that apply to the permanent residents of Latvia are abolished. As far as immigrants from other countries are concerned, the epidemiological situation in these countries must be considered on a case by case basis.

What to do if the morbidity increases, as the proponents of Option C keep telling? As the government has provided everyone with the opportunity to be vaccinated (making the situation radically different from what it was last winter), the main criterion for further action is the provision of the health care system. As everyone had the opportunity to protect themselves against the threat to their health, the government's task is not to prevent the disease, but to treat the sick. Thus, as long as the capacity of hospitals is sufficient (with a safe margin), the government does not have to react to the increase in morbidity. It can be predicted that if the morbidity increases, the number of people willing to be vaccinated will also increase rapidly, because no carrots (bonuses, lotteries, feeling of exclusivity) can stimulate people's desire to be vaccinated as well as a direct threat to their health.

However, if the morbidity rises to such an extent that the capacity of the health system is threatened (which is very unlikely, as it was not so even in the worst period of last winter without vaccines at all), then a strong lockdown must be reintroduced.

Objective C (keep the situation the same as long as possible. Namely, the government and the whole administration will continue to operate in a "closed" mode). How to achieve this? Somehow last until the autumn, with the government doing nothing, maintaining fear, tension, confrontation between vaccinated and non-vaccinated in society, and hope that in the autumn the morbidity will really rise again, to justify maintaining the desired status quo for as long as possible.

Option B is undoubtedly the most logical and acceptable to the majority of society. This would probably have already been accepted if the fight against the Covid pandemic had been a common epidemiological problem. Unfortunately, it has long since become an ideological problem. What does it mean? It means that the solution to the issue is not simply the best practical solutions, but solutions that correspond to certain ideas or theories. It is not the result itself that comes to the fore, but following what counts as "correct". As this "correctness" is mainly determined by the interests of the political class, option C is likely to be adopted, as many in the world have an interest in maintaining this tense situation for as long as possible. Read about it here. Unfortunately, those who do not benefit from this situation must suffer. But that's just the way the world is.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.