Samuel Fitoussi is a student at Cambridge in economics and then at HEC, and satirical writer - founder of the blog La Gazette de l'Étudiant.
Against the vaccination pass, there are solid arguments of principle (one can worry about the precedent established by the suppression of the fundamental rights of citizens who do not infringe any law) but also many arguments of a practical nature.
Let's focus on these.
Now that we know that the vaccine does not (or slightly) limit transmission, why force a perfectly healthy 17-year-old teenager whose probability of crowding hospitals is close to zero to receive a third dose? Hasn't the strategy of vaccinating the entire population with regular boosters - reasonable in July 2021 when we thought that the vaccine significantly limited contamination - lost much of its interest? Worse, couldn't it be counterproductive? It is possible that the injection of these millions of doses into healthy young people could harm the vaccination campaign of populations at risk (13.7% of people over 80 have not received any vaccine dose,French vaccination coverage is one of the least well targeted of all Western countries) and
ultimately,
contributes to the congestion of hospitals. Congested vaccination centers (imagine the 82-year-old Frenchman who logs on to Doctolib: if the only appointment available is only six days later away from home, he may not go to the end of the approach), poor allocation of resources (public resources being finite, the more resources allocated to the vaccination of young people, the less there are left for the vaccination of people at risk. In the United Kingdom and Spain, vaccination appointments are allocated by the government to the elderly and communicated by SMS - no approach of this type is envisaged in France), insistence on the injection of third doses whereas - due to the exponential increase in risk withage - these injections might work better if used as a 4th dose for people who were boosted a few months ago.
Faced with the lack of certainty as to the effectiveness of the vaccination pass, one would expect to observe weak – or at least nuanced – support for such a coercive and ethically ambiguous measure.
However, it is supported by the majority of the French...
Samuel Fitoussi
Beyond the potential perverse effects of an insufficiently targeted vaccination campaign, one can doubt the incentive effects of the vaccination pass: it does not change much compared to the health pass (we can bet that few non-vaccinated people were tested at their fee every 24 hours to have a QR code). It may even contribute to fueling resentment and strengthening anti-vaccine beliefs (it could have a
disincentive
effect ) and would in any case only be able to very marginally affect the vaccination rate of those over 65 since this population rarely goes to restaurants and nightclubs.
Faced with the lack of certainty as to the effectiveness of the vaccination pass, one would expect to observe weak – or at least nuanced – support for such a coercive and ethically ambiguous measure. However, it is supported by the majority of French people, defended without nuance by a number of intellectuals and validated almost without reservation by the Council of State and the Constitutional Council, as if there were a strict equivalence between adherence to the vaccine and adherence to any measure aimed at increasing the vaccination rate. The arguments against the past seem barely audible and never really examined by its promoters. Let us propose an explanation for this phenomenon.
In 1961, William McGuire, an American psychologist, stated his "inoculation theory", according to which exposure to easily refutable counter-arguments could strengthen our beliefs. He bases his explanation on a medical analogy: to protect ourselves from a virus, there is a so-called “support” strategy, consisting of strengthening our body (vitamins, sport, etc.) but also a so-called “immunization” strategy, consisting of exposing us to a weakened version of the pathogen to stimulate our defenses. Applied to beliefs, the support strategy corresponds to the contribution of arguments in our favor and the immunization strategy to exposure to bad counter-arguments. McGuire conducts the following experiment: First,he explains to volunteers why it is essential to have a lung X-ray every year. Then he divides the participants into two groups. It provides the former with additional arguments (
support strategy
), while it exposes the latter to counter-arguments containing glaring errors in logic (
immunization strategy
). Finally, he submits each participant to a discussion with an opponent who tries to contest - this time with excellent counter-arguments - the usefulness of this radio. Result: participants in the “immune” group were much less inclined to reconsider their position than those in the first group. These participants had somehow been
immune
to change of mind, had become incapable of questioning their initial opinion.
Faced with bad arguments, opponents of anti-vaccines find themselves reinforced in their beliefs and develop the reflex of brushing aside objections without actually examining them.
Samuel Fitoussi
For eighteen months, advocates of vaccine-related measures have had to respond to arguments invoking the alleged ineffectiveness or harmfulness of the vaccine.
Vaccination and Bill Gates, Vaccination and 5G, Vaccination and Big Pharma, Vaccination and the magnetic arm, The vaccine ineffective because the majority of the deceased are vaccinated (refutable - the vaccinated are more numerous in the population), the vaccine ineffective because we reach daily case records despite 92% of vaccinated adults (refutable - the vaccine limits the probability of serious forms), etc.
Faced with bad arguments, opponents of anti-vaccines find themselves reinforced in their beliefs and develop the reflex of brushing aside objections without actually examining them.
(Since the
doubt
.
Consequence: the strength with which they support the past is in no way influenced by the evolution of the context, the measure is not reassessed in the light of new elements (ineffectiveness of the vaccine against transmission, reduction of the reservoir of unvaccinated limiting the incentive lever, increase in the rate of immunized by the infection among the non-vaccinated, inclusion of the booster dose in the past, endemicity and lack of exit perspective, etc.). Everything happens as if the exclusion of the non-vaccinated had become an end in itself, the usefulness of which is rationalized a posteriori at the cost of intellectual contortions (must first make it possible to protect the vaccinated from contamination by the non-vaccinated, it now allows, according to the latest language from the government,to protect non-vaccinated from contamination by vaccinated).
Irrationality seems to have won over the circle of reason, which today defends the vaccine pass more by reflex opposition to anti-vaccines than by weighing the costs and benefits of the measure...
Samuel Fitoussi
Irrationality seems to have won over the circle of reason, which today defends the vaccine pass more by reflex opposition to anti-vaccines than by weighing the costs and benefits of the measure (is there a single sociological survey supporting the idea that the vaccination pass will have a significant incentive effect?).
The phenomenon is undoubtedly amplified by the artificial division of public debate between, on the one hand, the camp of "anti-everything obscurantists" and, on the other, the guarantors of Pasteur's legacy, concerned about the lives of others and therefore advocates for government action.
This division, opportunely maintained by the executive, makes rational debate impossible.
As soon as it appears in people's minds, a mechanism of