When a crisis hits, decisions are not easy to make. A typical characteristic of a crisis like the current pandemic is that it leaves an administration with less options, all of them being poor.
So if a decision has to be made in any respect, it will have a fillip side.
The current spike in the COVID cases, as we have this new variant called Omicron hitting us right, left and centre, has again brought the administration under the weight of mutually opposite imperatives.
On the one hand the spread of infection has to be stopped in any case. And on the other hand, imposing too many restrictions are causing too much trouble on the economic front.
That way it is a catch-22 situation. Last weekend the administration came into action and imposed a lockdown, and suddenly people realised that something was really wrong.
The logic for this is that unless people curtail their movement, and unless we reduce the chances of contact, the curve cannot be flattened. If this logic applies to the locals, same should be applied to those who come from outside to visit the valley.
Here the government seems to skid to the other extreme. The decision to ensure that the tourism sector remains unaffected even in this period of spike has raised many questions.
Those who criticise this decision believe that the administration is applying two contrary sets of logic while dealing with this situation. Since the number of cases are more in other part of the country, it fits the logic that there is a check placed on the number of people coming to the valley.
Not just this, but a strict mechanism put in place so that no infected persons are allowed to sneak in. It is true that it will have an economic cost, but every decision has to be rationalised.
The restrictions to contain the spread of the virus, and its economic costs must be rationalised, and the costs must be spread evenly and justifiably across sectors. So whatever decisions are taken to break the chain must fall in the same zone of logic.