“But close, close moment of victory. Yay! We is broken, bent Swedes” – if you replace these Pushkin’s lines the Swedes on the coronavirus, it is possible to obtain a very firm idea of the tonality of statements of the Russian officials. But here’s the problem. As follows from the statements of these same officials, is introduced in order to combat coronavirus quarantine measures have so far refused to bend radically. The easing of restrictions is still very point and cautious. What is behind this discord, which every day becomes more and more acute and the convex? First, the Convention achieved success. As frankly admitted the other day Putin reached “stabilization” is still very fragile. But “second” is much thinner, more complicated and more interesting. Around the world in the environment of the ruling elite, the growing split. And no, I’m not talking about habitual opposition to those who want primarily to save the economy and those who focuses on saving the lives of specific people. I am not talking about the dispute between the supporters of the Chinese and the Swedish model of combating the virus. All of these conflicts have not disappeared. But they gradually become part of one great whole: the war of all against all.

a Year ago, the line in British politics was very clear and understandable. Supporters of a speedy British exit from the European Union fought with those who tried different ways to leave the country in the EU. But now “everything was in confusion in the oblonskys ‘house”. Likely to support labour newspaper “the guardian” publicly calling for the resignation of “gray cardinal,” the conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings. As found by the papers, being infected with coronavirus, Cummings put his kids in the car and went off to distant lands to visit their elderly parents. Against this background, the new leader of the labour party, sir Cyrus Starmer admitted that even in the midst of an epidemic, his children continued to go to school: they supposedly had no one to leave the house.

the Regional government of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland openly sabotaging chosen nationwide by the Cabinet in London strategy to combat the virus. But the Central government is also not all right. The Ministers enthusiastically fight each other. For example, the proposed head of transport Department the scheme of delivery of tourists to selected countries through special “aviamost” colleagues described as a silly fantasy and quickly drowned. But at the same time, and the confrontation between the Prime Minister Boris Johnson with the bulk of his Cabinet. Do not forget about caution and deference (incite the same Cummings Boris easily dismisses Ministers, who Provate at their posts only a few months) is clearly subordinate to the accused his boss of excessive passivity.

In Russia, such opposition is less noticeable (I tried to be someone from the cogs of the vertical of power to accuse Putin of being passive!), but still occurs. For example, the difference “of emphasis” between the leadership of the Federal government and the leadership of Moscow — this is a fact which cannot be denied. Other fait accompli — an epidemic caused by informal changes in the political weights of the various government institutions. The Federal government, in my estimation, somewhat lost amid the virus. But the influence of leadership in Moscow went far beyond the capital region. Catches the eye and varying degrees of zeal with which the government of certain territories belong to the observance of the imposed restrictive measures. In some regions the population really “poddavlivat”, in others it is based on the principle “we pretended that imposed a strict quarantine, and you pretend that it strictly adhere to”. And it is only those conflicts and disparities that are visible to the naked eye. Sure, if you get under the carpet, they are much more.

Why is this happening? Because people are people. In the history books, it always looks the logical, orderly and unambiguous. But real life and real political processes usually occur in the complete absence of uniqueness. Uniqueness — usually imaginary – appears only after the fact, when time washes away from memory all the intricate details and contradictory facts. But in a situation with coronavirus uniqueness is even more “scarce commodity” than usual. Faced with the epidemic, the authorities in different countries diligently to pretend to know what you are doing. And rightly so. In crisis situations, the authorities must always project the image of calm confidence, to hide their weakness and their vibrations. But to project confidence and to be really sure that you will agree different things.

here is an example from my recent personal experience. At the end of last winter my hands were tickets to the warm sea for himself and his family. To unsubscribe from this trip, I wanted not just to the pain. But watching the development of the situation with coronavirus, I could not see the obvious: the world is rapidly closing in their national quarters. Tormented for several days, I turned for advice to the person whom I respect a lot and heard in response that: “Allow yourself some time to reflect, and then take any decision and act without hesitation. In a situation of uncontrolled uncertainty right often any fallen a lot.” I followed this advice — went to the sea and not lost. But INR��s of those who took a similar decision after me, on the contrary much the right decision — and even “hit” in full.

why this story? To ensure that the authorities of many countries, including Britain and Russia, too, is now faced with the need to make decisions in conditions of uncontrolled uncertainty. There are a few “given” the positive trend in the number of cases, the restart of the economy to prevent its total collapse, the danger of new waves of the disease in the case of premature “loosening the screws”. As the government may decide in this kind of rackgaki? Like I did a few months ago: choosing the option that seems optimal and hoping that he really is. I foresee fierce objections: unlike me, the governments of various countries have the opportunity to get detailed advice of the most competent experts. Yes, I admit, they have the opportunity. But the fact of the matter is that these “most knowledgeable experts” rarely agree with each other and offer diametrically opposite in meaning of the options.

for Example, in England one of the most famous experts in the field of our interest is Professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University Sunetra Gupta. Here’s how in a recent interview, she spoke about the prospect of maintaining strict quarantine measures: “the persistence of the lockdown is extremely dangerous from the point of view of the vulnerability of the entire population to new pathogens”. Of course, Professor Gupta is now in the minority. But who said that the majority view is necessarily more correct than a minority view? In politics and science that was yesterday by the majority today may become a minority and Vice versa. Whether quarantine is the best method of dealing with the coronavirus or the world seized on this method just because in addition to the Chinese experience of fighting the disease he was just not to choose from?

In the future, the answer to this question will appear. In the meantime, this is no answer, the policy of different countries operate in the logic of the “familiar method is more likely to be correct than not.” The head of the Ministry of internal Affairs of great Britain declared: all who after June 8 will enter the territory of the country, are obliged to leave on a two-week quarantine, or to pay a fine of 1000 pounds ( about 87 thousand). In other words, summer in foreign countries abolished for all the British except the most resistant. Russia’s full-fledged summer resort, probably, too will not. In our battle of the managers is clearly won by the supporters of extreme caution. Are anxious to know is it good or bad.