The vaccination already carried out of a large part of the population at risk should lead to a significant drop in deaths and hospitalizations in the coming weeks.
People over 75, who represent 10% of the population and 80% of deaths, are today immunized for 50% of them, first through vaccinations but also naturally for those who have caught the Covid 19 and escaped. Concretely, this will translate into a 40% drop in deaths and hospitalizations within a few weeks when the effects of Pfizer will be fully felt.
The situation will improve further: there are around 40,000 infections per day and more or less the same number of vaccinations. But, while the contamination affects the entire population, the vaccine is administered as a priority to vulnerable people, which means that, for the population at risk, the number of vaccinations is much greater than that of new infections.
The increased spread of the virus in the population without major risks alone cannot be a cause for concern.
The authorities have made the decision to confine in view of the increases in the spread of the virus, fearing that it will lead to a saturation of hospital capacities. It is difficult to understand the logic of the reasoning insofar as the contaminations now mainly affect a population with little risk of developing a serious form of Covid, and that the vulnerable population is increasingly immune. Our leaders have their noses fixed on the wrong indicator. In terms of contamination, it is necessary to distinguish the evolution of the number of fragile unimmunized people which must decrease, from that of the contamination of others which can increase because this reinforces collective immunization.
The Covid mortality curves by age carry misleading information because it is not being old that breeds vulnerability, but being weakened by poor health. The virus does not appear to be more lethal to a physically fit elderly person than it does to a young person.
Fortunately the most numerous, the healthy population is not very sensitive to the virus of which it is the first propagator. It would be better if it is quickly contaminated which would end up suppressing the circulation of the virus. She would thus obtain immunity without waiting for the vaccines that we lack.
The effectiveness of the vaccination already carried out on vulnerable people should make confinement unnecessary and justify reopening the country.
Rather than choosing confinement, it would seem more productive today to reopen the country completely by supporting, in particular financially, the most vulnerable among us so that they can better protect themselves while waiting for their vaccination.
By choosing such a policy calling on individual responsibility rather than collective constraint, opening up all public places while retaining individual protections out of respect for people at risk who have not yet been vaccinated, we would emerge from the crisis more quickly by associating immunity. natural and vaccination.
Our leaders, who do not seem to believe in the effects of vaccination, are not motivated by the return to daily, health or political freedom. The billions spent in this new confinement would have been more useful in the development of public or private health capacities. Obviously our senior officials, more at ease in the monetary sphere than in the real economy, find it easier to spend the money of the French than to give them work.
Their boondoggles show that our health authorities are at their wit’s end. It is time to put them on the sidelines because if the game is not over and we have to face a resumption of the epidemic next winter, it will be better to call on replacements.