As of September 22, the scientific council, medical compass of the summits of the State, evoked the idea of a curfew to face the epidemic.
In their alert note "sent to national authorities at 9 pm" that day but made public on October 1, fourteen experts - virologist, infectious disease specialist, anthropologist, epidemiologist… - identified "four strategic options".
The most offensive, n ° 4, lists “strong, potentially restrictive measures” such as general or territorial confinement and a curfew.
The advantages of this scenario are listed: “Effective measures in controlling the circulation of the virus”, “positive effects on mortality…”.
“The earlier and stronger the actions, the more effective and time-limited the intervention can be (and therefore economically advantageous compared to later interventions),” the document reads.
READ ALSO>
Curfew: "We perceive a real exasperation"
“Drawbacks” are also identified.
“The support of our fellow citizens would probably be weak with detrimental effects in terms of social cohesion and trust.
Strong and early action can be difficult to accept as long as there is no visible crisis.
Conversely, if there is a new crisis, not having implemented these measures would undoubtedly be reproached a posteriori ”, warn specialists who also point to“ a major economic cost ”.
An option retained in the event of "subsequent degradation"
Warnings that may have slowed down the government.
At the time, the virus was circulating, admittedly actively, but much less than today: on September 22, there were 10,008 contaminations per day and 951 people in intensive care against 30,621 and 1,741 on Thursday.
Under these conditions, the scientific council therefore did not envisage "proposing option 4 at the national level" but could not "exclude its use in certain metropolitan areas and of course in the event of subsequent degradation".
He leaned more towards option 3, less radical, with "moderate measures calling for voluntary membership and, if necessary, restrictive measures": limitation of the "number of social contacts", "reinforced protection of people at risk of serious forms ”, reduction,“ in certain areas ”, of the number of people“ authorized to assemble ”… A suggestion partly accepted by the authorities which, among other initiatives, decided, a few days later, to limit private gatherings to 10 people and to reduce the tonnage of public events to 1,000 people in Paris and the inner suburbs or to close bars and restaurants in Aix-Marseille.