In a post from the past I happened to point out how the “first wave” of the coronavirus was faced by Italy as a Catholic penance, or as a divine punishment. I don't even have time to turn around, and I see you with the second wave being interpreted and addressed… as a penance for your sins.

Have you tried to turn to the Italian press and read the homilies accusations of journalists? If you ask for what reasons the coronavirus returned to Italy, you find a 30% of accusations against the regions that have done nothing (founded), and an absurd and unfounded cliche ', according to which the coronavirus would have returned to blame of your sins of the fact that during the summer people went to the disco, the beach and the restaurant.

Gluttony, lust and pride. Not bad. A punishment had to come, isn't it?

Too bad that the coronavirus has returned more or less throughout the northern hemisphere of the planet, as do all viruses that exploit the respiratory tract when winter arrives. Powerful , the Italian beaches: what the hell of macumba you did this summer to cause a spike in Scotland?

Too bad that the virus has almost no chance of surviving the temperatures of a beach, so much so that there are no numbers or studies on the propagation of the virus in beach conditions. Too bad that the virus is afraid of ultraviolet rays, that is, the sun's rays. Too bad that like all flu viruses, it spreads more indoors than outdoors, to the point that we are asked to open the doors to ventilate.

But, I repeat, it is a pity that there are NO statistics on the spread of the virus in sunny and windy places: how was it decided to accuse the beaches of the spread of the virus, when everything seems to indicate the opposite and there is no evidence?

Because Jesus says so: if you enjoy yourself you are sinning .

That the reading of the second wave is an old-Catholic reading also shows what the accusations are MISSING. Yes, of course, the second wave comes because of those who went to have fun during the summer.

Those who forced workers to return to the company by climbing the lockdown as holidays, those who tried to stop the home office since March, however, are never mentioned. INPS which is sending to say that the time spent in quarantine is not sickness, forcing the positives to take holidays or go to the office?

It should be assumed that going to the office does not spread the virus. After all, Christianity says, work is the punishment given to Adam, so it should already work as an atonement.

And it must be so since NO ONE points to guilty of the second wave, along with the enjoyable bathers, even those who went to the office.

But if the job doesn't spread the virus, to the point that the second wave doesn't see those who went to work in August as the culprits, why do you ask everyone to do home office whenever possible? Mysteries of faith.

However, the situation given to public opinion is this:

• culprits of the second wave are those who went to have fun in the summer, even if in airy and sunny places, where we know that the forms of respiratory virus struggle to spread.
• absolutely innocent are those who have locked themselves up in the office and in the factory, because the work is already fatigue, therefore suffering, and they have already expiated.

The list of activities to be closed also falls into this dichotomy, which are ordered not so much in a manner dictated by statistics, but in order of enjoyment.

In short, you can do a lockdown based on danger, and you can do a lockdown based on the fact that they are not essential, that is, they are discretionary expenses.

Because in the end, “non-essential” and “voluptuary” coincide: therefore in practice “we will close all non-essential activities” translates as “we will close all voluptuous activities”. Which seems like a somewhat Catholic measure.

Did you realize that by calling voluptuous activities “non-essential”, they applied a period of penance rather than quarantine?

A singular thing is that of having allowed Jogging (because it is difficult to get infected outdoors), “but only close to home”. This is really interesting: we are dealing with a virus that offers candy to strangers, is it a bad wolf virus that you care when you are little red riding hood and you enter the woods?

It is not clear why running 5 KM in circles around the block will infect less than 2.5 KM in line, back and forth. What's the point? Is there any scientific basis for this choice? We said that the runner must be alone while running, so what difference does the distance from home make? It sounds a lot like “run, but don't have too much fun”. In short, I don't run for my pleasure, but for…. jadda jadda jadda.

Let's face it: everything stinks of Christianity from the moment we say "let's close the business" not essential voluptuous ". Let's face it: there are two ways to close. One I am experiencing in Germany, where I live, and one you are experiencing in Italy. As you know, the Berlin government has also decided to reduce contacts between people by 75%. However, I notice a different approach: you have two available:

• I close the most dangerous activities.
• I close the non-essential activities.

“I shut down dangerous activities” means to have done some statistics wondering where the hell people got infected, and to close those because it is THERE that people are infected.

This, for example, leaves schools open, because ultimately there are no huge statistics of contagion among students. Of course, here they are with the windows open in a country that is not really hot , with a jacket and blanket on their legs (my daughter has a blanket in the school locker, in short), but in Italy there is not, let's face it, the same climate. You could do without the blanket.

This means that the shops are closed by square footage, the small ones must guarantee 25sqm per customer (at my baker you queue outside and you enter one at a time) because it is the square footage (distance) that decides how likely it is. that a virus goes from dude to dude. So the small hardware store is very difficult (but I saw one open), but BAUHAUS is open.

The truth is that the virus doesn't give a damn about why you are in a place, or if you are having fun: the only thing that is relevant is

• the number of people
• the surface available
• their distancing.
• the amount of time you spend there.

for this reason it makes sense to ban all events beyond 6 people at the table, but it makes no sense to ban six people from staying in a hardware store with 15,000 square meters of space. Clearly you will have to tell the hardware how many people (at most) can stay in the shop, (that I know, one every 25sqm, in fact) but it makes no sense to decide that you can stay in a place if it sells luxury goods, while you cannot if sells non-discretionary goods.

As this is working relatively well,

it is time for Conte to ask himself what he wants to do: does he intend to save your soul, or your skin?

Because if he wants to save your soul, then shutting down voluptuous activities (AKA non-essential) is fine as penance, while if he wants to save your skin, maybe the more dangerous activities should be shut down.

Because you're going to have stats on where, in the last wave, people got infected the most, right?

…. quite right?

… .Ehm…. rightooo?