The legal status of COVID-19 will be downgraded on May 8 and be reclassified as a Class V contagious disease such as the seasonal flu under the infection disease law.

The World Health Organization recently decided that the new coronavirus outbreak no longer constituted a global health emergency, three years and three months after it declared the disease to be “a public health emergency of international concern.”

There is no doubt that there will be sporadic flare-ups of the virus, posing threats to hospitals and welfare facilities for the elderly. As the step will make it difficult to quickly grasp the situation concerning such an outbreak, there will be no room for complacency.

While the pandemic began with an outbreak in China, the origin of the virus has yet to be established. It is impossible to predict when and where a new unknown infectious disease will emerge.

There have been reports of cases where bird flu viruses have infected mammals in many parts of the world. Health care experts are also warning about a possible outbreak of a novel influenza virus.

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REPEATEDLY STRAINED

To better prepare the nation for the next health care crisis, the government needs to address problems that came to light during its struggle with the pandemic.

While the ratios of serious and fatal COVID-19 cases in Japan have been much lower than in the United States or Europe, every wave of infections created problems that strained the health care system, such as in the difficulty of conducting necessary tests and a shortage of hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.

Prefectures have been working to develop plans to make the best of limited health care resources available during the pandemic and ensure effective responses to the crisis.

It is not necessary to stress the importance of cooperation among hospitals and clinics. It is also vital to establish a system to distribute burdens widely borne by public health centers to avoid a manpower shortage at any of these facilities.

Private-sector testing businesses and drugstores should be incorporated into the system.

A surge in serious cases could cause shortages of ventilators and intensive care units (ICUs). These are problems that actually beset this nation’s health care system during the pandemic.

Who should be given priority in treatment under such circumstances? It is difficult to set principles for dealing with this challenge in the middle of an outbreak when policy decisions are often hobbled by conflicting interests.

This is not a question that should be left to be resolved by health care experts and workers on the front line. It is crucial to sort out related issues in normal times.

REVIEW NEEDED OF LAW ON NOVEL INFLUENZA OUTBREAKS

Central and local government COVID-19 response task forces established under the special measures law to deal with novel influenza will be disbanded.

In 2021, the government issued and extended a state of emergency repeatedly for over half a year. These measures led to a sharp increase in job losses.

But some business entities openly defied government requests for shorter business hours and closures. Some serious questions were raised about the consistency and reasonableness of such requests. The government, for instance, allowed theaters and amusement parks to operate while urging movie theaters and museums to close.

No objective assessment has been done yet of the appropriateness of the COVID-19 restrictions and requests for business closures imposed and made under the declaration of a state of emergency.

One big question is to what extent the rights and freedoms concerning movement and business activities guaranteed by the Constitution can be restricted for the public welfare. This question should be addressed and answered in time for the next major outbreak of an infectious disease.

The special measures law was created originally to respond to outbreaks of new strains of influenza. The law, however, was hastily applied to the pandemic.

During the second state of emergency, the “man-en boshi” pre-emergency measures were introduced without much debate at the Diet.

In some countries, violations of COVID-19 rules and restrictions, such as a stay-at-home requirement, can be punished. Japan’s policy responses to the pandemic, in contrast, relied mostly on people’s voluntary cooperation with the government’s requests and advisories.

It is a softer approach that tends to make it unclear where the responsibility rests.

The government, for example, called on people to wear a mask as a request for voluntary cooperation. Such requests were incorporated into guidelines developed by individual industries that worked effectively as rules.

It can be said that this formula reflects the high levels of norm consciousness and public health awareness among the Japanese people.

But it could promote mutual surveillance, symbolized by the term “peer pressure.”

In-depth debate is needed to build a broad consensus on what kind of system is best suited for Japan and what should be done to improve the effectiveness, fairness and acceptability of measures.

PROPER POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IS CRUCIAL

A new agency to respond to future public health crises due to infectious diseases under the direct command of the prime minister, tentatively dubbed “Cabinet infectious disease crisis management agency,” will be launched as early as this autumn.

We share the recognition that ensuring effective and strong political leadership not hampered by bureaucratic sectionalism is crucial for tackling outbreaks of unknown infectious diseases.

But it should not be forgotten that such a powerful central command entails the risk of arbitrary decisions, such as the one on nationwide school closures made during the administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The agency should not intervene in established procedures, such as the drug approval process.

During these turbulent months, the government mostly failed to send out clear messages about the objectives of measures and the decision-making process to share its views about the pandemic and necessary policy responses with the people.

The lack of effective communication with the public caused serious public distrust of politics during the administration of former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who was forced to resign due to his mishandling of the crisis.

It is far from easy to strike a proper balance between efforts to contain the virus and maintaining social and economic activities.

This challenge makes it all the more important for the government to remain humble and ready to admit mistakes it has made, explain how things have gone bad and learn necessary lessons.

The Suga administration lost public trust because it did not show such humbleness and continued trying to avoid taking responsibility. This is a problem for the entire government including ministries and agencies.

The way the government consulted with experts was also riddled with problems. The government often used experts and advisers to endorse policy decisions it had already made. In some cases, the government also shifted the burden of explaining the risks to them.

The council of experts to advise the government on policy responses to the pandemic was hastily organized after the crisis began. In responding to a crisis, it is crucial to tap expert knowledge and intellectual resources across a wide range of areas.

The government needs to make a wholesale review and evaluation of its decisions and measures to deal with the pandemic to identify shortcomings and ensure better responses in the future.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 7