On Thursday September 15 at 9 p.m., anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel is the guest of a new opus by the Independent Scientific Council (CSI). For this new intervention, the researcher will analyze the repercussions of the containment measures. To do this, he will comment on the latest study in which epidemiologist John Ioannidis took part alongside Michaela C Shippers and Ari Joffe. The scientist analyzes the consequences of these coercive measures in the aggravation of inequalities.
The Covid-19 crisis has revealed major challenges in terms of social inequalities. At the beginning of 2020, as the virus gradually spread throughout the world, restrictive measures were adopted in the various countries affected by the epidemic. Although the response was not identical in all countries, most of them approved restrictive and aggressive measures without worrying about the repercussions that these could have, whether at the social, economic, educational or psychological level.
Also read: Lockdown measures had no effect on Covid mortality, Hopkins University says
For their part, the citizens, in their vast majority, thought that these decisions had been the subject of a scientific consensus. However, some studies published on the subject have shown that this was not the case.
Among the scientists who upset the official narrative, epidemiologist John Ioannidis, was one of the first scientific personalities to question the relevance of certain restrictions, in particular containment.
With Jay Bhattacharya, also an epidemiologist, but alsotwo professors of medicine, infectiologist Eran Bendavid and Christopher Oh, they published an article in December 2020 in which they endeavored to show how difficult it was to model this epidemic, pointing out all the uncertainties that exist around systematic measures of restrictions. Without denying the differences that persist between countries with different rates of infection and mortality from Sars-CoV-2, the authors cautioned against too hasty conclusions from certain scientific authorities when certain countries presented insufficient data, especially during the first wave.
To anticipate the pitfalls that any researcher must face, and this, in order to avoid the biases that can affect the results, the scientists had chosen to analyze only countries that presented robust data. This approach, John Ioannidis had explained in an interview granted to science and future by declaring:
“The question is not to see the total effect of a measure, but its relative effect in each country, in comparison with the other measures put in place in the same country”.
This position had caused a lot of ink to flow in the scientific community from the end of 2020.
18 months later, on August 8, 2022, John Ioannidis and two other researchers published a long study on the repercussions of the coercive measures applied in 2020-2021.
This time, with a decline of more than two years since the beginning of the epidemic, the three authors are interested in the economic, social, educational and psychological repercussions of these measures, which more particularly affect certain categories of population, in an approach of the problem which is meant to be global.
The objective is clear: it is a question of making an initial inventory of social, educational and geographical inequalities identified from international statistical data, in order to analyze the aggravating factors, in particular coercive measures such as confinement, responsible according to the authors for the increase in poverty with all its consequences: increase in unemployment, multiplication of domestic violence, increase in health problems or loss of educational benchmarks.
To do this, the authors of the study focused on the most vulnerable categories, namely students, adolescents, children, young workers, but also low-income families, ethnic minorities and women.
According to the authors, the health, economic and social costs probably far exceed the potential benefits of these restrictive measures. Therefore, they suggest that in the future they will not be renewed, wishing that the authorities stick to measures “non-disruptive“.
Moreover, the authors think that we cannot do without a complete evaluation ” structures in place that have led to counter-productive policies “in order to seek to fight” against groupthink by increasing the level of reflexivity”.
From the start of the epidemic, Xavier Azalbert, publication director of FranceSoir, had wondered about the relevance of confinement and the economic and social consequences that such a decision could entail by publishing an article entitled “Total confinement or general confusion? Questions about Macron’s future speech”.
The subject is complex and requires a transversal approach. This is what Michaela C Shippers, Ari Joffe and John Ioannidis have attempted to do through this study which links epidemiological, geographical, demographic and economic data to confront them with analyzes and measures of inequalities.
And who better than an anthropologist like Jean-Dominique Michel to analyze and decipher this major event that has turned our lives upside down?