[ad_1]
President Emmanuel Macron has shown logic in his approach to deconfinement, according to epidemiologist Martin Blachier, who deciphered the head of state’s speech for La Dépêche du Midi on Tuesday 24 November. Interview.
What do you remember of Emmanuel Macron’s speech?
I would say his announcements have been balanced. I understand his choice of having wanted to “stage” things like him. What matters to contain the epidemic is to be able to keep the R below 1, and to get there it is understandable that the president chooses to grope ahead by starting by unlocking the least risky situations to go gradually towards the most at risk things. After that, do we have to go faster, slower? It’s not easy to know, because we’ve already been surprised once, so he prefers to be careful.
So is your choice logical?
Yes, science follows, with one small exception for me: these are places of worship, which are risky places that it chooses to open first. Perhaps there is a justification to bring that has not been explained very well … Is it to psychologically relieve certain people? Is this justified by the approach of the end of the year holidays? Instead he chooses to build large theaters where health protocols are well followed for another two weeks. I think he could have done it directly.
And the bars and restaurants?
These are the places most at risk. Like gyms. So Emmanuel Macron postponed their opening to January. For two reasons in my opinion: he knows that the vaccines will be available later, and he also knows that he is far away, so he still gives him time to change his mind in case the situation does not improve as well. he would like it.
Do you think we can break the chains of contamination as the president wishes?
However, I found him very optimistic about his “Try, trace, isolate” strategy, which I believe will no longer work as it has not worked so far. But since it’s the only thing they can act on, he believes it, hard as iron. So there is an element of subjectivity. But we are many to say: they will not be effective with that.
However, as Emmanuel Macron said at the beginning of his speech, are we down with the epidemic?
Obviously. You border the country, then change. No country that has limited itself to itself has failed, otherwise the confinement has not been respected at all. But there, in France, it was real confinement, whatever we say. And it was very effective. In particular, thanks to the use of teleworking, which Emmanuel Macron hasn’t talked about much. However, in my eyes, these are extremely important data. Between 15% of teleworking before reconfirmation and 40% since then, there is a real difference in simulations. Perhaps he should have insisted more on this point.
Are the goals of 5,000 new cases daily and less than 3,000 ICU patients reasonable?
Yes. The president is following the curves that say we should be at these levels around December 15th. What is difficult now is to know if it will start again, when and in what proportions. But by keeping bars, restaurants and gyms closed until January 20, you remove nearly 85% of the contamination. Knowing that today we have an R oscillating between 0.6 and 0.7, this still gives a good margin.
Do you think Emmanuel Macron is right in wanting to give the French the opportunity to celebrate the end of year holidays with family or friends?
Yes. The fears surrounding these holidays are, I think, very exaggerated. Quite simply, because these events are too occasional to constitute real threats. What this can cause is a small isolated spike, a very rapid ascent-descent, but if people resume behaviors consistent with maintaining an R of less than 1 with pace, nothing will happen. significant. What matters is what we do over time. It’s not a night or two that will change the game.
Do you think the reopening of the company represents a risk? As the holidays approach, crowds might be important …
No. Because it is not touching objects that contamination occurs most often. No data proves this. The data show that the risk of contamination depends on the time spent in a room, the volume of the room, the number of people in it and the ventilation. If stores were a problem, all supermarkets would have been huge reservoirs of contamination, but that’s not the case. So I think we need to reassure people about this.
Source link
