We do not ask journalists to be experts, but to know how to sort out reliable information and that which is not. Above all, they are expected to report this information as accurately as possible. Unfortunately, when it comes to science news, it is clear that too many journalists do not have the skills to sort it out and properly inform the public.
Two recent chronicles of Mme Francine Pelletier illustrate this phenomenon. In the first, entitled “Hitting a wall”, she made this surprising statement: “Today, we know that collective immunity, given the proliferation of increasingly contagious variants, is practically impossible to achieve. A very strange statement, because to affirm that one knows, in science, one needs very solid proofs. What evidence is it based on exactly?
She does not cite any supporting sources, but she is probably referring to this article in the journal Nature: “Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible”. Note the title, first: the assertion is made in the conditional. Even more embarrassing: it is not a study or a review of the literature, but a simple opinion piece. Even more embarrassing: this text was published in March of this year, that is to say before anyone had access to the data related to the vaccination campaigns, which shows that we are precisely in the process of achieving this herd immunity and that the emergence of variants does not call into question the efficacy of the vaccines so far.
Mme Pelletier confuses here the eradication of the virus and its elimination. As the Institut Pasteur recently recalled, the definition of collective immunity does not correspond to the eradication of a virus, but to its elimination. Basically, when an infected person transmits the virus to less than one other person – when their R0, its basic reproduction rate, is less than 1 -, the epidemic is stopped, the virus no longer finding enough hosts to spread. Although Quebec has not yet achieved the necessary vaccination coverage, at least 85% of the population needing to be doubly vaccinated, we have avoided a fourth wave, and the majority of people hospitalized at present are not vaccinated. , data similar to what is observed elsewhere, where the vaccination rate is high.
In the other article, “Living with the virus”, Mme Pelletier is surprised that the government is betting everything on vaccination, and not on treatment using monoclonal antibodies. This time it is based on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It seems to be serious, except that she did not note one crucial piece of information: the medication has only been tested on elderly patients with comorbid factors. This choice of such a targeted sample would normally have put the tip to the ear of an informed person, and for good reason: if the columnist had taken the trouble to question an infectious disease specialist on this subject, he would have informed him that he It is a treatment of last resort which cannot be generalized to the whole population, the immunity conferred being only temporary, and which therefore increases the risk of the appearance of new variants of the virus. Mme Pelletier misinforms the public, suggesting that the Legault government is lacking in diligence here, while it is showing only justified prudence, especially since it is better to prevent than to cure, vaccination remaining here the most important measure. most effective and safest in this sense.
This pandemic will have illustrated the need for rigorous journalistic coverage of scientific files, which calls for a particular culture making it possible to process scientific information without distorting it. A deformation unfortunately occurs too often, as illustrated by the two texts written by M.me Pelletier, thus helping to misinform the public, which can be dangerous in times of a pandemic. Disinformation fuels the discourse of
antivaccines, which take up this type of argument questioning the effectiveness of vaccines.
Columnist’s response
Sir,
First of all, I find it difficult to understand that you are taking me back on collective immunity, because there is “a broad consensus among scientists and public health authorities according to which the threshold for group immunity is unattainable”, after the New York Times. I could give you hundreds of references of this type, all perfectly credible. “Collective immunity: an increasingly illusory objective” (The duty). “Herd Immunity is Not Going to Happen, so What Next? ”(The Wire – Science). Review Nature, which you yourself quote, says, “Even after peak vaccination efforts, the threshold needed to defeat COVID-10 seems out of reach. And you claim to speak for scientific accuracy?
I also wonder about your need to distort my words by claiming that I do not mention, about the study of New England Journal of Medicine, “comorbidity”, whereas it is written in full in my text. I deduce that you feel an irrepressible need to defend a certain sanitary orthodoxy, even if it means doing what you accuse me yourself: turn corners. It is undoubtedly reassuring to think that by increasing the number of vaccines, by faithfully following the prescription of the authorities in place and by hoping for a “mythical” collective immunity, we will soon put the pandemic behind us. However, the reality is more complex. Because of the proliferation of variants, vaccine protection that weakens over time, resistance to be vaccinated in some and the inability to do so in others, not to mention the staggering gap in vaccination rate between rich and poor countries, vaccination alone will not get us to the promised land. It will also be necessary to multiply treatments and other solutions. This is what my chronicles tried to explain.
Francine Pelletier