José Buendía Hegewisch- #Covid disrupts the official speech

November 22, 2020

The official discourse on the results of the strategy against covid is a collection of words and phrases that are not enough to express what the facts say. It is used to express what those responsible for the government of Lopez Obrador about the tragedy, but not to explain and give certainty about a dire outlook on the route of progressive infections of a hyperactive virus in the coming months. The country crosses the psychological barrier of 100,000 deaths with a blindfold to follow the course of the disease.

The reality data disrupts the discourse: a fatality rate of 10%, one of the highest in the world, and positive, one in two people tested. In contrast, a narrative that disdains tests, but with scientific language, through the spokesperson, predicts their behavior. Although all his predictions have failed and confidence has fallen.

The pandemic explodes with force in many regions that are returning, or will soon return, to a red light, while the government’s position remains unwavering in its response to the epidemic curve, such as the manipulation of opportunists who seek to profit politically from the tragedy. It reflects, as has happened since last March, with the beginning of the confinement, the concern to defend itself from political judgments to its performance and to prevent the health emergency from interfering in its projects. However, the pandemic has lasted longer than the 12 weeks they originally estimated and now the progressive expansion exceeds worst-case scenarios. According to the University of Washington, there could be more than 150,000 deaths in March, in a forecast that government rhetoric fails to address with the phrase that saving lives is the priority.

The official position remains unchanged, like the pandemic curve parked from the first and only wave until now, without any measure having been able to reduce the fatality rate. President Lopez Obrador He rejected this week any adjustment to the strategy because “it has given good results, contrary to what the adversaries say,” in a statement that reality is overflowing and that reflects his own wishes, as if he were doing it in front of the mirror. And that once again he is aimed at convincing that the data that does not fit that version are nothing more than the product of petty interests that try to blame him for the disaster. The discourse from the beginning has been hostage to the political confrontation in a terrain of polarization that leaves little room to rectify in time and modify the navigation route to avoid being the eighth country with the most deaths in the world from the virus.

Among the countries of the continent with the worst results, the United States, Brazil and Mexico coincide in going through a moment of maximum political polarization. Their governments sought to minimize the severity of the pandemic and then converted the few health measures that exist against contagion, such as the use of face masks, into ideological instruments and symbols of political differentiation. Although the Q4 government had to face the pandemic with a health system severed by corruption, political polarization also inoculates the germs of the disease with the contamination of bad examples and false doctrines. Still, when exceeding one million infections, the official narrative regrets that “the conservatives from the beginning wanted to use the misfortune of the people for this pandemic to blame me,” as the President reiterated.

Despite the rhetorical defense of the success of the health policy, there are experiences that try to uncheck without entering into confrontation with the official line to influence greater prevention actions, as in CDMX. The recognition of the use of tests or early detection shows that there are measures to contain the virus beyond refusing to see the enemy. Although it may be late, it shows that the best defense of the government is to leave the inertia of the speech of self-exculpation as a condition for breaking the chains of contagion with scientific methods. The polarization reasoning often ignores them and dismisses them as useless accessories of voluntarism. But they lessen the anxiety that amplifies the language of confrontation and distracts attention from the real enemy: the covid.

.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.