There has been unbelievable confusion at a time when lives and the broader safety of the public are at stake.

A conflict between the national and Tokyo Metropolitan governments on the timing and the types of businesses that would be subject to a request to suspend operations surfaced following Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's declaration of a state of emergency in Tokyo and six other prefectures due to the novel coronavirus.

The metropolitan government had planned to announce a request that members of the public refrain from going out, as well as that a wide range of businesses suspend operations at the same time as the state of emergency declaration on April 7. However, the national government was concerned about the stagnation of economic activity, and sought to narrow the types of businesses that would be subject to suspension requests, and to hold off on them altogether until the effects of stay-at-home requests could be seen.

If this were done properly, talks between the national and Tokyo governments would have been settled before a state of emergency was declared. It can only be said that the two parties lacked appropriate communication. Due to this holdup, three days lapsed since the declaration, during which the number of people infected with the virus continued to rise.

The reason the central government took the step of declaring a state of emergency must have been because it deemed there was a need to take measures to prevent the spread of the virus even if it meant placing certain restrictions on economic and social activities. Trying to keep its anti-virus measures at the level of stay-at-home requests lacks policy consistency.

Prime Minister Abe said, "If we can cut back person-to-person contact by 80%, the number of people infected with the virus could go into decline after two weeks." It is questionable whether this goal is achievable with the state's passive attitude.

The governors of other prefectures that are under the state of emergency have deferred decisions on asking businesses to suspend operations. Kanagawa Gov. Yuji Kuroiwa said, "We can't proceed (with the business closure request) unless financial aids by the state come as a set."

The Tokyo metro government says it will set up a "prevention of the spread of infection cooperation money" fund for businesses who cooperated with its request to halt operations. Other prefectures, on the other hand, do not have those kinds of financial capabilities. It would be like putting the cart before the horse if the national government's reluctance to provide sufficient financial support forces prefectural governments to shirk asking businesses to suspend operations.

The national government has not changed its plans of not offering individual compensation for businesses that close temporarily, and is instead planning to handle the situation by providing benefits to business operators whose incomes have dropped substantially. One reason is that there is no stipulation for compensation in the newly enacted revised law for the novel coronavirus.

In that case, why doesn't the central government establish a system like Tokyo's "cooperation money" fund and create a base that functions as an underlying support mechanism?

If the Japanese government is counting on a call on the public to refrain from going out to stop the spread of infection, it lacks a sense of crisis. It must communicate with each prefecture under the state of emergency and act as soon as possible.