The government's abrupt decision to expand the scope of the state of emergency is a reasonable response to dire warnings from health experts about the current surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide.

The question is whether Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and other top policymakers underestimated the seriousness of the situation. It is also troubling to ponder whether there were effective channels of communication with local governments and medical experts prior to issuing the original decision.

On May 14, the Suga administration decided to add Hokkaido, Okayama and Hiroshima to the list of prefectures under the COVID-19 state of emergency from May 16 to 31. Now, nine prefectures are covered by the measure. The administration also decided to apply the quasi-emergency pandemic response program known as “man-en boshi” to three additional prefectures, Gunma, Ishikawa and Kumamoto.

Original plans proposed to the panel of experts advising the government on policy responses to the pandemic called for maintaining the pre-emergency measures in Hokkaido and adding Okayama and Hiroshima to the list of areas covered by the new program. But many of the experts, alarmed by the rapid spread of infections in these three prefectures, called for stronger measures, prompting the government to tack them onto the state of emergency list.

New, more contagious variants of the virus are spreading fast, not just in urban areas but also in provincial regions. The number of severe COVID-19 cases hits records almost daily.

Given that health care resources in rural areas tend to fall below those of major cities, declaring a state of emergency for the three prefectures to help protect the lives of local residents is a reasonable decision.

The government cannot claim to have paid sufficient attention to opinions and proposals of expert advisers considering the series of costly missteps it made with regard to the “Go To” campaign to bolster the hard-hit tourism industry.

The panel of experts advising the government, for its part, has done little more than approve the government’s response plans.

The first such change of COVID-19 response plans should lead the Suga administration to become less complacent about its policy and more attentive to the opinions of experts and local governments.

The administration should also bear in mind that such a sudden change of emergency response plans has huge implications for the public, which inevitably can bewilder health care and other front-line workers and undermine public trust in the government.

During a May 12 meeting of experts advising the health ministry, it was pointed out that analyses of data concerning numbers of new cases, serious ill patients and hospital beds available indicate some areas not covered by the state of emergency are already in the most serious stage 4 situation, which indicates an explosive growth in infections and would place them under a state of emergency.

Yasutoshi Nishimura, who heads the national government’s efforts in grappling with the health crisis, often stresses that the administration talks with experts daily. If, however, the administration had taken such warnings from experts more seriously, it would have mapped out more comprehensive plans that needed no change in the first place.

In commenting on Hokkaido Governor Naomichi Suzuki’s call for a state of emergency for Sapporo, the capital, Suga said May 13 that the effectiveness of the pre-emergency measure that had just been applied to the city should be assessed before considering any new step.

As it turned out, Suga flip-flopped on the issue the following day. In a May 14 news conference, Suga explained the about-face by saying he had “respected the opinions of experts.” He did not show an ounce of regret over his failure to recognize the seriousness of the situation.

During the May 14 meeting of the expert advisers for the administration, members agued for a new state of emergency rather than the pre-emergency program for the three prefectures, saying the declaration would send a strong message to the public.

But it is doubtful whether Suga’s explanation about the change of plans will convey a senses of urgency to local residents and catalyze a change of behavior among them.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 15