The Court of Auditors has been interested in the delicate subject of vaccination and has questioned in its annual report, on the failure of innumerable campaigns of awareness and prevention. According to her, we must regain the trust of the French. Here are his proposals.
The Court of Auditors began by welcoming the extension of vaccination to 11 vaccines, compulsory since 1st January 2018. For her, the controversy around this subject is closed and she insists that vaccines are more effective if the whole population uses it.
Vaccinate yourself to protect others
It is an act of prevention to protect oneself against surrounding microbes, but also to protect others. Indeed, getting vaccinated can reduce microbial transmission to vulnerable people such as newborns whose immune system is not functioning well yet. For example, if in the majority of cases the pertussis is benign for the adult, it can be fatal for an infant who, he will not yet have the appropriate weapons to defend himself.
In France, vaccination has made it possible to eradicate several diseases such as poliomyelitis from the territory, or to significantly reduce the appearance of new cases of measles. To think that it is no longer necessary to be vaccinated against these diseases on the pretext that they have disappeared is a mistake: not being vaccinated increases the risk of them reappearing.
Government's inertia in the face of anti-vaccine campaigns
So the Court of Accounts tries to understand why the campaigns are a failure, she points to the different governments that have succeeded Rue de Segur. "The vaccine coverage remains fragile and strong disparities persist according to the vaccines". The low responsiveness of public authorities to anti-vaccine attacks has been obvious for twenty years.
"Vaccine hesitancy is now more pronounced in our country than elsewhere and represents an essential cause of the weakening of immunization coverage". The responsibility of the State is established, but the current vaccination policy is not enough: "Compulsory vaccination alone will not be enough to restore lasting confidence and adherence that must be sought to sustain a mobilization dynamic around the world. 'a major tool of public health', she insists.
Get vaccinated at school
The Court proposes solutions: Sages plead to "use school as a place of vaccination, a measure that has proven its efficiency in many countries like Britain, Australia and Sweden". It is a bad tradition in our country not to make the school a place of prevention and especially of education for health. An affirmation which, every time, makes shouts of ostracies to the persons in charge of the National Education. Pushed by the court, the message will probably pass better, but there is no doubt that anti-vaccine leagues will be there to politicize the debate.
However, the example of "saving gestures" is there to demonstrate the shortcomings of our health education system: these gestures being in our country "memorized" by less than 30% of the population, whereas in countries where training is done in children, as in Sweden, we obtain rates higher than 90%. Vaccination at school? Certainly a good idea, but good luck to accept it and especially to organize it with the health logistics that supposes.
What if pharmacists could vaccinate?
The Court also asks that the suspension of the influenza vaccination obligation for health professionals, which is indeed so commonsense, be reconsidered, that one may wonder why it is still open to discussion.
She then asks that nurses and pharmacists be able to vaccinate more widely, in order to reach more French people. A tip that could be described as "cream pie", if recent experiments, pharmacists, had not shown the merits.
This is a good suggestion, but it will have to deal with another lobby, the doctors' lobby. It is likely that exceptions, especially the search for rare contraindications, will slow down a measure that many doctors perceive as a loss of power.
The classicism of the countryside
The Sages are harsh: "The mobilization of public authorities has lacked reactivity and strength.The successive plans to revive the vaccine policy have resulted in only partial measures, poorly coordinated, insufficient in any case to strengthen enough Vaccine adherence. "
And they are not necessarily wrong! The campaigns are certainly annual, but a classicism that scares when we see the power of social networks. We are here to testify that the sites that have a large audience are not consulted and that against the conspiracy theories of anti-vaccine leagues, traditional campaigns miss their target and are dinosaur responsiveness. The enemies of the vaccines have less scruple, in permanent watch on the social networks, handling the invective as well as the physical threat. Again, we can testify to the violence of rarely sanctioned remarks.
Among the criticisms that are not made, the Court remains silent on the action of pharmaceutical companies on this topic: positive or negative actors? It would have been useful to specify it.