NO PANIC n GET INFORMED


L’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) s’est appuyée uniquement sur la vaccination pour lutter contre Omicron, la nouvelle variante hautement infectieuse du Sars_Cov_2. Jusqu’à présent, cet organisme consultatif international de santé publique a complètement ignoré l’importance des anticorps naturels dans ses avis de temps à autre.

Lorsqu’une personne se remet naturellement du Covid-19, elle développe une immunité naturelle contre le virus qui cause la maladie. Les études scientifiques disponibles à ce jour ont montré que les anticorps naturels offrent la meilleure protection durable par rapport à tous les vaccins disponibles. Bien que, dans aucun de ses avis émis jusqu’à présent, l’OMS n’ait reconnu l’une de ces études pour donner l’importance accordée à l’immunité naturelle par rapport à l’immunité acquise par le vaccin. Une section d’experts de la santé en Inde doute du rôle impartial et équitable de l’OMS dans la lutte contre le Covid-19.

« Depuis le début de la pandémie, le rôle de l’OMS est douteux. Son obsession pour les vaccins est discutable », a déclaré le Dr Sanjay Rai, professeur, Département de médecine communautaire, AIIMS, Delhi.

Le Dr Rai, qui est également président de l’Association indienne de santé publique, souligne les notes techniques que l’OMS publie de temps à autre après le début de la pandémie et affirme que le parti pris contre l’immunité naturelle est assez évident dans ces communications. .

Par exemple, dans une note scientifique publiée le 24 avril 2020, l’OMS avait rejeté les suggestions de certains gouvernements selon lesquelles les personnes qui s’étaient naturellement remises du Covid-19 devraient recevoir un “passeport d’immunité” ou un “certificat sans risque”. voyager car ils étaient protégés contre la réinfection.

“À ce stade de la pandémie, il n’y a pas suffisamment de preuves sur l’efficacité de l’immunité médiée par les anticorps pour garantir l’exactitude d’un” passeport d’immunité “ou d’un” certificat sans risque “”, avait déclaré l’OMS.

Plus d’un an plus tard, lorsque de nombreuses études scientifiques ont prouvé l’importance de l’immunité naturelle pour offrir une meilleure protection par rapport aux vaccins, l’OMS, dans son mémoire scientifique du 10 mai 2021, a déclaré que la vaccination et l’infection naturelle offrent une protection similaire.

«Bien que rarement signalée à ce jour, une réinfection par le SRAS-CoV-2 peut survenir. Quatre grandes études menées au Royaume-Uni, aux États-Unis d’Amérique et au Danemark ont ​​estimé que l’infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 offrait une protection de 80 à 90 % contre la réinfection jusqu’à 7 mois et jusqu’à 94 % de protection contre les maladies symptomatiques », a déclaré l’OMS. tenu.

Malgré cela, il a conclu en disant: «Les tests disponibles et les connaissances actuelles ne nous renseignent pas sur la durée de l’immunité et de la protection contre la réinfection, mais des preuves récentes suggèrent que l’infection naturelle peut fournir une protection similaire contre la maladie symptomatique que la vaccination, au moins pour le suivi disponible. -up période.

Le Dr Rai dit que si l’OMS était d’avis que le vaccin et l’infection naturelle offrent une protection similaire, alors “pourquoi n’a-t-elle pas recommandé que les personnes guéries naturellement n’aient pas du tout besoin du vaccin?”

Plus surprenante est la position de l’OMS dans sa note technique datée du 27 novembre 2021, intitulée “Améliorer la préparation à Omicron (B.1.1.529) dans la région OMS de l’Asie du Sud-Est”.

Ignorant complètement l’importance de l’immunité naturelle dans la lutte contre Omicron, il a déclaré: «L’augmentation de la couverture vaccinale contre le COVID-19 dans tous les groupes d’âge éligibles, mais en particulier chez les personnes âgées, les travailleurs de la santé et les autres personnes à haut risque de maladies graves devrait être prioritaire. par les autorités de santé publique. »

Le Dr Rai a déclaré que ces mémoires ne montrent pas seulement que l’OMS ne tient pas compte d’une forme supérieure d’immunité uniquement pour promouvoir la vaccination. « Si tout le monde est vacciné, alors les preuves en faveur de la supériorité de l’immunité naturelle disparaîtront d’elles-mêmes. C’est vraiment dommage.”

Le Dr Amitav Banerjee, chef du département de médecine communautaire, Dr DY Patil Medical College, Pune est d’accord avec le Dr Rai et a déclaré que dans le dernier mémoire technique daté du 27 novembre 2021, l’OMS aurait également dû dire que ceux qui se sont rétablis naturellement don ‘ t besoin d’être vacciné.

Des études de population dans le monde réel menées en Israël après le déploiement de la vaccination ont établi qu’une telle immunité acquise naturellement est 13 fois plus robuste que celle induite par les vaccins. En traduisant cela en pratique, on peut dire qu’une personne qui s’est remise d’une infection naturelle a déjà reçu 13 rappels ! Pourquoi l’OMS ne peut-elle pas voir cela et l’inclure dans ses avis ? » dit Banerjee.

Il a ajouté : « Cela relève du bon sens, même si nous ignorons la science, qui n’est que trop fréquente dans cette pandémie. Celui qui attrape l’infection héberge le virus entier pendant environ 13 jours dans le corps. Le vaccin essaie d’imiter cela en injectant une dose d’une partie atténuée du virus ou avec un vaccin à base de gènes nouvellement développé qui stimule le corps à produire seulement une partie du composant viral – la protéine de pointe. Une double injection du vaccin et un rappel ça fait trois, pas treize !

Le Dr Banerjee regrette que le bon sens, la science et l’épidémiologie sociale soient négligés par l’OMS et les décideurs politiques mondiaux, “et des modèles basés sur des chiffres inertes de l’Occident sont projetés dans des pays asiatiques et africains avec des dynamiques de transmission différentes”.

Le professeur Gobardhan Das, un immunologiste bien connu associé au Centre spécial de médecine moléculaire de l’Université Jawaharlal Nehru, estime également qu’en émettant des alertes et en faisant des déclarations sensationnelles, l’OMS crée une situation de panique alors que ce n’est pas nécessaire.

«Il semble que QUI soit confus. D’un côté, ils disent que le vaccin et l’immunité naturelle offrent une protection égale, de l’autre, ils ne sont pas prêts à accepter de considérer ceux qui se sont remis d’une infection comme déjà immunisés. En fait, les données d’une étude réelle indiquent que l’infection naturelle suscite de bien meilleures réponses immunitaires et une meilleure protection », a déclaré le professeur Das.

Réitérant sa position antérieure selon laquelle Omicron est “une aubaine déguisée” car il s’est propagé dans plus de 90 pays, mais la majorité des patients présentent des symptômes bénins qui ressemblent à un vaccin, il a déclaré : “En aucun cas, je suggère de être infecté. Il faut suivre toutes les précautions et directives fournies par les agences gouvernementales. Mais, il ne faut pas paniquer.

“L’OMS crée une panique inutile. Ils n’ont pas alerté alors que c’était effectivement nécessaire. En décembre 2019, l’OMS, bien qu’elle sache que le COVID-19 se propageait rapidement depuis Wuhan, a assuré à plusieurs reprises qu’il n’y avait rien à craindre et a conseillé d’autoriser tous les voyages, etc. En raison de l’ignorance de l’OMS, de nombreuses vies ont été perdues », a déclaré le Dr Das.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has relied solely on vaccination to fight Omicron, the highly infectious new variant of Sars_Cov_2. Until now, this international public health advisory body has completely ignored the importance of natural antibodies in its advice from time to time.

When a person naturally recovers from Covid-19, they develop natural immunity against the virus that causes the disease. The scientific studies available to date have shown that natural antibodies offer the best long-lasting protection compared to all available vaccines. Although, in none of its opinions issued so far, the WHO has acknowledged any of these studies for giving weight to natural versus vaccine-acquired immunity. A section of health experts in India doubt the impartial and fair role of the WHO in the fight against Covid-19.

“Since the start of the pandemic, the role of the WHO has been questionable. His obsession with vaccines is questionable,” said Dr Sanjay Rai, Professor, Department of Community Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi.

Dr Rai, who is also the President of the Indian Public Health Association, points to the technical notes that the WHO publishes from time to time after the start of the pandemic and says that the bias against natural immunity is quite obvious. in these communications. .

For example, in a scientific note published on April 24, 2020, the WHO had rejected suggestions by some governments that people who had naturally recovered from Covid-19 should receive an “immunity passport” or “certificate”. without risk”. travel because they were protected against reinfection.

“At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence on the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to warrant the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘certificate without risk,” the WHO said.

More than a year later, when many scientific studies proved the importance of natural immunity to offer better protection compared to vaccines, the WHO, in its scientific brief of May 10, 2021, declared that the vaccination and natural infection provide similar protection.

“Although rarely reported to date, reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 can occur. Four large studies from the UK, USA and Denmark estimated that SARS-CoV-2 infection provided 80-90% protection against re-infection for up to 7 months and up to 94% protection against symptomatic disease,” the WHO said. tenuous.

Despite this, he concluded by saying: “Available tests and current knowledge do not tell us about the duration of immunity and protection against reinfection, but recent evidence suggests that natural infection may provide protection. similar against symptomatic disease as vaccination, at least for available follow-up. -up period.

Dr Rai says that if the WHO was of the opinion that the vaccine and natural infection offer similar protection, then “why did it not recommend that people cured naturally should not need any vaccine?”

More surprising is the position of the WHO in its technical note dated November 27, 2021, entitled “Improving Omicron (B.1.1.529) preparedness in the WHO South East Asia region”.

Completely ignoring the importance of natural immunity in the fight against Omicron, he said: “The increase in vaccination coverage against COVID-19 in all eligible age groups, but in particular in the elderly, healthcare workers and others at high risk of serious illness should be prioritized. by public health authorities. »

Dr Rai said these memoirs not only show that the WHO disregards a higher form of immunity just to promote vaccination. “If everyone is vaccinated, then the evidence for the superiority of natural immunity will disappear on its own. It’s really unfortunate.”

Dr Amitav Banerjee, Head of Department of Community Medicine, Dr DY Patil Medical College, Pune agrees with Dr Rai and said that in the latest technical brief dated 27 November 2021, WHO should also have said that those who have recovered naturally don’t need to be vaccinated.


Real-world population studies conducted in Israel after the rollout of vaccination have established that such naturally acquired immunity is 13 times more robust than that induced by vaccines. Translating this into practice, we can say that a person who has recovered from a natural infection has already received 13 reminders! Why can’t the WHO see this and include it in their advice?” Banerjee said.

He added: “It is common sense, even if we ignore the science, which is all too common in this pandemic. Whoever catches the infection harbors the whole virus for about 13 days in the body. The vaccine tries to mimic this by injecting a dose of an attenuated part of the virus or with a newly developed gene-based vaccine that stimulates the body to produce only part of the viral component – the spike protein. A double injection of the vaccine and a booster makes three, not thirteen!

Dr Banerjee regrets that common sense, science and social epidemiology are neglected by the WHO and global policy makers, “and models based on inert numbers from the West are projected into Asian and African countries with different transmission dynamics”.

Professor Gobardhan Das, a well-known immunologist associated with the Special Center for Molecular Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru University, also believes that by issuing alerts and making sensational statements, the WHO is creating a panic situation while this n is not necessary.

“It seems WHO is confused. On the one hand, they say that the vaccine and natural immunity provide equal protection, on the other, they are not ready to agree to consider those who have recovered from an infection as already immune. In fact, data from an actual study indicates that natural infection elicits much better immune responses and protection,” Professor Das said.

Reiterating his earlier position that Omicron is “a godsend in disguise” as it has spread to more than 90 countries, but the majority of patients have mild symptoms that resemble a vaccine, he said: “In no way do I suggests getting infected. One should follow all precautions and guidelines provided by government agencies. But, one should not panic.

“The WHO is creating unnecessary panic. They did not alert when it was indeed necessary. In December 2019, the WHO, despite knowing that COVID-19 was spreading rapidly from Wuhan, assured many times that there was nothing to fear and advised to allow all travel etc. Due to WHO’s ignorance many lives were lost,” Dr Das said.

OBESITY AND OVERWEIGHT


Key facts

  • Worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975.
  • In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 650 million were obese.
  • 39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2016, and 13% were obese.
  • Most of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight.
  • 39 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2020.
  • Over 340 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 were overweight or obese in 2016.
  • Obesity is preventable.

What are obesity and overweightOverweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.

Body mass index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify overweight and obesity in adults. It is defined as a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of his height in meters (kg/m2).

Adults

For adults, WHO defines overweight and obesity as follows:

  • overweight is a BMI greater than or equal to 25; and
  • obesity is a BMI greater than or equal to 30.

BMI provides the most useful population-level measure of overweight and obesity as it is the same for both sexes and for all ages of adults. However, it should be considered a rough guide because it may not correspond to the same degree of fatness in different individuals.

For children, age needs to be considered when defining overweight and obesity.

Children under 5 years of age

For children under 5 years of age:

  • overweight is weight-for-height greater than 2 standard deviations above WHO Child Growth Standards median; and
  • obesity is weight-for-height greater than 3 standard deviations above the WHO Child Growth Standards median.

Children aged between 5–19 years

Overweight and obesity are defined as follows for children aged between 5–19 years:

  • overweight is BMI-for-age greater than 1 standard deviation above the WHO Growth Reference median; and
  • obesity is greater than 2 standard deviations above the WHO Growth Reference median.

Facts about overweight and obesity

Some recent WHO global estimates follow.

  • In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults aged 18 years and older were overweight. Of these over 650 million adults were obese.
  • In 2016, 39% of adults aged 18 years and over (39% of men and 40% of women) were overweight.
  • Overall, about 13% of the world’s adult population (11% of men and 15% of women) were obese in 2016.
  • The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016.

In 2019, an estimated 38.2 million children under the age of 5 years were overweight or obese. Once considered a high-income country problem, overweight and obesity are now on the rise in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in urban settings. In Africa, the number of overweight children under 5 has increased by nearly 24% percent since 2000. Almost half of the children under 5 who were overweight or obese in 2019 lived in Asia.

Over 340 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 were overweight or obese in 2016.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents aged 5-19 has risen dramatically from just 4% in 1975 to just over 18% in 2016. The rise has occurred similarly among both boys and girls: in 2016 18% of girls and 19% of boys were overweight.

While just under 1% of children and adolescents aged 5-19 were obese in 1975, more 124 million children and adolescents (6% of girls and 8% of boys) were obese in 2016.

Overweight and obesity are linked to more deaths worldwide than underweight. Globally there are more people who are obese than underweight – this occurs in every region except parts of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

What causes obesity and overweight?

The fundamental cause of obesity and overweight is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended. Globally, there has been:

  • an increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars; and
  • an increase in physical inactivity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization.

Changes in dietary and physical activity patterns are often the result of environmental and societal changes associated with development and lack of supportive policies in sectors such as health, agriculture, transport, urban planning, environment, food processing, distribution, marketing, and education.

What are common health consequences of overweight and obesity?

Raised BMI is a major risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as:

  • cardiovascular diseases (mainly heart disease and stroke), which were the leading cause of death in 2012;
  • diabetes;
  • musculoskeletal disorders (especially osteoarthritis – a highly disabling degenerative disease of the joints);
  • some cancers (including endometrial, breast, ovarian, prostate, liver, gallbladder, kidney, and colon).

The risk for these noncommunicable diseases increases, with increases in BMI.

Childhood obesity is associated with a higher chance of obesity, premature death and disability in adulthood. But in addition to increased future risks, obese children experience breathing difficulties, increased risk of fractures, hypertension, early markers of cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance and psychological effects.

Facing a double burden of malnutrition

Many low- and middle-income countries are now facing a “double burden” of malnutrition.

  • While these countries continue to deal with the problems of infectious diseases and undernutrition, they are also experiencing a rapid upsurge in noncommunicable disease risk factors such as obesity and overweight, particularly in urban settings.
  • It is not uncommon to find undernutrition and obesity co-existing within the same country, the same community and the same household.

Children in low- and middle-income countries are more vulnerable to inadequate pre-natal, infant, and young child nutrition. At the same time, these children are exposed to high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, energy-dense, and micronutrient-poor foods, which tend to be lower in cost but also lower in nutrient quality. These dietary patterns, in conjunction with lower levels of physical activity, result in sharp increases in childhood obesity while undernutrition issues remain unsolved.

How can overweight and obesity be reduced?

Overweight and obesity, as well as their related noncommunicable diseases, are largely preventable. Supportive environments and communities are fundamental in shaping people’s choices, by making the choice of healthier foods and regular physical activity the easiest choice (the choice that is the most accessible, available and affordable), and therefore preventing overweight and obesity.

At the individual level, people can:

  • limit energy intake from total fats and sugars;
  • increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, as well as legumes, whole grains and nuts; and
  • engage in regular physical activity (60 minutes a day for children and 150 minutes spread through the week for adults).

Individual responsibility can only have its full effect where people have access to a healthy lifestyle. Therefore, at the societal level it is important to support individuals in following the recommendations above, through sustained implementation of evidence based and population based policies that make regular physical activity and healthier dietary choices available, affordable and easily accessible to everyone, particularly to the poorest individuals. An example of such a policy is a tax on sugar sweetened beverages.

The food industry can play a significant role in promoting healthy diets by:

  • reducing the fat, sugar and salt content of processed foods;
  • ensuring that healthy and nutritious choices are available and affordable to all consumers;
  • restricting marketing of foods high in sugars, salt and fats, especially those foods aimed at children and teenagers; and
  • ensuring the availability of healthy food choices and supporting regular physical activity practice in the workplace.

WHO response

Adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2004 and recognized again in a 2011 political declaration on noncommunicable disease (NCDs), the “WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health” describes the actions needed to support healthy diets and regular physical activity. The Strategy calls upon all stakeholders to take action at global, regional and local levels to improve diets and physical activity patterns at the population level.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes NCDs as a major challenge for sustainable development. As part of the Agenda, Heads of State and Government committed to develop ambitious national responses, by 2030, to reduce by one-third premature mortality from NCDs through prevention and treatment (SDG target 3.4).

The Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world” provides effective and feasible policy actions to increase physical activity globally. WHO published ACTIVE a technical package to assist countries in planning and delivery of their responses. New WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep in children under five years of age were launched in 2019.

The World Health Assembly welcomed the report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity (2016) and its 6 recommendations to address the obesogenic environment and critical periods in the life course to tackle childhood obesity. The implementation plan to guide countries in taking action to implement the recommendations of the Commission was welcomed by the World Health Assembly in 2017.

DISSIDENCE OR EVIDENCE?


According to the WHO, 4,682,000 people have died from the pandemic in 20 months. To date, the number of deaths due to covid-19 is 0.036% of the world population over 12 months. We can only be sad for them, but most of these victims already suffered from comorbidities, obesity, cancer, diabetes, etc. and 65% were over 80, many of them had only one or two years of life expectancy.
The social and economic consequences have affected 99.96% of the world population, confinements, curfews, bankruptcies, suicides, distress, job losses, other illnesses not treated in time, deferred surgeries, psychological shock of young children. Is there something wrong in today’s world? Are leaders aware of the damage caused by their decisions? Are they at the mercy of big pharma, and gafas, big winners of the event and their diktats? Do we have the right to ask the question whether private or superior interests have presided over all this maze of decisions and counter-decisions? Most have spent their time copying each other like bad students. Is it foolish or conspiratorial to think that policymakers are simply not up to the task?

Should large and powerful groups be prohibited from owning more than a small percentage of newspapers and other media groups? Because we must realize that they have played a major role in the struggle of ideas, the “good” against the “bad” … often according to their own criteria, see those of their owners. The populations have been mistreated, their rights confiscated, their opinion ignored, brandishing the specter of their responsibility over the course of the events. They were treated like irresponsible children.
Are there not reasonable voices to question those sometimes inaudible or untrue of those who organize the destinies of women and men on this planet?

Subsidiary question: is it not curious (according to the WHO map) that the people least severely affected are precisely those where malaria is frequent? Would there be a link with the prevention of malaria, chloroquine for example?

REMINDER


REPORT COVID-19 2020

La mortalité des moins de 65 ans a-t-elle vraiment diminué en 2020, comme l’affirme le professeur Didier Raoult ?

Ce constat est fait par l’Insee. Il s’explique notamment par une baisse vertigineuse du nombre d’accidents de la circulation en France.

Ce constat chiffre en France peut etre applicable dans la majorite des pays.

“Les chiffres, pour moi, n’ont pas un sens symbolique particulier.” Alors que la France a franchi, jeudi 15 avril, le seuil des 100 000 victimes du Covid-19, Didier Raoult a refusé d’y voir un symbole. Invité de BFMTV, le directeur de l’Institut hospitalo-universitaire (IHU) de Marseille a cependant commenté le passage de ce cap vertigineux. 

>> Suivez les dernières informations sur l’épidémie de Covid-19 dans notre direct

“Si vous prenez les gens de moins de 65 ans, il est mort moins de gens en 2020 qu’en 2019 et en 2018. Moins. Tandis que si vous prenez les gens de plus de 75 ans ou les gens de plus de 85 ans, il en est mort beaucoup plus”, a relevé le microbiologiste, révélé au grand public par ses prises de position iconoclastes sur la lutte contre la pandémie. Didier Raoult dit-il vrai ou fake ?

Une baisse avérée de la mortalité des moins de 65 ans l’année dernière

Toutes causes confondues, 667 400 décès ont été enregistrés en France en 2020, “soit 9% de plus qu’en 2018 ou 2019”, dénombre l’Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee) dans une estimation provisoire. Une plongée dans ces chiffres de l’Insee permet d’identifier un double phénomène. D’un côté, une hausse de la mortalité de plus de 10% a touché les plus de 65 ans entre 2020 et 2019. De l’autre, les moins de 65 ans ont été moins nombreux à perdre la vie en 2020.

Dans le détail, la mortalité a baissé de 6% pour les moins de 25 ans et de 1% pour les 25-49 ans. Mais pour les personnes âgées de 50 à 64 ans, elle s’est accrue de 2%. L’Insee considère donc que la hausse de la mortalité a été “négligeable” chez les moins de 65 ans. Ce qui donne raison au professeur Raoult.

L’effet protecteur des restrictions sanitaires

Comment expliquer une telle baisse de la mortalité chez les plus jeunes ? Pour le démographe et épidémiologiste Jean-Marie Robine, joint par franceinfo, l’explication tient aux mesures sanitaires, qui ont eu des effets bénéfiques collatéraux. “Le confinement, en forçant les gens à rester chez eux, a diminué une grande partie de la mortalité des plus jeunes.” Premier phénomène identifié par le conseiller scientifique de l’Institut national d’études démographiques (Ined) : la diminution des accidents de la route. “Ce sont très souvent des jeunes qui en sont victimes”, relève Jean-Marie Robine.

Ce que confirment les données de l’année 2020. Le nombre d’automobilistes tués dans un accident de la route a diminué de 28% entre 2019 et 2020, s’établissant à 1 172 morts, rapporte l’Observatoire national interministériel de la sécurité routière. Chez les 18-24 ans, pour qui la mort sur la route représente “la première cause de décès” selon le gouvernement, cette diminution atteint 22%. Pour l’organisme public, la limitation des “déplacements pendant les confinements et périodes de couvre-feu” et des départs en vacances moins nombreux expliquent cette baisse drastique du nombre de morts sur la route.

Les gestes barrières ont eux aussi joué dans la baisse de la mortalité des moins de 65 ans, estime Jean-Marie Robine. “Porter le masque les a protégés de tout ce qu’ils auraient pu attraper par ailleurs, que ce soit des gastro-entérites, des grippes ou les maladies infectieuses en général”, liste l’épidémiologiste. Des pathologies effectivement en net recul en 2020. Selon Santé publique France (document PDF), l’épidémie de grippe de 2019-2020 aurait fait 3 680 morts, contre 9 000 décès en temps normal.

Une mortalité faible face au Covid-19

Cette baisse de la mortalité chez les moins de 65 ans s’explique aussi par une plus faible létalité du virus chez les plus jeunes, fait remarquer Jean-Marie Robine. “C’est une population très très peu à risque de décéder du Covid, à moins d’avoir des comorbidités”, relève l’épidémiologiste et démographe. Les données extraites de la plateforme publique Géodes sur 44 000 décès l’attestent : 87% des morts du Covid-19 étaient âgés de plus de 70 ans, dont trois quarts de personnes au moins octogénaires.

Autre phénomène mis en avant par Jean-Marie Robine : contrairement aux craintes dues au contexte sanitaire et aux restrictions, “il n’y a pas eu d’augmentation du nombre de suicides en 2020”, affirme le démographe. Chaque année, près de 10 000 personnes mettent fin à leurs jours en France. Une situation qui touche principalement les adultes de 25 à 59 ans, révèle Santé publique France. Si l’Observatoire national du suicide n’a, pour l’heure, pas publié de bilan pour l’année écoulée, les indicateurs pointent en effet plutôt vers une absence de hausse du nombre de passages à l’acte en 2020, révélait Le Monde en novembre.

Cette baisse peut sembler paradoxale et provisoire, alors que les conséquences psychologiques des restrictions sanitaires et de la pandémie se font jour. Ainsi, 9% des personnes interrogées par Santé publique France confiaient avoir des pensées suicidaires à la mi-mars 2021. Et 20,7% des répondants présentaient un état dépressif. Santé publique France constate que la santé mentale est particulièrement dégradée chez les étudiants et les moins de 49 ans.

Has under-65 mortality really decreased in 2020, as Professor Didier Raoult asserts?

This observation is made by INSEE. It can be explained in particular by a dizzying drop in the number of traffic accidents in France.

This figure in France may be applicable in the majority of countries.

“The numbers, for me, don’t have a particular symbolic meaning.” While France crossed the threshold of 100,000 Covid-19 victims on Thursday April 15, Didier Raoult refused to see it as a symbol. Guest of BFMTV, the director of the University Hospital Institute (IHU) of Marseille, however, commented on the passage of this vertiginous cape.

Follow the latest information on the Covid-19 epidemic in our direct

“If you take people under 65, fewer people died in 2020 than in 2019 and 2018. Less. While if you take people over 75 or people over 85 , he died a lot more “, noted the microbiologist, revealed to the general public by his iconoclastic positions on the fight against the pandemic. Is Didier Raoult telling the truth or fake?


A proven drop in under-65 mortality last year

All causes combined, 667,400 deaths were recorded in France in 2020, “or 9% more than in 2018 or 2019”, counts the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) in a provisional estimate. A dive into these INSEE figures makes it possible to identify a double phenomenon. On the one hand, an increase in mortality of more than 10% affected those over 65 between 2020 and 2019. On the other hand, those under 65 were less likely to lose their lives in 2020.

In detail, mortality has fallen by 6% for those under 25 and by 1% for those aged 25-49. But for people aged 50 to 64, it increased by 2%. INSEE therefore considers that the increase in mortality was “negligible” among those under 65. Which gives reason to Professor Raoult.

The protective effect of sanitary restrictions

How to explain such a drop in mortality among the youngest? For the demographer and epidemiologist Jean-Marie Robine, joined by franceinfo, the explanation lies in the health measures, which have had beneficial collateral effects. “The lockdown, by forcing people to stay at home, has reduced much of the mortality among the youngest.” First phenomenon identified by the scientific adviser of the National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED): the reduction in road accidents. “It is very often young people who are victims”, notes Jean-Marie Robine.

This is confirmed by the data for the year 2020. The number of motorists killed in a road accident decreased by 28% between 2019 and 2020, settling at 1,172 deaths, reports the National Interministerial Safety Observatory road. Among 18-24 year olds, for whom death on the road represents “the leading cause of death” according to the government, this decrease reaches 22%. For the public body, the limitation of “travel during confinements and periods of curfew” and fewer departures on vacation explain this drastic drop in the number of road deaths.

Barrier gestures have also played a role in lowering mortality among those under 65, believes Jean-Marie Robine. “Wearing the mask protected them from anything they could have caught elsewhere, whether it be gastroenteritis, flu or infectious diseases in general”, lists the epidemiologist. Pathologies effectively in decline in 2020. According to Public Health France (PDF document), the 2019-2020 flu epidemic would have caused 3,680 deaths, against 9,000 deaths in normal times.


Low mortality in the face of Covid-19

This drop in mortality among those under 65 is also explained by a lower lethality of the virus among the youngest, notes Jean-Marie Robine. “It is a population very, very little at risk of dying from Covid, unless they have comorbidities”, notes the epidemiologist and demographer. Data extracted from the public platform Géodes on 44,000 deaths attest to this: 87% of Covid-19 deaths were over 70 years old, of which three quarters were at least in their eighties.

Another phenomenon highlighted by Jean-Marie Robine: contrary to fears due to the health context and restrictions, “there was no increase in the number of suicides in 2020”, says the demographer. Each year, nearly 10,000 people end their life in France. A situation that mainly affects adults aged 25 to 59, reveals Public Health France. If the National Suicide Observatory has, for the time being, not published a report for the past year, the indicators indeed point to an absence of an increase in the number of acts in 2020, revealed the news paper Le Monde in November.

This decline may seem paradoxical and temporary, as the psychological consequences of health restrictions and the pandemic emerge. Thus, 9% of the people questioned by Public Health France confided to having suicidal thoughts in mid-March 2021. And 20.7% of the respondents presented a depressive state.

Public Health France notes that mental health is particularly degraded among students and those under 49 years old.

Julien Nguyen Dang – franceinfo France Télévisions