Vaccine is not enough

 

Scientists published an "open letter" in the British Medical Journal yesterday. In the letter, they stated that many countries are struggling with the pandemic by "only vaccination", but that this is not enough and that public health measures should be taken in addition to vaccination.

 

NOT WITHOUT PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES

 

In fact, there is nothing in the letter that we do not know. What we have said since the beginning of the pandemic is repeated once again on the occasion of Omikron variant. It is stated that both deaths and economic damage are lower in countries where strict measures are taken to prevent transmission.

 

Experts argue that within the framework of the "vaccines-plus" strategy they propose to combat the pandemic, the following should be done: implementing public health measures in addition to the vaccine, introducing criteria for production restriction, and financially supporting those who are isolated after being positive in the tests.

 

They also say that the World Health Organization should now declare that the COVID 19 infection is transmitted "through the air" (airborn) rather than "through droplets" and that public health measures should be strengthened to prevent airborne transmission.  

 

CHOOSING HOW TO DIE

 

As soon as the letter was published, it met with a great reaction on social media. Those who knew or "feeled" that the phrase "vaccination is not enough," "public health measures" must accompany the vaccine, to one degree or another, meant an invitation to new closures, immediately attacked the letter.

 

Those who describe the vaccines-plus strategy as "a new fantasy" are "pointing left and hitting right" as usual. They state that it is not possible for governments to financially support isolated citizens today, and such a demand will never be met.

 

They argue that if public health measures are implemented, that is, if strict measures are taken to prevent the spread of the virus, children will be left behind from school and workers will not be able to bring bread to their homes.

 

In summary, what they say is this: yes, maybe we are dying of the "virus" because public health measures are not taken, but if public health measures are taken, we will die of "starvation" anyways.

 

And people choose how to die, it is preferred to die from the virus rather than starvation.  

 

This “choice” is “rationalized” that if bread is not taken home, death is “certain” but not everyone who catches COVID 19 dies.

 

SHOULD I DIE BY FALLING OR STARVING?

 

I witnessed an almost identical rationalization at a meeting I attended a decade ago.

 

An Occupational Health Platform was established against worker murders in Tuzla shipyards. Platform held a meeting at Petrol-İş Union. A shipyard worker at the meeting made the following sentences:

 

“I know, if I get to the top of that pole, I will fall and die. Not that I don't know! If I don't climb, I'll be fired, I'll starve. Shall I die by falling from a pole or shall I die of starvation; I have to choose between these two. There is no choice of life in front of me anyway!”

 

WE HAVE TO PUT LIFE CHOICES BEFORE WORKERS

 

Pandemic, worker murder, flood, earthquake... You name it. We know that all disasters, without exception, circulate and erupt at the head of the poor and the working people.

 

The worker is helpless. Because the political left cannot put a "life" option in front of the worker. The laborer, who cannot see a "life" option in front of him, always has to choose how to die.

 

When a worker is in this mood, s/he goes crazy when someone says "the vaccine is not enough, public health measures should be taken", because s/he has been “educated with hunger” for thousands of years. S/he knows very well what it means to be hungry.

 

The political left has to convince these people that there will be days when they are not exploited during the day and go to bed hungry at night.