After several European countries, France announced on Monday its decision to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to fight Covid-19.

A provisional decision which intervenes after the appearance, in very limited number, of certain symptoms in patients having received the treatment.

DECRYPTION

France announced Monday to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to fight Covid-19.

Emmanuel Macron has indeed explained on the sidelines of a Franco-Spanish summit in Montauban, that the injections of this treatment are temporarily interrupted, pending a European opinion.

Several countries such as Ireland, or even Germany, had also announced a little earlier to suspend the use of this vaccine as well.

Decryption.

Why decide to suspend vaccination? 

"The decision which was taken in accordance with our European policy, is to suspend as a precaution the vaccination with AstraZeneca hoping to resume it quickly if the opinion of the EMA allows it", declared the Head of State.

An announcement difficult to understand while Prime Minister Jean Castex assured the day before that there was no need to worry.

>> Find Your big evening newspaper in replay and podcast here

Austria, Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Ireland and the Netherlands were the first to suspend vaccinations.

If Emmanuel Macron also comes to make such a decision on Monday, it is above all out of precautionary principle.

The Head of State is indeed waiting for an opinion to be issued Tuesday afternoon by the European Medicines Authority (EMA) on this treatment. 

What exactly does the "precautionary principle" mean?

According to Professor Jean-Daniel Lelièvre, head of the immunology and infectious diseases department at Henri-Mondor hospital in Créteil and vaccine specialist at the Haute Autorité de santé, to understand the challenges of this decision, you must first know what the precautionary principle really corresponds to.

>> LIVE

- Coronavirus: follow the evolution of the situation Monday March 15

"To be based on this principle is a decision of wisdom, but it is also a complicated decision", he estimated.

The precautionary principle corresponds to what is called the 'benefit-risk balance'.

And in this case, we have a benefit which remains very clear and the demonstration of a potential risk which remains very low. "

For him, stopping the vaccination with AstraZeneca for too long would also not be a good thing.

"We risk losing very clearly the benefit of maintaining it," he explained at the microphone of Europe 1.

What are the risks pointed out? 

Concerns have remained for a week around this treatment because of coagulation disorders in vaccinated people, very marginally.

Certain events do indeed challenge the experts.

Norway today announced the death by brain hemorrhage of a caregiver under the age of 50.

This is the second fatal case in a young person in a few days.

However, no cause and effect relationship has been established between this death and the administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

It is also on this point that the European Medicines Agency is investigating.

CORONAVIRUS ESSENTIALS

> Covid-19: is there really a risk of contamination outside?

> Coronavirus: why can a PCR test be positive one month after infection?

> Are private parties really prohibited with the curfew?

> The English variant would cause slightly different symptoms

> Audio, webcams ... When technology adapts to teleworking

In France, the executive had so far decided to stick to the figures, which remain very low.

"We are at about thirty cases of thrombosis, out of more than 5 million people who have been vaccinated with this vaccine. And all these phenomena do not pose any problems," said specialist Jean-Daniel Lelièvre.

"We had three or four fairly exceptional pathologies and that's what made it all stop. But these events occur in one in a million people, while venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism are relatively frequent diseases."

Can this quack increase distrust of vaccines?

With this abrupt cessation of the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the damage in terms of image may be severe and further increase the distrust of the French towards vaccines.

And this even if the treatment is again authorized in France. 

"Even if the experts then estimate that this treatment does not pose a problem, somewhere it is too late, the damage is done", judge Jean-Daniel Lelièvre.

"But, despite everything, we cannot prevent States from informing populations about possible hypothetical risks."