It is absolutely necessary to read between the lines of the press release published by the High Authority for Health, entitled “Covid-19: anticipating periodic vaccination of the most fragile”, to understand the unease that is taking hold at the head of the State around vaccination.
This document describes three scenarios for the fall of 2022, only one of which foresees a “vaccination booster campaign for the general population”. This scenario is described as “pessimistic”. The other two limit vaccination to people who are immunocompromised or at risk (those over 65, in this case).
Why can we speak of malaise at the HAS?
First point, we will note this oddity on the approach itself “of anticipation” in terms of vaccination. As the HAS points out:
To do this, the HAS issued an internal request to issue recommendations for a vaccination campaign in the fall of 2022, the objectives of which remain identical to those set since the start of the epidemic: to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with Covid-19 and the spread of the epidemic, maintain the capacities of the healthcare system and the vital operating needs of the country.
What holds the attention here is the “autosaisine” (ER: self-referral) of the High Authority for Health. This choice to intervene spontaneously when no one asks you questions is strange. Either the HAS wants to fill the political vacuum created by the elections, or it wants to anticipate an authoritarian vaccination strategy based on compulsory vaccination of the population. Or both.
One can very well imagine that, for lack of vision, the government is not indulging in its natural impulse which is to vaccinate everyone in the fall to please Brussels and the financiers of Pfizer, without asking questions. To avoid this catastrophic scenario, the HAS is taking the lead.
Are its members tired of having to scientifically endorse authoritatively imposed political choices?
What does the HAS recommend?
According to the HAS press release, the most likely scenario is this:
To define its vaccination recommendations for the fall of 2022, the HAS retains the evolution scenario of the health crisis which it considers to be the most probable, in which the impact of the circulation of the virus, which is still active, would be less thanks to a lasting and sufficient immunity to limit serious forms and deaths.
We understand here that the High Authority of Health foresees a relative resumption of the epidemic in the fall, and that it recommends vaccination of the over 65s, probably compulsory.
On the other hand, it considers that the scenario of a virulent epidemic peak is “pessimistic”. Vaccination would only become compulsory (and even that word is not pronounced…) if and only if a new, more virulent variant appeared.
What is called opening the umbrella
Regulars of administrative action therefore understand that the High Authority for Health, probably in view of the controversies which thrive on the side effects of vaccines, are beginning to “open the umbrella”, that is to say to clear themselves of their future responsibilities in the event of criminal action against those responsible for the health disaster that is taking shape behind the scenes. To avoid future lawsuits, the members of the HAS therefore took the initiative of advising the government, without any partisan pressure, to limit vaccination to vulnerable people only, i.e. to cases where the analysis risk-benefit justifies it. (ER: We doubt that the fully known risk-benefit analysis will even justify any type of vaccination against Covid.)
Apart from these situations, the HAS has let the government arbitrate politically in defiance of scientific advice.
Of course, all this is subject to the assumption that a virulent variant would not appear, which is anything but certain.
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post