One of the most spectacular comedies of the hypocrisy of this pandemic is the one that revolves around the topic of "the elderly who die". This hypocrisy, especially through a print made by old people, written by old and read by old, is becoming what hypocrisy does when time passes: it becomes pathetic. I am referring to that denial / repression mechanism which is pronounced "but young people also die".

Which is true, but let's immediately see how painful this lie is by looking at the data:

It is true: young people also die.

But the numbers are vastly lower.

The truth is that if we isolated the elderly completely to protect them, the national health system would be almost completely dead . If we had ordered a total and systematic lockdown of anyone who is 60+ and negative on the test, (without the storage of the elderly in nursing homes, which are obviously dangerous places due to the density of the population at risk), today we would have the therapies intensive half-empty.

Point. The numbers say this, and they say with unequivocal clarity that we must protect the elderly, because even if we tell ourselves "that young people also die", the numbers are enormously different. Acting as if it were the same thing is a hypocrisy that I find criminal . Of that criminal who knows about Auschwitz, to understand.

If we then add that the other categories at risk are the obese and those who have previous diseases, we get the categories that were to be closed at home: total lockdown for 60+, obese and young people with previous diseases. Others AWAY.

At that point the chorus of those who say that:

• “But they are MANY. It's not feasible !! ”.

And my answer is that "instead imposing the lockdown on ALL reduces the number of people or makes it more feasible?"

• but keeping only the elderly at home is very difficult.

No, the infrastructure is about the same: same police on the streets, same army, but instead of asking for a self-certification, you ask for an identity card or a medical certificate of good health. Moreover, it is very difficult to lie about age: it is recognizable at first sight. Idem for obesity. Those with previous illnesses would remain, but if you are a heart patient and you go out during a pandemic like this Darwin loves you.

It would actually be very feasible to order a total lockdown for seniors 60+, and even 50+. And it would cost much less than a partial lockdown for everyone, due to the inevitable economic consequences.

Then the lockdown does not even have to be spatial: people can also be divided in the dimension of time, such as: on Saturdays only the elderly 60+ go around (they will have to shop and throw the waste), and all the others stay locked in the house.

But here we touch the hypocrisy, in fact. There is a reason why a very tight lockdown on the elderly is impossible.

The elderly are the group that contains the ruling class and the rich in the country.

Lockdown the elderly is just as possible as it was to lock down the French nobles before 1789. It would mean locking in home virtually everyone who owns 60% of the country's wealth, and the entire Italian ruling class, which is terribly old.

Rolling-up in lockdown. The Constitutional Court closed at home. Half of the Senate locked in the house. The Pope. The bishops and the entire CEI. The staffs of the armed forces. The most powerful fixers in the world of finance. De Benedetti. The most powerful academic world.

This is the reason why we cannot do THE RATIONAL THING to do, that is to protect those who risk the most: because the Italian ruling class is afraid of not finding their seats at the end of the pandemic .

It is useless to hide behind a finger: the numbers speak for themselves. We can count who is dying. We know who needs to be protected. The graph is very clear.

But we are hypocrites, and we don't want to say it. We do not want to say that we are doing things without rationality only because we do not want to segregate at home the category that contains almost all the rich and powerful .

We cannot say that we risk the saturation of the health system only because we persist in thinking of measures to isolate the places of contagion , rather than measures to protect people at risk by isolating them .

The first objection that comes up is:

• But don't these rich & powerful who block the whole country realize they are all at risk?

Answer: But they want complete lockdown. Their problem isn't avoiding the lockdown. Their problem is to avoid a selective lockdown that affects the old but not the young. Because if we are all locked in the house, we don't have time to elect someone to take the place of the elder. We don't have time to find a replacement: everything is at a standstill.

But if they stop them, while the world goes on, the rest of the world will have to replace the old head physician, the old banker, the old businessman, the old director, the old CEO, who can't be in the presence work. I mean, if the old general is locked down, someone will have to be promoted in his place. But at the end of the lockdown, he'll stay in that chair.

It is a problem of competition: if some are locked in the house while others have the power of movement, of meeting, and all of this, if an old judge cannot be in court, a young judge must take his place. The remote process does not yet exist.

Their problem is not to be locked in the house if everyone is locked in the house: what the ruling class does not want is to be locked in the house WHILE ALL THE OTHERS are not.

And then there is a second question that distresses them: "and who tells me they will ever let me out of the lockdown"?

The old judge says: “but if we unload the health system by locking the elderly at home, and a series of young people are promoted in their place to keep up during the emergency, who tells us that at the end of the emergency the lockdown will be lifted? After all, the decision will be made by those who have taken our place. "

Who would the old judge appeal to against an extended lockdown measure for another two years (but only against 60+)? To the judge who took his place thanks to the lockdown and who would lose it if he ordered the end of the lockdown ?

In practice, the ruling classes (which are made up of elderly people with more or less dyed hair) see it in terms of competitive disadvantage and are saying: the lockdown must not give any competitive advantage to the young. So it must affect them too, indeed: especially them.

I can foresee the objection that will come to this point: but does the total lockdown not harm them?

No it does not. If we consider that in the 60+ category there are all or almost all rich Italians, what we get is this: the rich have become even richer with covid .

It is not certain that this would have happened if we had immediately imposed the total lockdown only for the people most at risk: the rest of the population would have remained active and competitive , so there was a risk that they would be outclassed: if we could have put in quarantine the French nobles in 1789, there would be no revolution. At the end of the quarantine, the king would find that a parliament had taken his place, and the nobles would find the republican institutions in their place: someone had to direct, right?

Will it work in the long term? No.

For one reason: the lockdown of everyone, young and old, cannot go on indefinitely, and cannot be complete. Then the virus will spread. All these lockdown lights that are taking place, discussing this Byzantine approach to the problem between 9 pm and 11 pm, are things that will not stop the virus: they will only slow it down by breaking down the curve to a sustainable value for health. But they won't stop him from killing in known percentages.

And the virus kills the elderly more than anything else.

In any case, therefore, the replacement will come. The 60-year-old restaurant manager who does not want to stay home for fear of the restaurant from the younger manager will still end up not cooking in the restaurant anymore.

Because he's dead.