Photo/Illutration An electron microscope photo of the Omicron strain of the novel coronavirus (Provided by National Institute of Infectious Diseases)

It was exactly one year ago on May 8 that COVID-19 was downgraded to a Category 5 infectious disease.

And on March 31 this year--the last day of fiscal 2023--all pandemic-related government subsidies and public assistance programs were discontinued, including those for medical care and for securing hospital beds for COVID patients.

Fortunately, there was no major outbreak last winter, and the situation has remained stable. But senior citizens still remain at risk of suffering severe consequences if they become infected and many people are battling long-term side effects.

The central and local governments alike must remain vigilant, keeping an eye on outbreak trends and new strains to ensure timely communication of vital information to the public.

In preparation for a future crisis, the government in late April disclosed a draft of its revised action plan. The current plan, drawn up 11 years ago in anticipation of the emergence of a new type of influenza, proved almost completely useless for COVID-19.

Based on that lesson, the revised plan articulates the government policy of dealing extensively with various types of infectious diseases, not just influenza and COVID.

The government should bear in mind that, in addition to being prepared in terms of system management and personnel education, it is also of crucial importance to remain "combat ready" at all times, as with any natural disaster that can strike at any time. 

However, to ensure total preparedness, it is vital that an examination be conducted on what occurred during the pandemic and how the findings were shared with the public.

But as we have pointed out repeatedly in our editorials, the most important part of the equation--how the government handled the pandemic--is about to be dismissed without any serious scrutiny by a third-party organ.

In the case of the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the Diet established an investigative committee and had the latter issue reports on its findings.

If such steps are not taken with respect to the government's handling of the pandemic, the Diet deserves to be accused of negligence.

In sharp contrast, the British House of Commons in 2021 issued a report on the government's initial response to the pandemic. And in 2022, an independent investigative committee was formed and the latter is still in operation today.

Needless to say, the committee's interview subjects include the prime minister and Cabinet members.

It would be no excuse for Japan to cite its relatively low number of COVID deaths as its reason for not doing what Britain has done.

The Science Council of Japan last autumn issued a statement to the effect that, with the public memory of the pandemic now starting to fade, doing nothing about it would result in the loss of records and materials that are of vital importance to society.

The council went on to underscore the necessity of systematically preserving them for posterity.

Government records are kept permanently even after a certain period of time, but one cannot be entirely sure, according to the council, when it comes to records kept by local governments and "hokenjo" public health centers.

The records the council insists on preserving include notices of temporary closure of business put up by eating and drinking establishments, and plexiglass partitions installed inside as an infection prevention measure.

Unlike accidents, disasters or wars that are remembered for their specific dates, pandemics continue over time.

And as the Spanish flu of the early 20th century is often referred to as a "forgotten pandemic," the realities of outbreaks of infectious diseases are by nature not easily communicated to future generations.

And that is exactly why something must be done to preserve the records and the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and now is the last chance to do so.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 8