A first public health opinion finally public

Struggling with a surge in COVID-19 cases in Montreal bars last summer, Public Health presented the government with various options, including closing their indoor spaces, while recommending that they be kept open.

This is what reveals a rare notice of Public Health disclosed on the website of the Ministry of Health and Social Services under the access to information law.

This document offers a rare window on the management of the government crisis cell on COVID-19, whose opposition parties have criticized for months the lack of transparency.

As a reminder, in early July the metropolis is fighting several outbreaks of the virus in its bars, three weeks after their reopening, following the first confinement of the province.

Three scenarios are then presented by public health scientists to Prime Minister François Legault in a document dated July 16 entitled “The bars: should they be closed?” (see down there).

The number of reported COVID-19 cases is then on the rise, but the contribution of bars to this phenomenon remains uncertain. Between July 10 and July 14, only 21 bars were identified as places of exposure to the virus by those infected against 259 other settings (neither healthcare settings nor bars).

“Although there is a transmission associated with bars in a summer context and deconfinement leading people to want to start socializing again, it is perceived as being currently under control by the public health departments”, we can read in the opinion presented to François Legault.

Its authors, however, fear the effects of a new closure of these establishments since their customers could transpose their festivities in homes where they are much more difficult to control.

With the announcement a week earlier of new restrictions, including the ban on the sale of alcohol after midnight, public health is worried about the effects of a about-face.

“It is desirable to give yourself an additional window of time to monitor the situation; a new too hasty decision risks being badly received and criticized as incoherent ”, one explains to the government crisis unit.

Finally, scientists recommend keeping them open and Quebec is following suit.

The detailed content of this seven-page document undermines the argument put forward by François Legault last October to refuse the disclosure of public health opinions. “Most of Dr. Arruda’s (the national director of public health) recommendations are made orally,” he said at the time.

Its dissemination also comes a few days before the wider publication of all the recommendations made by Dr. Arruda to the government crisis unit on COVID-19, whose decisions have punctuated the lives of Quebecers for nearly a year.

François Legault had undertaken to publish them almost a month ago. He said on Tuesday that they would be unveiled by the end of the week.

“Mr. Legault has already had the opportunity to explain how Public Health recommendations are formulated: sometimes in writing, sometimes orally. As we said, the Ministry of Health will unveil the written opinions of Public Health this week, ”said his press secretary, Ewan Sauves, Wednesday evening.

What would you have done in place of François Legault?

Here are the three scenarios presented by public health to the government along with a summary of the pros and cons of each:

Scenario 1

Maintain opening with close tracking (recommended option)

Advantages:

-Gives tenants the chance to enhance their measurements

-Allows the effectiveness of the new restrictions to be assessed, including the wearing of a mandatory mask from July 18.

-Also allows the population to adapt to “the new normal”.

– Promotes the survival of businesses, also notes public health.

Disadvantage:

-If transmission continues or adherence to measures remains a challenge, closures should be considered.

Scenario 2

Partial closure of bars

Closure of interior spaces; keep the terraces open; closing of bars in Greater Montreal only; a mixture of these options such as the closing of theaters in Greater Montreal only.

Advantages:

-Target places more at risk, without penalizing all customers and tenants

-Send the message that these places are at risk and that compliance with the instructions is important

Disadvantages

-May be perceived as unfair to some establishments.

-Risk of creating queues and therefore gatherings at the entrance

-Risk of customers moving from hot areas to cold areas where the bars remain open

-Uncertain effectiveness

Scenario 3

Complete closure everywhere in Quebec

Advantages:

-Eliminates transmission linked to bars

Disadvantages:

– Disappointment and frustration among the tenants

-Move “probably” to private residences where greater surveillance will be necessary

-Do not leave room for “civic responsibility and social adaptation to the new normal”.

-May not be enough on its own to change the course of the epidemic

– .