A break in the worst of times. While France is preparing for a new epidemic wave (except for the previous one in fact) our boat captains have lost their way in the haze because of variants and are now split on the course to follow. These differences were brought to light in late January, when many experts (notably the President of the Scientific Council, Jean-François Delphacey) proposed imprisonment to reduce the circulation of the virus and thus to the power of variants Slowed the rise. Despite these opinions, the government decided not to ensure that vaccination would proceed sufficiently to protect the most vulnerable and, thus, mitigate the effects of this potential wave, without resorting to prevention. .

“Divorce has been pronounced “

About a month later, the Ministry of Solidarity and Health published a brief note from the Scientific Council (dated 29 January 2021, hence a month late), where this body proposed “URigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 weeks from the beginning of February, for “RBring the circulation of the virus to about 5,000 daily. “ And slowed down the penetration of variants. Does the late publication of this document suggest that communication between the government and the Scientific Council has been broken? “I think the divorce has been approved, IHU launched Philippe Burqui, head of infectious diseases in Méditerranée infection. We can see this in the government’s reluctance to make decisions: the scientific council’s word has lost little place, Partly due to the Defense Council, Where there are no scientists. ”

But for other experts, these differences are not uncommon: “I do not find it inconsistent that the government does not follow the advice of doctors for the letter, Head of the Anesthesia-Resuscitation Department at Nord Hospital in Marseille, Neus Marc Lyon, and deputy secretary general of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation. NWe want to protect health, that is our mission, but to make decisions like imprisonment, it is not just health that comes into play and it is up to the government to analyze these other factors and mediation. C‘Fair enough. “

For this revival, the choice made by the government may be due to French fatigue in the face of measures:In the beginning, the advice of the Scientific Council was followed rigorously. And this was very well accepted by the French. MBut the government may be aware to suggest that the population will not accept a new lockdown so easily. ” Another possibility has been put forward that the government may have decided that negative results are more negative than positive, an idea advocated by many researchers, including American epidemiologist John Ioannidis. “The government understood that the challenges of regulation are very important, especially Psychological, economic and dMany years ago Health for to keep track Other diseases, Says Philippe Brouqui. While the Scientific Council is very limited and very little open to other possibilities. Oh! That is the mattera Which puts them at odds. “

A divorce within the Scientific Council?

And it appears that these differences in strategy put an end to infiltration into the Scientific Council. It was highlighted in another opinion of this council of 12 February, but it was published on 29 January at the same time. In this, there is no longer a reference to imprisonment, but a mix of possible measures, particularly to strengthen testing and sequencing systems, to advance school holidays for a week and limit travel between departments. Self-segregation of the elderly along with a new proposal. This opinion ends with an enlightened admission: “Scientific Council is not unanimous on the interest [de ces mesures] (…) And consequently are aware of social and economic consequences. In all cases, decisions on measures to be taken with political authority.. A week after this notice was written, the camp supporting the self-segregation of at-risk people was published in the newspaper on 18 February during the publication of a letter proposing this strategy. Knife And of the 17 board members associated with the February 12 opinion, only five signed, including board president Jean-François Delphici.

A strategy shared by Philippe Burqui:We must find ways to protect people at risk without disrupting the lives of millions of people, And we need to retarget the message to those at risk, so that they can protect themselves more.“But it seems unrealistic for Mark Lyon:”The idea of ​​limiting specific populations may in principle make sense, but in practice it is very difficult to imagine (and justify it morally). At what age start? What comorbidities? It is difficult to know where to place the cursor. In addition, this imprisonment is already done naturally, with people at risk protecting themselves more than the rest.. “

“It is not only mortality that must be taken into consideration “

For supporters of this self-segregation, this strategy is justified by the representation of people over the age of 70 in deaths caused by Kovid-19 (96% of deaths in Europe, according to the letter) Knife) is. “It is not only mortality that must be taken into consideration! Kovid not only affects the elderly, many people under the age of 70 are already in intensive care and these people will have difficulty returning to normal life, Researcher reminds me of Mark Lyon. In addition, the Kovid patient in intensive care is less likely than the patients we have in general (before the epidemic). Intensive care people are not the people who were supposed to die in the year anyway, we should stop with this story!“There is no mention that even those who do not need to be admitted to intensive care may have disabling symptoms in the medium term, even at the youngest.

The council members’ self-alienation letter ends with a statement that can shed light on this divorce between the council and the government: “We, the scientists working against Kovid-19, should have the courage to address those in power who bear the ultimate responsibility for the measures taken and their results. If this responsibility is relinquished or delayed, the inevitable day of judgment can be terrible. “ In addition to his proposal, they are consistent with decisions taken by those in power in France, allowing them to justify their delay in taking additional measures. We may therefore wonder if they will not share some responsibility for this fateful day of judgment.