East Africa News Post

Complete News World

Health and wellness | To return or not to return to work? – The Sun of Hermosillo

The scale of the impact of Covid-19 on the country’s health and economy makes it imperative to implement public policies that distribute cost and damage equitably. The new Sonora legislature has a golden opportunity given the conditions of the last gray legislatures we have experienced and the poor standard with which the legislators have dealt in turn. What do we expect from MPs?

Which is that there is a lot to do in the state and the first thing they have to do is identify a problem, can you think of any? We have a choice. However, the thing that hits us is getting back to daily work, given the severity of the pandemic that continues to claim lives. What to do? What should you not do?

It is poorly defined at the school, work and business level. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was necessary to put the interests of society over individual interests; Without neglecting the common good of respecting individual autonomy, it is necessary to determine when the balance should be tilted towards collective interests, in this case with respect to public health.

The conditions of segregation of formal workers that brought the economy to a standstill still exist (informal workers have not had the opportunity to confine themselves). For this reason, it is essential to have standards in place that minimize risks when returning to work.

Establish criteria for identifying conditions of vulnerability for developing severe Covid; This allows us to act more responsibly, beyond simply keeping workers with any of these conditions in isolation. These standards can be applied to all workers, although there are special considerations for those health workers who face additional risks of infection and for whom it is impossible to work remotely (as with other types of workers, for example, an administrative employee).

See also  Seize opportunities in the health and wellness sector

The risk of adopting a discriminatory policy in which having a situation of risk is equal to not being able to work is acknowledged, but beware! Not the same. This reasoning is very relevant, but the suggestion is justified because there are elements to support it.

In unusual situations like the one we are going through, measures are implemented that would not be considered in normal situations. However, several questions must be considered: Are we talking about allowing the return because workers need work to survive, why do they want to resume their activities and their previous lives, or because companies need them? Is a worker who is not in such danger obligated to return, even if he feels fear and anxiety that his most vulnerable members of his family will be infected? If it is proven that the worker cannot return due to his extremely dangerous circumstances, is he obligated not to return?

When considering these questions, the defining element is whether high-risk workers who should no longer have the financial support to live in dignity, for themselves and their families. If not, we will have a moral problem and it is worrying that we live in a country that cannot provide these conditions.

On the other hand, the worker who does not return must follow accurate recommendations and be evaluated within a reasonable time to see if his risk has decreased. It is necessary to reflect on the already existing social justice problems that have been exacerbated by this pandemic: economic inequality and the presence of a high rate of preventable diseases in a large part of the population.

See also  College of Political and Social Sciences celebrates its seventieth anniversary

We hope that reflection and discussion around issues of public health and justice will continue, because in addition to leading us to a more just society, it allows us to better prepare to prevent, in the best cases, and resolve situations similar to the ones we now face.