Tribune. The incidence of new Covid-19 cases has doubled in children under 9 in the past two weeks. Among 10-19 year olds, it is higher than the national average for the tenth consecutive week. Yes, children are infected with the coronavirus when they are exposed to it. And this in proportion to the increase in the circulation of the virus linked to the English variant.
Yes, they are then contagious within their family home, and constitute a risk for their parents and their grandparents: all scientific publications clearly affirm this, even those on which those who insist on denying are based. or minimize the reality of the risk. There is therefore no “scientific cacophony” on this point. The consensus on this matter is clear.
Persistence of denial
First, children and adolescents are likely to become infected, and then transmit, when exposed. And exposed, they are, at school, despite wearing a mask. The canteens, of course, but also the classrooms of our schools are places at risk of transmission of the virus. Viral circulation is important there, frequentation of spaces is dense and prolonged, insufficient ventilation.
Second, the existing monitoring and alert system does not meet established reliability standards at all, and therefore does not allow reactive management: screening is insufficient (0.03 tests per primary school child last week), no effort. is not made to make it exhaustive where it is conducted, the feedback is opaque, there is no random sample of students allowing unbiased monitoring. Test, trace, isolate: at school, the account is not there.
Third, this situation puts our entire response to the epidemic at risk; it constitutes, according to the words of the epidemiologist Arnaud Fontanet, member of the scientific council of the government, a ” Achilles’ heel “ the consequences of which now shake the whole of society. And this Achilles heel, the most recent measures reinforce it!
The March 18 decision to re-authorize indoor physical education and sports classes reveals the persistence of denial. Admittedly, class closures in the first instance are a recent positive step forward, but why limit them to the nineteen departments under tightened restrictions?
Structure an adapted response
Faced with these realities, we, actors in civil society, scientists and doctors, have alerted the authorities for several months. We knew that the euphemism, even the denial of risk, would lead us to the wall. Our resuscitators (see the World dated March 28) tell us now: we are there!
You have 57.79% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.