The use of FFP2 masks – standard N95 (United States), KN95 (China) or EU-149 (Europe) – is recommended in transport or shops in Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy… In France , even if the Ministry of National Education announced on January 14, the day after a teachers’ strike, to make 5 million of these masks available to them, on February 2, the authorities only recommended them to a population reduced, at risk of severe forms of Covid-19. This decision is based on a opinion of the High Council for Public Health (HCSP) which raises many questions.
“This opinion is based on a non-exhaustive bibliographic work chosen to validate conclusions that are strictly the opposite of those of the scientific literature”challenge a text from RogueESRa group critical of the evolution of the research system in France. “Why so cautious about the benefits of wearing this mask? I do not understand. We breathe this virus, so the best protection is the mask.adds Corinne Depagne, pulmonologist in Lyon, member of the collective On the side of science.
The HCSP tends, from the first lines, the stick to be beaten with a summary containing an error. “The HCSP recalls that the mask cannot, on its own, reduce the risk of transmission. » This contradicts the doctrine, set out in the same opinion, since the mask is cited as a barrier against the virus. “We should have written “alone cannot sufficiently reduce the risk” », concedes Professor Didier Lepelletier (Nantes University Hospital), pilot of this HCSP opinion. As of February 11, the error had not been corrected.
Another benign error, the posting of the notice on the site is backdated, indicating January 26, when it was only posted on February 2 and was in fact completed as early as December 23. The experts, in their defense, had less than a week to decide on this subject (with an extension until January 7 for a supplement for health professionals).
“Infantilizing” recommendations
Between sending and publishing, “the experts must not express themselves”indicates to World Didier Lepelletier, yet a signatory like three other experts in his group from a stand at the World on January 24, which takes up the argumentative logic of the opinion, at the time not public. “I didn’t write it”, he defends himself. In response to this, the collective On the side of science and doctors, epidemiologists and researchers, denounced in The Express from February 10 recommendations “infantilizing”.
You have 70.51% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.