Placed in evident crisis by a capable and unclassifiable Prime Minister who, moreover, has the disconcerting habit of entering, with competence, on the merits of important issues, the two major parties have finally found a topic on which to be heard, highlighting to the country their differences and therefore their raison d'etre.
This is a one-hour change in the curfew time.
The context, fortunately, is that of a substantial success, up to now, of the Draghi strategy of concentrating vaccinations on the population with greater health risks. A strategy that led in 20 days, from 6 to 26 April, the crucial variable in the number of hospitalized patients to drop from 33.080 to 23.524, with a reduction of -28,9% much larger than that observed in the same period for the stock of the less seriously infected (treated in home isolation) dropped by -16,3%.
In this scenario of good performance and the consequent start of reopening, it is quite legitimate for the individual political forces to become the bearers of the demands of the social sectors where they gather, or plan to gather, the greatest consensus. Democratic politics consists precisely in finding compromises between those who represent different interests and opinions.
A certain amount of dialectic on individual measures is therefore physiological, even in the case of a measure that is not exactly crucial in itself such as the definition of the curfew time, essentially aimed at preventing prolonged gatherings of the youngest.
Its transformation into an epochal battle of principles is, on the other hand, frankly out of place: proposing to move the time to 23 pm does not represent a manifestation of capitalist contempt for public health, just as wanting to keep it at 22 pm does not express the socialist desire to mortify private companies. Especially since, to add a touch of incongruity, we find those who have fought strenuously for the reopening of cinemas and theaters defending the "rigorist" position and those who have raised the greatest doubts about the restart of teaching in the presence of upper secondary schools.
Considering the 30.000 hospitalized as a serious criticality threshold for hospitals and recalling the fact that in February the resurgence due to the variants had led to an increase in the number of hospitalized people from 20.000 to 30.000 units in three weeks (i.e. the time needed to hire and observe the effects of more drastic containment measures) I would have liked to wait to be below the 20.000 hospitalized threshold to start reopening.
But I am confident that those in charge have information and analysis tools superior to mine and that it is actually a "calculated risk" that could be run because the spread of the epidemic among those most at risk is falling rapidly and because a certain amount of asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic infections are an acceptable price to pay for resuming activities.
In this logic, however, some significant intervention to strengthen the safety of public transport would seem to me much more important for the protection of health than an hour less than the opening of restaurants.