An MIT physicist’s strategy to end the pandemic

The world has passed two million deaths and is on its way to 100 million coronavirus cases, but far from pessimism, Massachusetts Institute (MIT) doctor of physics Yaneer Bar-Yam has proposed in dialogue with Telam a change in strategy which aims to eliminate the virus instead of mitigation, to focus on small regions, to protect contagion-free areas to expand their situation and a commitment from all: “If this is a fear shared, the responsibility to stop it is also shared ”.

Specialist in complex systems and expert in quantitative analysis of pandemics, already in 2006 he was studying the impact of air traffic on the spread of a virus like Ebola, urged to restrict flights one week after the detection of the first case of Covid -19 in the United States and on February 29, 2020, 11 days before the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, he founded EndCoronavirus.org, a global, multidisciplinary network of volunteers who are analyzing how to stop its spread.

The guidelines of what he calls the ‘CovidZero exit strategy’, success stories such as New Zealand, Vietnam and Australia and the challenges Argentina needs to join this list are just a few. topics in which Bar-Yam explored this interview.

—We have seen different strategies proposed such as strict confinements, zone restrictions, herd immunity. You say we can stop the coronavirus, how?

“First of all, you need to understand that living with the virus doesn’t work. The question then is: what works? And the answer is a zero case strategy as have New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, China and Canada’s Atlantic provinces. There is a desire to return to normality, but there are two reasons why this is not possible: the first is to act so that there is no case and the second is that, even if it is carried out, some travel restrictions.

—Strategies are divided into mitigation (reduction in infection rate) versus elimination (zero cases). How do you respond to those who claim that elimination is impossible?

“Anyone who says it’s impossible will have to explain why we see it in different parts of the world.” They claim it is possible because they are islands, but Canada is not and even in Australia there are several states with different realities. Or that it was possible in China because it is a dictatorship, but it also happened in Vietnam, Thailand, New Zealand or even in a small growing town in Italy (Vò, near Venice).

“How did you get it?”

– Elimination is a process that works locally. It can come from a neighborhood, a city, a town, a province, a nation. This is a local process of clearing the virus and reacting if a few cases appear. Two strategies are used: one of the red zone, which is to impose restrictions when cases increase, which does not work; And then there is what we call the green zone, which is to eliminate cases locally, to protect that zone with travel restrictions and to expand more and more into other areas.

In Argentina, this was done well at the start with mobility restrictions. The Buenos Aires area has a particular situation, which is the density of population and that is why it is necessary to divide it into regions.

– Where does the idiosyncrasy of people come from in this equation? There are cases like that of the United States where a large part of the population refuses any government action on the grounds that it restricts their freedom.

“The United States is not always the best example. There are examples like Vermont that have done better than other states, but today there is a general ‘we can’t do it’ narrative when it was once a ‘yes you can. “. I don’t think Argentina has the same attitude, there is a good spirit there, although there are difficulties due to the density of the population, the housing problems and who has to go to work yes or yes to be able to live. The law of one-time contribution to great fortunes is a good example of understanding that this is a shared responsibility and that there is a willingness to share the initial effort.

– Is there a failure in many Western countries to weigh individual freedom over the collective good?

– I don’t think so, I think that’s one of the speeches in the press. The problem is, there is a commitment, and it is not a commitment from a government, but from the people. The government needs to support it, but we all need to do our part: stay away from home, without the ability to have schools and, in many cases, work in person. The government must provide support with financial, psychological and other assistance, knowing that we have been in this situation for a year, that it is difficult and that we are all tired. But there is no other solution.

“You not only predicted the possibility of a pandemic (with Ebola and SARS), but you also claim that it could happen in the future with another virus. What mistakes and successes should we learn from the fight against the coronavirus?

– The main thing is to know that we are vulnerable. And to avoid massive deaths and even global extinction, we need to do a couple of things: the first thing is to take it seriously, overreact to protect ourselves, and that if it is a shared fear, stopping it is also a responsibility. The second thing is that we will have to analyze our way of thinking about global transport. Without transport, there would be no pandemic. (Telam)