Skepticism is the almost unavoidable response to the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions in a number of European countries, with the suspicion being that such moves are more about politicians who would prefer to appease their constituencies rather than follow the science or use their common sense. Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the UK have already embarked on plans to open up their economies and societies, partly in response to the World Health Organization’s analysis that the omicron variant, which is dominant at present, can be managed without lockdowns, but equally in response to so-called pandemic fatigue and the increasing number of people who oppose not only lockdowns but also any restrictions on the unvaccinated. Their claims are not entirely without foundation but, when lifting restrictions, governments should take care to avoid past mistakes of responding to short-sighted political pressure, which has resulted only in more suffering, longer lockdowns and further restrictions. We are two years into the pandemic and some of the parameters of dealing with it have indeed changed. The record speed at which the vaccines were developed and rolled out has been the most crucial game changer and, although this has not prevented the virus from spreading even more rapidly, it has substantially reduced the number of people becoming critically ill, the number of hospitalizations, and the numbers of lives lost. We have also learned to live with COVID-19 through simple precautionary measures, such as wearing masks in public, paying constant attention to hygiene and working from home whenever possible. By doing so, we have reduced the threat of the pandemic spiraling out of control. Moreover, international cooperation is improving and we are collectively learning how to deal with this deadly disease. Omicron is a case in point, with South Africa’s rapid identification and immediate sharing of information on this variant helping other countries to respond to it in a manner that was absent with previous variants. This has allowed some societies to see light at the end of the tunnel and begin to return to normality. However, we are also facing the danger that ulterior political motives, which might differ from country to country, will still skew the global effort to emerge from this public health crisis, which has already claimed the lives of more than 5.6 million people and left many millions suffering from long COVID-19. The debate is not about a choice between carelessly removing all virus-related restrictions or retaining them indefinitely until not a single case remains; the issue is more complex. Recovery from this pandemic will be a marathon, not a sprint. We must deal not just with the practical challenges, but also with the powerful psychological impact that will remain inscribed on the minds of a generation. Therefore, the vacillations of governments that are inclined to order strict lockdowns and then quickly lift them are exacerbating an already extremely difficult situation. Striking a delicate balance between the need to contain the spread of the virus on the one hand and to minimize the effect of long lockdowns and other restrictions on such things as a country’s economy and the mental health of its people on the other is imperative. It will take many years to put an accurate figure on the cost of the pandemic to the global economy, but it is estimated that, during the first year, it shrank by 4.3 percent at a possible cost of $10 trillion. However, now that the global economy is faring better than expected, even though markets are still volatile, there is some leeway to ensure that returning to a fully opened-up economy is possible while taking into consideration the associated health risks. Moreover, fears of unemployment and financial instability, social isolation and loneliness, disruption to education, contracting COVID-19 and its consequences, and the loss of one’s loved ones — all this has had and will continue to have a huge impact on people. The return to some kind of normality will mean a long journey toward overcoming these fears and traumas, which have increased exponentially over the last two years. All this will probably need a considerable investment in mental health services and will only increase if full-fledged restrictions continue. All these objective hardships point to the need for the creation of a roadmap out of the pandemic; one that is responsible and instills hope, but not false hope, and that does not pander to political or vested interest pressure groups, and which most definitely should not be used as a distraction from other issues. The vacillations of governments that are inclined to order strict lockdowns and then quickly lift them are exacerbating an already extremely difficult situation. Yossi Mekelberg In times of crisis — and the present one is the most lethal and destructive the world has faced since the end of the Second World War — the focus should be on the containment and, if possible, eradication of the threat through calculated measures, guided by science. There must also be a clear distinction between measures that are inconvenient and even irritating to the public, but nevertheless necessary in order to gradually return to normal life, and those that might provide short-term relief, but long-term pain. Wearing a mask in public might be annoying to many but, as long as it does not affect one’s health, there is no reason for it not to remain mandatory. The fluctuations we have seen between applying strict measures and then removing them all at once have more to do with political considerations than a considered and holistic cost-benefit analysis for the entire society. In addition, the next big drive should be not only to convince more of the unvaccinated to get jabbed for their own and everybody else’s sake, but even more importantly to ensure that low-income countries are assisted with vaccinating their own populations. Time and again, it has been shown that, as successful as the vaccination campaigns in high-income countries have been, the lack of rollouts in other countries leads to new variants inevitably appearing, thus prolonging the pandemic. The decisions taken by leaders of the more affluent countries to first double vaccinate and then give booster shots to their citizens, while leaving the rest of the world unvaccinated, suffering and dying, have been more about appeasing voters than taking a global, holistic approach. They also demonstrate that narrow political considerations are bound to be short-sighted and self-defeating. Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view