Fossil find the last predator dinosaur in Argentina

Fossil find the last predator dinosaur in Argentina

Wednesday – 27 Ramadan 1441 AH – May 20, 2020 AD No. No. [

Meat-eating dinosaur

London: «Middle East»

The remains of a predatory dinosaur (Megaraptor) have been found, becoming one of the last meat-eating dinosaurs that inhabited the planet, according to fossil scientists from the Argentine Museum of Natural Sciences.
The southern province of Santa Cruz witnessed the discovery in mid-March. After the experts studied the fossil remains of ten meters, they realized that they were studying the remains of a predator dinosaur from the end of the “age of the dinosaurs.”
“This is the moment that took place 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs became extinct, and this megapator that we must now study will be one of the newest representatives of this group,” the paleontologist in charge of the project, Fernando Nobath, told Reuters. This type of dinosaur is thinner than the Tyrannosaurus rex and it was fast and had a long tail allowing it to maintain its balance. Nobath said that they had a muscular structure and legs stretched out to make strides. “The specific feature of this megapetor was in two long arms and his thumb ended with a claw about 40 cm long,” allowing him to pounce on his prey, Noboth added.




A long way to go between Argentina and creditors

A long way to go between Argentina and creditors

Buenos Aires shows {flexibility} in debt restructuring negotiations totaling $ 65 billion

Thursday – 12 Shawwal 1441 AH – 04 June 2020 AD No. No. [

The Argentine economy minister expects the road to negotiations with creditors to be long (Reuters)

Buenos Aires: «The Middle East»

Argentine Economy Minister Martin Guzman said Argentina is “flexible” in debt restructuring talks with its creditors, but there is still a “long way” before a “sustainable” agreement is reached.
“Argentina is flexible regarding the set of factors that should form the basis of any offer” for a debt restructuring of $ 65 billion, Guzman said in an interview with German news agency DPA. However, he said, “We cannot make promises that we cannot fulfill … The agreement makes sense only if it is an agreement that takes care of Argentina entirely.”
Buenos Aires stresses that the debt installments cannot be so large that the state threatens to go bankrupt and leaves no room for the shrinking economy to start growing again.
Creditors rejected Argentina’s offer of a three-year moratorium, reducing interest payments by 62 percent, and reducing major payments by 5.4 percent.
Guzmán said that the government had not yet submitted a new proposal, and that negotiations with creditors were currently dealing with “conditions … including the issue of the supply structure”. The minister noted that Argentina is also in talks with the International Monetary Fund to assess its ability to pay. “From the moment Argentina adjusts its offer, there must be an additional 10-day period until the date on which the offer ends,” the minister stressed.
The minister refused to specify the possible length of negotiations. “It depends on the willingness of the parties to understand the restrictions facing the country, as well as on the ability of creditors to settle their differences,” he said. He noted that “creditors are very different, and they have different preferences on how to solve this.” He stressed that the most important of the duration of the talks is that «this needs a good solution. Argentina will only make a commitment if it can respect it. ”
At the same time, Guzmán said, Buenos Aires is discussing a possible new economic program with the International Monetary Fund, through which it is developing a “fruitful” relationship. The fund had previously given Argentina a $ 57 billion bailout package, the largest IMF credit line ever … but the International Monetary Fund is not very popular in Argentina, as critics blame it for austerity policies.
“The previous program was created very quickly, and it was a governmental decision, and the community was not involved,” Guzman said. He promised that this time there would be a “very important social discussion” on relations with the IMF.
Guzmán said that when President Alberto Fernandez’s left-wing government took office last December, it found that the country was “in a total economic crisis and deep debt, and that public finances were in poor shape.”
Argentina has already entered the state of default 8 times, the last of which was in 2001. Guzmán stated that the country now needs to “rebuild confidence” through “monetary and fiscal policies and exchange rate policies that are compatible with each other.” He pointed out that the other main element in creating confidence is “rescheduling debt and bringing it to levels that the country can deal with”.
The Corona pandemic crisis exacerbated Argentina’s economic problems. Guzmán said the country had made health its priority and imposed a “very strict sanitary quarantine.”
On the other hand, the International Monetary Fund said, on Monday, that Argentina’s latest offer to restructure its debt will restore its debt sustainability, and that there is little opportunity for another increase in its payments to private creditors, according to “Bloomberg” agency.
The fund said in a statement: “There is only a limited scope for increasing payments to private creditors, and it still has to pay the debts and service those debts.” In its statement, the Fund added: “The Argentine authorities’ revised proposal for debt restructuring will be consistent with the recovery of debt sustainability with a high probability.”
This is the first comment from the International Monetary Fund since it issued an 18-page “technical note” on March 20, in which it analyzed the Argentine government’s ability to pay debts.




The discovery of a fossil frog dating back two million years in Argentina

The discovery of a fossil frog dating back two million years in Argentina

Wednesday – 18 Shawwal 1441 AH – 10 June 2020 AD No. No. [

Prehistoric frogs

London: «Middle East»

At a depth of 44 meters during the drilling of a water well in San Pedro, 180 kilometers north of Buenos Aires, Argentine scientists have discovered fossil remains of a type of frog that lived in the center of this South American country about two million years ago, according to Agence France-Presse.
“We don’t know much about prehistoric frogs,” said Federico Aniolan, a researcher with the Argentine Institute of Natural Sciences, at the Science Publishing Agency at the National University of Matanza.
He added: “Frogs and hells are affected greatly by climatic and environmental changes, so they are an important source of information to understand past climates.” And the find happened. The researcher stressed that the paleontologists found “the bone of the humerus is a very small amphibious organism different from the hulls and frogs of trees.”
He emphasized that the petite fossil was identified despite its size because the petroats; It is a group of amphibians, including frogs and toads, with a special structure at the tip of the humerus in the elbow joint. This special structure provides it with great ductility to make quick movements and stability. “The discovery is a great contribution to paleontology in Argentina,” said Federico Aniolan.




A man died in an attack with a knife in the center of Glasgow :: Society :: RBC

Photo: Andrew Milligan / PA / TASS

In the center of Glasgow there was an attack with a knife, a man died, according to Scottish Television (STV).

An unknown man attacked a man on Argyll Street with a knife. The attack occurred at about 12:10 (14:10 Moscow time). Arriving at the scene, police cordoned off the area between the Premier Inn and Traders Pub.

The police believe that the attack was targeted. Now there is no threat to people.

The police recognized the killing of three people in the UK as terrorism

Reading, UK, June 20, 2020

On June 26, six people, including a policeman, were stabbed in an attack at the Park Inn Hotel in Glasgow. The attacker was shot dead. It turned out to be a 28-year-old native of Sudan, Badreddin Abdullah Adam, the BBC reported.


the Assembly shall adopt “measures of safety” for prisoners coming out of prison

The national Assembly voted on the night of Monday 22 to Tuesday 23 June a proposal for a law LREM controversial providing” safety measures “for those sentenced for terrorism at the end of their sentence.

→ TO READ. Terrorism, LREM offers its own set of “security measures” at the exit of the prison

The judicial authority may impose for five or ten years to these people the obligation to respond to the convocations of the sentencing judge, to establish his residence in a determined place, of prohibitions to enter into a relationship and seem in some places, and still be under the obligation of pointing so that, subject to the agreement of the person, the wearing of an electronic bracelet.

As the elected MoDem, the minister of justice Nicole Belloubet spoke out against the strap,” measure prejudicial to the freedom “among this arsenal. But the ” walkers “, including the former boss of the Raid, Jean-Michel Fauvergue, found the bracelet “ essential “and have predicted that it will reduce the score to once per week.

“We don’t have all the necessary tools “

After bitter debates, the deputies LREM, LR and IDUS have voted the whole of this proposal of law in favor of” the security of the French “the group BIA against what he sees as a” forward flight “and” a semblance of a sentence “for these terrorists released from detention. Socialists and communists have them abstained on the text as” dangerous compared to the founding principles of the law “.

→ TO READ. The Wise focus on the anti-terrorism act

The threat is increasingly homegrown. Persons convicted for acts of terrorism will get out of prison “approximately 150 in the next three years, including” some are still very dangerous “explained Yael Braun-Pivet, president LREM of the law commission. ” However, we do not have all the tools necessary to ensure their follow-up “.

These people” have been convicted in the years 2010 very often for crimes “where these” outputs dry “without” accompanying judicial “but it is a possible year of administrative control, according to another author of the bill, Raphaël Gauvain. The penalties for terrorism have been tightened in 2016, after the wave of terrorist attacks on French soil.

“Penalty after penalty “

The minister of justice has overall supported the proposal LREM, while putting forward a” in urgent need of balance “: no way” to establish any form of justice predictive “on the basis of a” mere suspicion “as to the dangerousness of the person. The text needs to be quickly considered by the Senate, with a view to final adoption by the end of July.

Senators led by Philip Low (LR) filed a similar bill in march, portending a convergence between the two rooms. ” We are on a ridge line “notes Yael Braun-Pivet : safety measures must not amount to a penalty, at the risk of not being able to apply to persons already judged. However, the “walkers” are intended to be of immediate application.

The national Council of bars (CNB), which represents 70 000 lawyers of France, was adopted in the beginning of June a motion against” the sentence after the sentence “, denouncing a text challenging the guarantees of the rule of law and contrary to the declaration of the rights of man.


the track terrorist restraint in the attack the knife to Reading

Twenty-four hours after the fact, the anti-terrorist police in the uk seized on Sunday, June 21 the investigation on the attack with a knife has killed three the day before in a park in Reading.

→ TO READ. Uk : three people killed in an attack with a knife in a park in Reading

A suspect, 25-year-old and inhabitant of this city of 200 000 inhabitants located about 60 kilometres to the west of the british capital, has been arrested” five minutes “after the first call to the police, according to the police of the Thames valley. While the police has not revealed his identity, he was still in custody Sunday.

The “mental health” of the suspect in question

Several british media present the suspect as a libyan refugee. According to the Daily Telegraph, citing a security source, its” mental health “is regarded as a” major factor “. ” It looked very weird “said Amir Hadyoon, a delivery driver for 31 years, recounting the arrest. ” He did not say a word “he-he said to journalists.

United Kingdom : the lead terrorist to be retained in the attack the knife to Reading

Near the park where took place the tragedy, flowers have been deposited to pay tribute to the victims. One of them is James Furlong, depending on the institution in which he taught, a college-a high school in the nearby town of Wokingham. The Holt School has paid tribute to a” man nice and soft “facilitated a” real sense of duty “. Three other people were seriously injured.

Boris Johnson ” sickened “

Prime minister Boris Johnson said he is” outraged and sickened that people have lost their lives in this way “. ” If lessons have to be learned, we will in general, “he said, claiming the government” would not hesitate to take action “where this would be necessary. Citing security sources, the BBC said that the suspect had drawn in 2019 the attention of MI5, the domestic intelligence, because of the attempts at departure abroad” potentially for terrorism “but no threat or imminent risk had been highlighted.

→ TO READ. Attack “islamist” in London : an attacker already condemned injures three people

The investigators believe that the author has acted alone, according to the head of the anti-terrorist police, Neil Basu. ” We don’t seek anyone else “, he said. If the motives of this” horrible act “are” far from being some “the terrorism that has taken the lead in investigations, he explained. Unchanged, the level of terrorist threat remains classified “ important “or the third degree on a scale of five.


In the Philippines, the Churches unite against the proposed anti-terrorism bill

The Congress of the philippines in Manila has approved Wednesday, June 3, a proposed anti-terrorism act which are now expected to be signed by the chairman Roberto Duterte to enter into force. This text, which aims to replace the human security act of 2007 (Human Security Act), provides for the creation of a Council counter-terrorism, whose members would be appointed by the executive power. Through this Council, the authorities would have the ability, without a warrant, to listen or to stop persons or organizations suspected of act of terrorism.

Many Filipinos see this project of law (which reinforces the control of the citizens and extends up to 24 days – compared with three currently on – remand in custody) for a reduction of civil liberties, and a number of important events have already taken place across the country.

Joint statement

The christian Churches of the Philippines (1) published Monday, June 8, a joint declaration to denounce the new law which threatens to trample “insidiously “ the human rights and “lead to a new narrowing of the democratic space and a weakening of the public debate is detrimental to our nation.”

Signed by, among others, Bishop Broderick Pabillo, the apostolic administrator of Manila, and Bishop Gerardo Alminaza, bishop of San Carlos (island of Luzon), this joint statement draws a parallel between the new text and “the dark days of the martial law of dictator Marcos.” Even that last may, the government Duterte was close, ABS-CBN, the largest radio station-television of the country, and the accounts Facebook of opponents of the regime.

The platform for ecumenical peace in the Philippines (PEPP) has also expressed its “consternation “ before the fact that the proposed legislation would negatively affect the possible resumption of peace talks cancelled between the government and the communist rebels.

Take care of the real problems

For his part, Bishop Arturo Bastes, bishop emeritus of Sorsogon (southern Luzon), asks the Congress to attack the the ” real issues “ Filipinos, starting with the crisis of the sars coronavirus. ” Our poor need of positive laws to help them to live in peace and dignity “, he said in calling for the rejection of what he refers to as “ law dangerous “.

“This new law wants to hide the bankruptcy of the current government in the management of the health crisis, economic and social “, adds a religious French station in Manila who finds that “discontent rumbling on the social networks, because the poor are always sacrificed “.

“Inhuman, unjust, and illegal “

At the same time, the catholic Association for the education of the Philippines (CEAP, which brings together 1 500 catholic schools) has called Roberto Duterte, in a press release from June 8, to not sign this bill, which, explains the APEC, taking up the arguments of the associations the philippines human rights, “ delegates to the president the power to define terrorism “while this power is up to the courts.

According to the officials of the catholic teaching, this bill could allow the qualify immediately the “terrorist” a criticism against the president and his government without due process “. Gold, “when that dissent may be considered by the State as a terrorist act, says APECit will mean the end of freedom of expression in schools.

Similarly, the Caritas strongly opposes this bill, which is the risk of” a further strengthening of the tyranny and totalitarianism “according to Bishop Jose Collin Bagaforo, bishop of Kidapawan on the island of Mindanao) and national director of Caritas. Urging the Filipinos not to let the government restrict their democratic rights, Bishop Bagaforo cried out : “ This is not just intolerable, it is inhuman, unjust, and illegal “.

Authoritarian excess

This anti-terrorism act could enter into force while the united Nations has just issued a report very severe on the excesses of authoritarian security apparatus in the philippines.

The international criminal Court (ICC) had opened, in fact, in February 2018 a preliminary investigation of the violence committed in the context of the fierce repression of drug trafficking. In response, in march 2019, the president of the philippines Duterte had withdrawn from the treaty of Rome, the ICC’s founding.


Mattarella: ‘Remembering those who have not bowed to terrorism’ – Politics

In his message on the day of the memory of the victims of terrorism, the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella underlines that “it is right to remember the courage of those who have not bowed, of those who continued to defend the conquered freedom, the law and legality, the institutions who preside over democratic life. Terrorism has been defeated thanks to the sacrifice and righteousness of many, and thanks to the unity that the Italian people have been able to express in defense of the deepest values ​​of their civilization “


«On the” Memorial Day “, which the Italian Parliament wished to dedicate to the victims of terrorism, the Republic is bowing before the lives broken by political fanaticism, by the violence of brigatist and neo-fascist groups, by subversive assaults on democratic institutions and civil coexistence .

Tragically long is the following of people killed in the lead years: servants of the state, women and men elected as symbols of public functions, citizens engaged in social life, coherent witnesses who have not succumbed to blackmail. The bond of memory renews and strengthens the feeling of solidarity with family members, but also calls for a commitment that applies to the whole community.

Remembering is a duty. Remembering the strategies and plots created to destabilize the constitutional order, the complicity and deviations of unfaithful subjects in the state apparatus, the weaknesses of those who were late in distancing themselves from ideological degenerations and the expanding climate of violence. And it is right to remember the courage of those who have not bowed, of those who have continued to defend the freedom they have won, the law and the legality, the institutions that preside over democratic life. Terrorism has been defeated thanks to the sacrifice and righteousness of many, and thanks to the unity that the Italian people have been able to express in defense of the deepest values ​​of their civilization. History has shown us that the unity and cohesion of Italians are the most effective tools in the face of the most serious dangers.

Over time, direct and indirect responsibilities have been ascertained. The perpetrators of the crimes were subjected to trials and convictions. But not everywhere full light was shed. Truth remains a right, as well as a duty for institutions. Terrorism and subversion have been beaten with the tools of democracy and the Constitution: the search for truth, therefore, must continue where gaps and dark points persist.

May 9 is the day Aldo Moro was killed. Brigadier barbarism then reached the height of aggression against the democratic state. The heartbreaking torture to which Moro was subjected will remain an incurable wound in our democratic history. Rejected the terrorist threat, today even more we feel the duty to free Moro and every other victim from a memory exclusively linked to the criminal actions of their killers. In rediscovering the thought, the action, the teachings of Moro and of many other righteous people who have paid the price of life, we will also find some roots that can be precious to face the future “.


Venezuelan prosecutor intends to accuse detained US citizens of terrorism

Venezuelan prosecutors intend to bring charges against terrorism and arms smuggling to two U.S. citizens detained after an unsuccessful attempt to invade the country on May 3. US authorities deny their involvement in the incident.

“Detained Americans will be charged with terrorism, conspiracy, and arms trafficking. All these crimes were committed against the Venezuelan state, ”said Attorney General Tarek William Saab (quoted by RIA Novosti). In total, as a result of the invasion of the militants, 31 people were detained. In addition to terrorism, Venezuelan citizens are charged with conspiracy with a foreign government, treason and rebellion.

Earlier, Venezuelan authorities said they had prevented the invasion of militants on speedboats from Colombia. Two of the detainees, Luke Denman and Aaron Berry, are US citizens. President Nicolas Maduro has stated that they are members of President Donald Trump’s security service. During the interrogation, one of the detained Americans reported that the group’s plan was to seize the airport in Caracas and hold it until President Maduro was taken to the United States. Washington denies any involvement in these events. Today, Mr. Trump said that he would not hide the preparations for a military operation in Venezuela if he really planned it.

Read more about the attempt to invade Venezuela – in the article “Kommersant” “Nicolas Maduro survived the special operation.”


Behind the scenes of Brussels – Containment: the debate prohibited

It only took a few moments, on March 16, for the Head of State and his government, in the name of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, to place the French under house arrest and deprive them of most of their freedoms civil, political and social that we thought inalienable: freedom to come and go, freedom of assembly, freedom to undertake, freedom to work, etc. Justice has almost been brought to a halt, lawyers confined, provisional detentions automatically extended, the police (understood in a very extensive sense since they include municipal police officers and the like) invested with full powers apply these custodial measures.

Containment without legal basis

This suspension of the rule of law was done without legal basis. Indeed, the decree of March 16 restricting the movement of citizens does not fall within the powers of the executive, since only a judicial judge, the liberty judge, can normally decide on an individual basis. Nevertheless, administrative justice, in this case the Council of State, validated it on the basis of the jurisprudential theory of “exceptional circumstances”, which is probably not its most inspired decision.

It was only on March 23 that Parliament gave a legal basis to the measures announced on March 17 by hastily passing the law creating a “state of health emergency” which authorizes the government to trigger it “in the event of a disaster. health endangering, by its nature and gravity, the health of the population ”, a particularly vague definition. This whole law cultivates vagueness, the offenses it provides for example leaving a large part to police interpretation and therefore to arbitrariness. Renewable by Parliament – possibly for a period longer than two months – it gives full powers to the executive, Parliament being stripped of its powers and reduced to the role of mere spectator. If the Assembly has not changed the government’s plan, the majority being what it is, the Senate, dominated by the classic right, has fortunately managed to introduce some safeguards in this improvised text and poorly put together in providing in particular that it will cease to apply in any event on 1er April 2021, unless a law to the contrary is passed. A fundamental clarification which the government services had curiously not thought of.

Not quite a dictatorship

It is remarkable that this exceptional legislation, justified by the use of a warlike language unique in Europe (“We are at war”) was not the subject of a referral to the Constitutional Council, the opposition, all as forbidden from terror as public opinion, having given up exercising its rights, an unprecedented fact, when it is a particularly serious attack on the rule of law. The constitutional judges were only seized on one point of detail, the suspension of the time limits to judge the questions preliminary of constitutionality (QPC), a provision which it moreover validated.

As long as the state of health emergency applies (until the end of July we have just learned), France is no longer a democracy, even if it is not quite a dictatorship. In his time, François Mitterrand denounced the “permanent coup” that were the institutions of the Fifth Republic. The coronavirus has made it possible to carry out this institutional logic. The head of state, relying on a submissive majority and facing non-existent opposition, seized all the levers of power by invoking the need to preserve the health of the French and a health emergency that he does did not want to see it coming, he who ten days earlier encouraged the French to continue living as before.

This parenthesis of the rule of law was accompanied by the brutal halt of a large part of the economy, a logical consequence of confinement. Above all, the government decided, without any consultation, which businesses could remain open, forcing companies to lay off more than 11 million private sector workers.

Lack of debate

It is truly staggering that these exceptional powers entrusted to the State to apply a brutal and without nuance confinement to an entire country, one of the hardest in Europe with those of Spain, Italy and Belgium , did not give rise to any debate, as if there was no other choice. However, never a democracy used in the past this method to fight against a pandemic (there was only partial confinements at the beginning of the previous century), in particular during the Spanish flu of 1918-1919, of the Asian flu of 1959 or of the Hong Kong flu of 1969. The fact that containment was a solution invented by China, a totalitarian regime, to contain the coronavirus pandemic should at least have questioned its legitimacy. However, it imposed itself almost naturally, all playing in reality when Italy took the decision to confine the whole of its population from March 10, which caused a domino effect, each wanting to show that he was also keen to protect its population: Spain imposed it on March 15, France on March 16, Belgium on March 18 …

However, there was room for debate and on all fronts. On the principle of containment itself first. Because it is only a stopgap aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and avoiding congestion in hospitals which could result in additional deaths. Clearly, the virus will continue to circulate and kill those it must kill after the containment is lifted – in a proportion that no one knows – since it does not exist and will not exist for one or two years a vaccine and that treatments are still in the experimental stage.

Containment is a political trap

Obviously, no one realized that it was going to be very difficult to get out of the containment once decided without political damage, a part of the public opinion risking to be self-persuaded over the days that it is in eradicating the disease. If the pandemic continues to kill, and it will, the government will be automatically accused of endangering the health of its citizens to save “the economy”, a swear word for some French people as if working for a living was secondary to health… In other words, the temptation will be strong to return to blind confinement to silence the controversies or to get out of them as late as possible, the path chosen by France after six weeks of state of emergency sanitary.

This is also why countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Germany or the Netherlands either have not adopted this strategy, letting life take its normal course, or have applied it with much more finesse, which made it possible to avoid passing through the box of exceptional powers entrusted to the executive and especially to break the economy.

Why confine an entire country?

This total foreclosure of a country is all the more questionable since whole regions were and are almost untouched by the virus: why impose the same treatment in Creuse as in Ile de France, in Puglia as in Milan ? Why not have it confined to the extent of the pandemic, just like Germany, where the Länder are competent in public health, has done with the success we know? Thus, from the start, two foci were identified in France: the Oise and Mulhouse. However, rather than reacting immediately by isolating these two regions and deploying military medical means to relieve hospitals, the government procrastinated, allowing the virus to spread. It remains staggering that it was not until March 24, a week after the decision to confine the country, that the military medical service was sent to reinforce Mulhouse! From there to think that total containment was also motivated by the inability of the authorities to anticipate the crisis, there is only one step that I will be careful not to take.

Similarly, the choice of companies to close and the precautions to be taken would also have been a possible area of ​​discussion. For example, it quickly became known that air conditioning allowed the virus to circulate more than a meter and contaminate many people. So does closing shoe repair shops, art galleries or florists and leaving supermarkets open make medical sense? Likewise, was school closure necessary? All this was left to the discretion of a bureaucracy without control and without any consultation with all economic and social actors.

Why place an entire population under residence?

Finally, it appeared very early on that the disease was overwhelmingly fatal for people over the age of 70 (average age of death in Italy or France: 80) and those with serious pathologies, in particular clear the weak. Was it therefore rational to confine all assets and plunge the country into recession? Perhaps we should have focused on protecting these at-risk groups rather than putting a whole country under wraps without thinking of tomorrow, especially since we know full well that the virus is here for a long time.

The debate becomes, at this point, particularly emotional, because it refers to our relationship to death. Why has such a pandemic, which is not the first the world has faced and which is especially far from being the most deadly in history, led states to decide on unprecedented measures while knowing that they were not a cure? Why such a panic, especially when you compare the mortality caused by the coronavirus with that of other diseases? Although we must still be careful, since five months after its appearance, we still know very little about covid-19, which should warn us about the scientism that seized us, the doctors having said everything and its contrary to this pandemic, making political decision particularly difficult. However, let’s remember that 400,000 new cancers are diagnosed each year in France and that 150,000 French people die from it, and yet tobacco and alcohol are still not banned, while that would avoid much of it. If all life deserves to be saved, why be so casual about cancer? Similarly, seasonal flu (while there is a vaccine that a large majority considers dispensable) kill each year between 3,000 and 15,000 people (not to mention the more than 30,000 deaths from the Hong Kong flu in 1969 in a country of 51 million inhabitants or the equivalent number of deaths in 1959 in a country of 45 million inhabitants), seasonal respiratory infections 68,000 people, road accidents 3500 people to which must be added the disabled for life. And yet, no one has thought of banning the car (and every measure aimed at strengthening safety has its share of protests, remember the 80 km / h) or to make the fight against pollution or junk food a categorical imperative.

If we look at the statistics of mortality in the world, we see that hunger (yet easy and inexpensive to eradicate), malaria, AIDS or even wars (often made with the weapons produced by our industries) kill infinitely more than the coronavirus will ever kill.

Choose your comrade side, but there is only one good side, that of containment!

It would probably be necessary to question the responsibility of the audiovisual media in this panic which has taken hold of Western public opinion (with a German exception, German televisions having voluntarily decided to treat covid-19 in the place it deserves). Announce every morning the number of dead without putting them in perspective (compared to the usual average of the dead, their age, the comorbidity from which they suffered, etc.), devote entire newspapers to the pandemic can only shake even the best made heads … Imagine that every morning the number of deaths in France is truncated for all causes and that all the newspapers are devoted to it: who would still dare to simply live?

This is not to say that a death is immaterial, but simply that any public policy must be subject to a cost-benefit assessment. If we do not ban the sale of weapons, tobacco, alcohol, cars, trucks, thermal power stations, it is because collectively we believe that the cost would be greater than the benefit we would derive from it. But this debate, in the emotional surge that has been going on for two months, is in fact prohibited. Those who dared to question the chosen strategy and especially on its duration were pilloried by the most radical, those who are heard. To be opposed to the prolongation of confinement is to be for the “sacrifice” of those who are sick, “to spit in the mouth of the dead” and so on. In short, choose your comrade side, but there is only one good side, that of containment! I have even been threatened with death, myself and my family, by good people who believe that all life must be saved at any cost without the contradiction of their words touching their minds for daring to me. question in two tweets from April 9, three weeks after the start of confinement: ” It’s crazy when you think about it: plunging the world into the worst recession since the Second World War for a pandemic that has so far killed less than 100,000 people (not to mention their advanced age) in a world of 7 billion inhabitants. Seasonal flu, which kills especially young children, is between 290,000 and 650,000 per year worldwide. And everyone fucks, but serious. “

The worst recession of all time outside of the war (and more)

However, confinement will lead to an unimaginable recession by its violence: it should reach between 8% and 15% of GDP, an unprecedented decline in activity in peacetime (we must go back to 1942 to record a recession of -10 %). We have never brought an economy to a complete halt as we have just done, we must be aware of this. Partial unemployment now affects nearly twelve million workers (one in two private workers!) And the layoffs caused by thousands of business bankruptcies will number in the hundreds of thousands or even millions once the partial unemployment scheme supported by the state will expire (because it costs a fortune). And the longer the shutdown, the more difficult it will be to restart. The cost generated by the establishment of a social safety net and by economic plans will lead to an unprecedented deterioration in public accounts and the young generations who will have to pay twice for confinement: by the loss of their jobs and by raising taxes for those who will keep it.

It should not be forgotten that unemployment is also a health catastrophe, but more diffuse and therefore socially more acceptable: we thus estimate at 14,000 the deaths which it causes each year in France by induced diseases. And how not to speak of its procession of misery, hunger, social downgrading, etc. The effects of confinement are also going to have terrible consequences on the minds of French people, on violence against women and children, on their health (for example, early screenings for cancer, stroke, heart attack are suspended and nothing is known about suicides, etc.), about dropping out of school (how many children have simply disappeared from the system? ).

A lastingly weakened rule of law

Finally, to believe that public freedoms, democracy, will come out intact from this episode is just a sweet dream. The state of health emergency will remain enshrined in our law for a long time exactly as the state of emergency, launched in 2015, was finally incorporated into ordinary law. It is rare for a state to give up on its own the powers gained over the legislature and the justice system. The tracking of individuals, via smartphones, which some consider to be a necessity, could well become the rule in the name of safeguarding our health which has become THE priority, privacy being reduced to the rank of concern of another age. Having chosen total containment and the state of emergency will leave lasting traces in French democracy.

I do not pretend to provide an answer here. Simply, the first elements of the deconfinement show that another way would have been possible: confinement not department, wide discretion left to local authorities, referral to the judicial judge to register the carriers of the virus, etc. I just regret the absence of democratic deliberation before the establishment of the state of health emergency and its extension. As if sacrificing generations under the age of 60 and suspending the rule of law were obvious facts.

In provisional conclusion, I think that we should not be mistaken about the meaning of the unimaginable event that we are experiencing: it is the triumph of individualism, that of the immediate health of the individual in the face of well-being current and future collective. The terms of the debate are in reality identical to those of climate change: should we accept to sacrifice our immediate well-being to ensure the survival of the human species?

Some reading tips:

Note from the magistrates’ union on the state of health emergency

“Let us beware of falling into a sickly, viro-induced, social and political reactivity”

The catastrophic cost-benefit of containment

Breaking out of blind confinement

Dare to discuss confinement (a Belgian point of view)

Will the remedy ultimately be worse than the coronavirus? (a Swiss point of view)

“Let us die as we wish” and “I prefer to catch covid-19 in a free country than to escape it in a totalitarian state”