Mandatory isolation for people tested positive for Covid-19 is taking more and more place in the public debate. “It’s a track that exists, that is on the table”, had launched Gabriel Attal last week. Tuesday, November 24, Emmanuel Macron announced his wish to see “The government and the Parliament” provide “The conditions to ensure the isolation of infected people, including in a more restrictive way” , without however speaking about its obligatory character or sanction. Jean Castex, who is speaking tomorrow morning, Thursday, November 26, should specify the measure.
An “unnecessary” measure
Politicians are already raising their voice: for Yannick Jadot, “The question is not to make compulsory: when you are a single mother at home with children you cannot go to the hotel”. Marine Le Pen, she sharply criticized this potential measure, this Wednesday, November 25, calling on the government to “Stop making decisions that you can’t implement.” “
Some scientists are also alarmed: ” It’s no use “, launches epidemiologist Martin Blachier at West France. Yes, “People who are diagnosed must not infect others, they must avoid going to work and in places of contamination for the moment closed”, more “That does not mean that these are people who must stay at home”.
The doctor considers that this proposal does not achieve consensus at all in the scientific world: “There is no scientific data on the isolation. The studies that have come out concern places of contamination, teleworking: there is literature on this, but nothing on compulsory isolation. This question is not in the scope of science, it is very political ”.
A perverse effect?
The epidemiologist also fears a perverse effect: that people, wanting to avoid forced isolation, move away from testing centers. “If you make isolation mandatory, people will no longer want to go for testing. So either this measure will not change anything, or it will have a deleterious effect “.
A risk highlighted by the Scientific Council, in its opinion of September 3: “The Scientific Council does not recommend this scenario today because, while early diagnosis is essential, the risk is significant in the event of compulsory isolation of reducing adherence to screening and early diagnosis which has been constructed with a relative success in recent weeks and months, especially among young people. “ Its president, Jean-François Delfraissy, specified in World , last November 20: “We can imagine restrictive measures, but the risk is that people will not get tested and do not declare that they are positive. “
Jean Castex himself put forward this idea during a visit to Brest, last Friday : “I am convinced that you have people, if you tell them: you have an obligation to isolate yourself, they will not be tested”.
Feeling of loss of freedom
When questioned, Alice Meier-Bourdeau, lawyer at the Council of State and the Court of Cassation, confirms: “For the measure to be effective, and not to be counterproductive, consent would be needed. And objectively, I think the vast majority of people will give their consent if asked. People want to be masters of their own destiny. “
Could this measure be taken as a stigma? Yes, according to the lawyer: “The vast majority of states are very reluctant to implement individual measures, because they are less easily acceptable measures”.
– .
