The appearance of variants, their dissemination in the territories, their explosive contagiousness in certain regions are shaking up the health strategies put in place in France, but also in Europe and in the world.
In this context of health insecurity strewn with a number of unknowns, a legitimate debate is emerging on the best way to deal with the pandemic. Continue in the sanitary route followed so far or change? There are those who advocate a “zero Covid” strategy, and cite New Zealand or Australia as an example. A visibly effective strategy according to the figures. But ultra-restrictive, unsustainable even for a country like France, assure the opponents of this option, emphasizing the insularity of New Zealand, the density and mobility of the European population, without forgetting the social and democratic acceptability of such a measure. They therefore advocate a strategy of “living with the virus”, which involves “Respect barrier gestures as much as possible, do not meet too many people, agree to be tested, set up very frequent screening”, and this up to collective immunity.
It is important that this debate takes place. The peoples and their representatives must understand and master the causes of the insufficiency of hospital and vaccine resources and, in this context, the positive and negative consequences of each of these strategies in order to be able to determine and take responsibility in full knowledge of the facts. . But it is also necessary that the debate takes place until the end on all the other subjects and questions raised by the virus. Whether on the health, economic, social or societal level. This is the condition for not being subjected to the shock strategy described by Naomi Klein, which would further set back our democratic and social rights. Because what is also being played out now is nothing less than the direction that our societies will take for the next decades.