Exasperated by what it considers to be “unpredictability” and a “lack of transparency” on the part of the government, the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) demands that public health be dissociated from politics. To do this, the chef, Dominique Anglade, offers a “COVIE-19 deconfinement unit”.
This committee made up of independent experts will have to be led by the chief scientist of Quebec and work on “life with the virus”, argued Ms.me Anglade at a press briefing on Sunday.
“What we want is for this COVIE-19 unit to be able to work with the different sectors to find out, sector by sector, what is the necessary predictability and how we should react, summarized Mr.me England. For the cultural sectors, they have programming, ticket sales that they must plan for this summer. The predictability for the culture medium is different from what we see in the restaurant industry, for example. »
The curfew decreed two days before New Year’s Day was in a way the straw that broke the camel’s back. “There was no written recommendation from Public Health” on this, argued Ms.me England. “The government plays yoyo, waits until the last minute, closes everything, and we start again. […] We want to move from managing press briefings to an approach where we are predictable and transparent. »
“We may have to learn to live with the virus for many more months or even years,” she said, arguing that an independent committee would help keep activities open longer and coordinate reopenings. with dates, criteria and protocols”.
In the same spirit, the PLQ reiterates its request to see Public Health and elected politicians hold separate press briefings.
The PLQ also wants the publication of long-term supply plans for protective equipment, screening tests, vaccines, medications and ventilation equipment.
This press briefing echoes an outing by the Parti Québécois last week. Wishing “the end of the politicization of public health”, the leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, insisted that “the director of public health is also deputy minister; therefore, it depends on politics”.
Legitimacy
That Prime Minister François Legault appears at a press briefing alongside the national director of public health is a rarity in Canada. In Ontario, Alberta and, to a lesser extent, British Columbia, public health experts publish their advice independently of government.
Also at the federal level, a group of experts separate from the government crisis unit was set up “from the start of the pandemic”, notes professor of public health at the University of Montreal Lara Gautier.
“Here too, we see an interdisciplinary committee: there are experts from all the Canadian provinces, but also experts in modelling, behavioral science and biomedical sciences. We don’t see much, however, of the recommendations they make. »
Establishing a committee of wise men is not necessarily a guarantee of success either, observes Mme Gautier. For example, in France, a “scientific committee” made up of experts from all fields regularly publishes its public health opinions. However, “it is not because there was the scientific committee which was set up that the pandemic was well managed”.
Not that this squad of experts is useless, but it is still necessary that these specialists “know how to transmit their knowledge”, the credibility of science in the eyes of the public being essential for the popular adoption of health rules. “Without real citizen involvement in decision-making, it is very difficult to have real long-term legitimacy. »
If scientists must therefore get closer to “political time”, decision-makers must also maintain a “scientific culture”, nuance Lara Gautier, who takes as an illustration the “tax for the unvaccinated” put forward by Quebec. “It clearly doesn’t help to bring people together on the science side and on the informed decision side. Because what is an informed decision? It’s an evidence-based decision. And on this, there is still evidence to be established. »