Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1275149
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 AUGUST 2020 INTERVIEW sion that the emergency is over; and on the other, it has also removed all the enforcement measures. But that is precisely what the virus wants. It preys on human weakness… In its press statement, MAM suggested that government may have been swayed by pressure from lobby-groups (in this case, presumably, par- ty-organisers). Would you say that government is in denial about the severity of COV- ID-19… or that it is deliberately trying to minimise the danger, to appease business interests? I personally think that the gov- ernment's overall intention, to support local businesses, is in itself good. It is the method that is wrong… because they are not following common sense, or ex- pert advice. All the same, I wouldn't say that government is 'in denial'. It's more about spin. All politi- cians try to spin reality to match voters' expectations. That's pol- itics. And it normally works… but not with disease. First of all, it is unethical, from a medical point of view, to be untruthful about the situation. As doctors, we are obliged to tell our patients the truth. We might tell it gently, or slowly; but we can't lie outright to our patients. Secondly, the tactic can't work with a virus. Disease calls your bluff. Epidemics can't be hidden…especially epidemics which land people in intensive care, and cause deaths… But government is not exactly hiding the figures; and as far as I'm aware there has been no attempt to cover up the extent of the epidemic… The cardinal mistake is that we have decided that the emer- gency is over. And it was un- derstandable, during those two weeks when we had no new cases at all. Back then, it made sense to relax the restrictions. But not now. For example: over the past week, two boatloads of immi- grants were rescued and brought to Malta. Now, I have nothing against immigrants myself; I can see the humanitarian side of the crisis. But as the test results in- dicate: over two-thirds of them have COVID-19. It's not the government's fault, naturally… but it's still an emergency. Likewise, when 700 attend a weekend party, and 14 of them test positive… not to mention all the contact-tracing that now has to be done – that's an emer- gency. And yet, while the numbers are back at April levels, MAM is on- ly demanding the cancellation of a number of organised mass- events. By your own argument, however: shouldn't we also go back to the same health meas- ures that were in force at the height of the crisis? MAM is not, at this stage, rec- ommending another lockdown, no. What we are demanding is that we maintain a proper bal- ance between public health, and the need to re-open the economy. We had managed to reach a successful balance before this point: by re-opening travel channels only to safe countries; and by relaxing the lockdown, so as to let the economy breathe. But what are we doing today? We have opened up to high-risk countries; and we are now en- couraging mass events: some- thing which no other country has done. It's a classic case of 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. Meanwhile, there also seem to be divergent opinions between Health Minister Fearne – who has hinted at new restrictions – and Tourism Minister Julia Far- rugia Portelli, who is resisting cancellation of the events in question. How do you interpret these contradictions? First of all, I am all in favour of internal discussion within po- litical parties. This is not – or shouldn't be – a dictatorship, where the only thing that mat- ters is 'what the party leader says', full-stop. It would be un- democratic for people within a political party, or government, to be unable to voice their own opinion. So to me, the fact that there are divergent opinions within Cab- inet, or the Opposition party… that's a good thing. It's healthy, and it should be taken as the norm. In this case, however: it is very clear that Julia Farrugia Portel- li is wrong. And besides: Chris Fearne is the Health Minister. As such, the Superintendence of Public Health advises him… So the Health Minister's opin- ion should override that of the Tourism Minister? If not Fearne's opinion… then that of Charmaine Gauci's team. Those are, after all, the people who are trained in public health and epidemiology. They are the ones with the scientific training, specifically when it comes to how to deal with an epidemic… Unfortunately, however, in this case the Maltese government is not listening to the experts; and it's not listening to the social partners, either. Because it's not just the health authorities who have urged the cancellation of mass events… but also the Malta Employers' Association, among others… Coming back to the issue at hand: by threatening industri- al action, MAM has also invited criticism for 'overreacting to the situation'. Some argue that the threat itself is excessive; others question why patients should be the ones to suffer. How do you respond to such criticism? Let's start with the obvious: as you yourself said, the num- bers are back at the levels of last April. So what we are demand- ing is that we return to the same set-up we had in April… not in the sense of a lockdown, for all the reasons I've already ex- plained; but in terms of medical practices. Ultimately, we are killing two birds with one stone. On one level, we are simply protecting our members. Until recently, we had a procedure whereby pa- tients could not simply walk into Mater Dei. They first had to get screened, and then placed into a transitional area until they were deemed safe enough to transfer toa normal ward. Meanwhile, outpatient and non-essential services were stopped… because we needed more hospital space. You need space to deal with this kind of situation in a hospi- tal. Otherwise, you'll end up with people who don't have COV- ID-19, getting it from other pa- tients in hospital. And we can't afford to allow that to happen. So we're not only protecting our own members – the medi- cal practitioners who are on the front line – but also patients. I'm not questioning your inten- tions; but rather, the method. Isn't it excessive to resort to strike action, at this stage? As I already explained: the government is not listening to expert advice. Now: as a union, you have to use the tools that are available to you in those cir- cumstances. First, you use per- suasion; but when that doesn't work… [shrugs]. In my opinion – and this counts for all governments, not just the present – the real oppo- sition, in any country, is actually provided by the unions, not po- litical parties. Because only un- ions can issue directives. Oppo- sition parties can't do anything of the sort. Ultimately, then, what we are trying to do is open the govern- ment's eyes to the fact that its own actions are harmful: not just to public health, but even to the economy. First, we declared that there's no emergency; then we encouraged complacency among the public; we removed enforcement; we let in tourists from high-risk countries… and now, we're promoting Malta as a destination for mass-parties. This, I would say, is 'exces- sive'… not the demands we are making as a union. Do you expect government to backtrack? [Note: this inter- view was carried out before the cancellation of events on Saturday] It's not a question of 'back- tracking'. What I expect is for common sense and scientific advice to prevail. Now: If I were confident this was going to hap- pen, we wouldn't be threatening industrial action at this stage… nor would be we very prepared to do it. Because the issue is real; the public concern is real; and we therefore feel we are justified in our actions. All the same, how- ever: we are still leaving the door open to negotiations. But if ne- gotiations fail… what options do we have left? angels fear to tread