It was suspected that the foundations on which the imposition of the curfew rested last January were made of marshmallow. It is now confirmed, thanks to the investigative work of Radio-Canada reporters: this draconian measure with lame effectiveness was imposed on all Quebecers on December 31, 2021, against an unfavorable opinion issued by the Montreal Regional Public Health Department.
A little flashback: at the end of last December, the peak of Omicron cases is matched only by the peaks of ambient gloom. Quebecers are watching, helpless and weary, a mad increase in cases of COVID-19 accelerated by the contagion of a new variant that has unexpectedly appeared in the field of vision of scientists. This vertiginous increase is accompanied by a critical rate of absenteeism among health personnel, which is increasingly rare for more and more cases. The equation cracks our health network, this house of cards.
The government seeks in the arsenal of health measures allowing it to curb the contagion all that can be useful to it. And he chooses to give the “big blow”: return to the curfew from December 31, “an extreme gesture because the situation is extreme”, supports the Prime Minister François Legault. Quebecers are then preparing to go through a most gloomy holiday season, confined in their heads and constrained in their movements. This “big coup” – canceled on January 13 moreover – hurt the credibility of the government, whose popularity in the polls crumbled in the weeks following this decision.
We learn today in what context of improbable improvisation this decision was played. Exchanges obtained by Radio-Canada thanks to the Access to Information Act show that on the morning of December 30, a few hours before the famous press briefing decreeing the return of the curfew, the national director of public health of t then, Horacio Arruda, begged by email from the competent authorities of the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and Public Health for “studies” and a “tight argument” to defend the curfew to be announced the same evening. In vain ! Such studies do not exist, he is told, and it is impossible to produce any with a few hours’ notice.
This comes almost two years after the start of the pandemic, in a context where “predictability”, a word that has become fashionable, is accessible to the authorities. For a decision of such importance and which directly targets freedoms, nothing, absolutely nothing justifies acting with apparent frivolity. Nor that we then tried to hide these missteps: the exchange of emails obtained by Radio-Canada suggests that an opinion was provided internally to feed the reflection of the Dr Arruda, but it reached the journalist completely redacted. A few hours later, the Ministry of Health and Social Services found its way back to reason and transparency and unveiled thisopinion… unfavorable to the curfew. The decision imposed on December 30 therefore went against an official recommendation and was not supported by any scientific evidence demonstrating efficacy. What a masquerade!
In reality, this opinion from the Montreal Regional Public Health Department is devastating: it targets “limited analyses” on the contribution of the curfew to controlling the transmission of the virus; he hammers home the importance of “transparency and evidence” supporting decisions in a context of pandemic fatigue; he points out the importance of popular support in the success of the measures; it highlights the potential adverse effect of the curfew on vulnerable populations and the effect on mental health. His conclusion is unequivocal: no to the curfew, yes to alternative measures.
The pandemic is now experiencing signs of running out of steam that we want to associate with the long-awaited spring of a return to normal. The announcement this week by the acting national director of public health, Luc Boileau, of the gradual withdrawal of the obligation to wear a mask is the ultimate symbol of this. But even at the end of the race, the consistency and transparency expected from the authorities are crucial. They must guide this “accompaniment” promised by the Dr Boileau of populations who will extricate themselves to varying degrees and speeds from the protective arsenal associated with the pandemic.
Already, experts are surprised: the mask, which however has nothing to do with a liberticidal measure like the curfew, has passed into mores to the point where many are wondering if there will not remain a stigma of protection which could bring us in the future, for example, lower seasonal flu peaks. Are we not withdrawing it too quickly, while peaks of more than 10,000 to 20,000 cases per day are still observed? Straddling our contradictions, we aspire to the resumption of activities and social contacts, while feeling our collective anxiety of plunging too quickly into an unexpected wave. One thing is certain: for a successful exit from the crisis, the population has the right to demand clear instructions supported by conclusive data.