Do you remember the year of 2008 when the global economic and financial crisis began, Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan urged not to use the word “crisis” to avoid panic inside the country. Indeed, when hundreds of banks in the world are not able to fulfill their obligations, it can also be called “temporary difficulties” but it will not change the essence of the phenomenon. In the 1970s, there was even such a Soviet anecdote. A question: What is permanent in socialism? The answer: temporary difficulties. But when it is said a “crisis”, on the one hand, it can really cause a panic and people run to the ATMs to withdraw their money, on the other hand, it forces the states and the same banks to take emergency measures. Which, eventually, happened.
Now, the epidemic. If a few hundred people are sick with the flu and at least 11 people (as of yesterday) died from it, then what will it change if it is called an epidemic? Which type of the panic is expected in this case? Will people attack pharmacies to buy useless drugs? But given the current social situation, I highly doubt that the majority of the citizens have the opportunity to buy medicine paying 20 thousand drams. (The point is that it is necessary to urge people not to be engaged in self-treatment even if they have sufficient money). If walking on the streets with mouth masks a sign of panic (we are now witnessing such unique cases), then, I think, there is nothing negative in it.
But if the currently “forbidden” word “epidemic” sounds, then the Ministry of Health apparently will have to wake up from the current relax situation and take effective measures in its facilities to save people’s lives, as well as perhaps intensify preventive measures. Bold messages, self-promotion and self-praise in this situation perhaps is not so opportune. I do not know maybe they help to avoid panic but, on the other hand, cause deep distrust towards our health care system.
I assume that people do not die from panic.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
