Economic basis for the introduction of strict Covid restrictions

In accordance with current requirements, I declare: I acknowledge the existence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, its contagion and the danger of the Covid-19 disease caused by this virus. What's more, a person very close to me is sick with Covid, so I'm well aware of the severity of the problem.

As winter approaches, the number of Covid-infected people is rising again. It could be said that we are now dealing with the second wave of the pandemic, if we had really had the first. Until the beginning of October, it seemed that Latvia would remain a port of peace in the rippling ocean of a pandemic. However, it looks like we will be no exception, so we need to think beforehand about what to do and, most importantly, how to do it.

So far, the most heated debate regarding Covid has been about one specific proposal: the mandatory wearing of masks in different situations. Unfortunately, from an epidemiological point of view, the issue of wearing masks is certainly not the most important, but from the point of view of communication (PR) it is the easiest to go on about. One under the guise of which more serious issues can be avoided.

One such issue is the possible lockdown or halting active economic activity until the threat to Covid diminishes. Germany will introduce general quarantine from 2 November, France from 31 October. With us, such solutions are also being considered, and the Minister of Health Ilze Viņķele speaks clearly: "If the numbers go up, one of the first solutions is to close bars and pubs." Despite the heavy impact the lockdown has on certain groups of the population and the economy as a whole, these steps are relatively popular in society. Why?

When evaluating this or another government order, one must be aware of the beneficiaries of these orders. There is a huge layer of people in the world who are interested in strict quarantine restrictions. Admittedly, the lockdown has a very broad social base. These are all people whose income does not depend on the results of their work. According to experts, about 30% of all humanity belongs to this group.

These are people who get paid, no matter what they do or how they do it. That is absolutely the whole bureaucracy, because from the lowest level of civil servants to the Prime Minister and the President, these people receive a fixed salary, regardless of how well or poorly they do their job. But it is not just about the bureaucracy of the state apparatus. This group also includes social and corporate bureaucracy. Various project writers, grant hunters and gatherers, employees of large companies and others. Covid and its restrictions are a great reason for excuses about why one or another job has not been finished or is not being done. The stricter the restrictions, the easier it is to find the reason why the works are stumbling. Well, what do you want? Don't you understand that Covid is happening?

After all, all these workers receive a salary on a regular basis, regardless not only of the results of their work, but also of the number of consultations physically held or paperwork completed. Money can be loosened under the guise of Covid, and it is already the eternal dream of bureaucrats and various managers. Given that much (perhaps most) of this bureaucracy does the kind of work whose sudden absence would not even be noticed, this layer is actually parasitizing at the expense of the rest of society.

As it is these people, whose pay does not depend on the results of their work, who make decisions, it is clear that a large part of us and also of the world's elite are in favor of strict restrictions. If, at this point, these people begin to shout in holy self-righteousness that they are doing so for the sake of pure love of humanity and the common good, then I would like to see their reaction if their pay was to be linked with national GDP or the amount of taxes collected. That is, with the country's real economy. How much support would be given to strict quarantine measures if people receiving salaries from the state budget were to have their salaries reduced in proportion to the reduction in income in the state budget? It is not difficult to stand up for strict quarantine measures if the state guarantees that wage levels will be maintained and, in some cases, even promises to increase them.

A completely different attitude arises when these limitations disrupt the previous rhythm of life. In Germany and France the adoption of strict restrictions goes hand in hand with extremely extensive and generous support mechanisms for those who actually suffer from these restrictions, but with us, at least in the spring, these 'support' mechanisms were completely wrong. These mechanisms accurately reflected the doctrine adopted in the 1990s - the richer you are, the more support you receive, but if you already were poor, you do not deserve anything. This is not a country that thinks of the poor. They are people who are socially unfamiliar to the political class, whom they would rather see going than coming. Let the other people in all those Irelands and other destination countries worry about them.

I don't want to be misunderstood. As I wrote at the beginning, I am well aware of the dangers of Covid, so I am not saying that the restrictions should be relaxed in any way and we should pretend that there is no pandemic at all. But it must be understood that we are not all in the same situation. There are people for whom the lockdown is even very beneficial, and there are people for whom it destroys all they have planned for their life. It would only be sensible and fair if the effects of the lockdown were more balanced. So it would no longer mean just benefits for some, and just problems for others. However, developing such a set of measures requires real work that our public administration seems to be incapable of doing.