The Limits of Obedience | Press

No, it is not normal that the Legault government has changed the instructions in daycare centers without slipping a word in its big press conference on December 30.

It is not normal that the media had to reveal the next day that children and educators who have been in contact with a COVID-19 case would no longer need to isolate themselves if they are asymptomatic. And it is not normal either that the Public Health of Montreal canceled this measure on its territory Monday while it continued in the rest of Quebec, without us understanding what the government really thinks about it.

The members of the crisis cell are exhausted, but the population, too, is at their wit’s end.

Sanitary rules are the subject of debate, and this is normal. What is inexcusable, however, is not to disclose them transparently.

With the pandemic dragging on, adherence to health guidelines is weakening. More than ever, the Legault government must explain its decisions and their scientific basis.

How? ‘Or’ What ?

At a minimum, big announcements should be accompanied by an expert technical briefing.

For now, we have to rely on D^r Horacio Arruda, who speaks alongside the Prime Minister. It lacks clarity. And judging by reviews from independent scientists, he would be lagging behind the science at times, as his advice on the mask or ventilation would demonstrate.

And to that is added the curfew …

Exactly a year ago, Public Health offered Mr. Legault this electroshock.

In public health, the patient is the population. Today, this patient has already received several nervous shocks. Giving one more is not without risk.

Two questions arise about the curfew: is it useful, and if so, is it legitimate?

Of course, it is impossible to create a control group in the laboratory in order to measure the effect. But if we stopped at this obstacle, much of the research in the social sciences would disappear.

Different methods exist to isolate the other variables in order to estimate the impact of the curfew.

The Minister of Health provides four studies on this subject^⁠1. After talking about it with different researchers, I found a few more^⁠2.

These studies suggest that a curfew might help. But was this the case with the one adopted here in 2021? Difficult to say, because Quebec did not disclose the detailed data on the cases to provide this proof.

We only have a comparison between the movements of people in Montreal and Toronto, where there was no curfew. The conclusion: in Montreal, mobility increased by 8.7% during the day and reduced by 31% between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. The government infers that social contact has diminished at the same time. And therefore, that the contamination has been slowed down. However, this downward trend had started before the curfew.

Quebec hopes that this electroshock will raise awareness of the gravity of the situation and encourage everyone to reduce their contacts in the evening as well as during the day. But it is not impossible that a backlash can be observed in some. Whether out of frustration, they drop other measures or have home rallies a little earlier^⁠3.

In short, the curfew has not been shown beyond a doubt to be useful, but it does not prove its pointlessness either. It probably has some effect.

This advantage, from an epidemic perspective, must then be weighed against the disadvantages for vulnerable populations such as people with mental disorders and abused women.

Quebec brandishes a study refuting this risk for victims of domestic violence^⁠4, but it was made in Turkey, a very different country. The parallel is therefore risky. In our region, we have to rely on the testimonies of community workers, who are worried.

From the government’s point of view, the extreme crisis in hospitals would justify the curfew. It would be better than offloading – patients are vulnerable people too.

But there are principles that are difficult to quantify and insert into a cost-benefit calculation, such as that of the free movement of citizens. Whether we are for or against the curfew, we must admit: it is a radical measure. A solution of last resort.

Have we really tried all the others?

Have we thought about ways to expand the use of the vaccination passport? After all, the crisis stems from hospital capacity, made worse by the unvaccinated. Quebecers who have followed the instructions find that they are paying dearly for the damage caused by the minority of unvaccinated and negligent vaccines. For example, before imposing a curfew, bars could have been prohibited from organizing “last chance” parties on the weekend of December 17 to 19. Or distribute N95 masks and air filters in schools, as Ontario is preparing to do.

Real experts – researchers working on these issues – criticize the curfew. Others support it despite everything^⁠5. At least for now.

Because we remember the first version… It had stretched until the end of May. I understand that Mr. Legault cannot predict the evolution of the pandemic. Still, he could at least say what indicators he will use to end the curfew.

The Prime Minister is disgusted by the platform managers who criticize without proposing anything. But to conduct the debate well, the initial responsibility falls to him: he must make known the decisions and their scientific bases.

Otherwise, it is no longer adherence to the measures that is requested. It is something else: obedience. And the docility of Quebecers has limits.