• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2019-2023close
• Open Access close
• Other literature type close
• Hyper Article en Ligne close
• COVID-19 close

La recherche en sciences humaines et sociales (SHS), à qui l’on pose régulièrement la question de son « utilité », a été massivement mobilisée dans la première partie de l’année 2020, tant par les médias et les institutions. Elle s’est montrée d’une grande réactivité, en adaptant ses calendriers et ses objectifs, en modifiant ses formats d’interventions (wébinaires, cours en distanciel). Chercheuses et chercheurs, enseignant(e)s-chercheurs ont été présents, et ce malgré des inégalités générées par le confinement dans le travail de recherche, notamment en termes de genre. Le présent travail a pour ambition de proposer à son lecteur une analyse mobilisant les travaux des SHS dans leur ensemble. Sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, il tisse les fils, à travers les questions qu’il aborde, d’une discipline à une autre, composant un ensemble dans lequel les SHS entrent en résonance les unes avec les autres, déploient leur complémentarité, et créent une analyse commune, qu’elles relèvent plutôt des sciences sociales ou des humanités. Il a pour objectif de rendre manifeste un capital scientifique des SHS en tant que telles, pour aborder les différents questionnements que suscite la pandémie de Covid-19. La recherche actuelle en SHS sur la pandémie, sa gestion politique, et ses enjeux, ne s’élabore pas ex nihilo. Tout en prenant la mesure de la spécificité des temps présents, elle s’appuie sur un ensemble de cadres théoriques, de méthodes, d’analyses élaborés dans d’autres contextes, remobilisés, réactualisés, enrichis à la lumière des problématiques associées à la pandémie de Covid 19. Par ailleurs, le parti-pris de ce travail a été de tenir compte d’emblée de la dimension mondiale de la pandémie, et de ne pas s’en tenir à la situation française. Ainsi, plusieurs contextes nationaux, voire continentaux sont explorés sur tel ou tel point et la dimension mondiale de la pandémie y est prise en compte en tant que telle. Enfin, ce document s’intéresse aussi à la manière même dont les sciences humaines et sociales se sont mobilisées, en France, dans le contexte de la pandémie de Covid 19, aux formes collaboratives, aux pratiques pluridisciplinaires particulièrement adoptées face à cette pandémie. Il se structure en cinq parties : la première porte sur la manière dont les SHS font de la crise une question et un objet de connaissance (A – Du cadrage de la crise dans l’espace public à la crise comme objet de connaissance - l’exemple de la France). La seconde aborde un point saillant des analyses élaborées au cours des derniers mois, qui envisagent la pandémie comme un révélateur, voire un amplificateur d’enjeux pré-existants (B). Puis, la troisième partie s’intéresse aux sociétés et aux gouvernements confrontés à la pandémie (C), autrement dit aux formes de la gestion de la crise par le pouvoir politique, à la mobilisation des sciences et à l’exercice du pouvoir, ainsi qu’aux mesures prises et aux attitudes des populations au regard de ces mesures. La quatrième partie présente la façon dont le temps de la pandémie a été traversé de questionnements pour le futur, questionnements qui à leur tour impriment des orientations pour la recherche en SHS (D. Se réinventer en temps de pandémie). Enfin, la cinquième et dernière partie invite le lecteur à découvrir comment les SHS se sont mobilisées en temps de pandémie, comment elles ont collaboré et entrepris de documenter à chaud la crise sanitaire tout en acceptant de voir se renouveler questions, objets, méthodes sous l’effet de cette crise (E. Quand la crise invite aux collaborations et à une réflexion sur le « transfert » des connaissances). Research in the humanities and social sciences (HSS), which is regularly asked the question of its "usefulness", has been massively mobilized in the first part of the year 2020, both by the media and institutions. It has shown itself to be highly responsive, adapting its schedules and objectives, and modifying its intervention formats (webinars, distance learning courses). It was much present, despite the inequalities generated by the lockdown, particularly in terms of gender. The aim of this work is to offer the reader an analysis mobilizing the work of the SHS as a whole. Without claiming to be exhaustive, it weaves the threads, through the questions it addresses, from one discipline to another, composing a whole in which the social sciences and humanities resonate with one another, deploy their complementarity, and create a common analysis. Its objective is to emphasize the existence of a scientific capital of the HSS as such, to address the various questions raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. Current HSS research on the pandemic, its political management, and its stakes, is not developed ex nihilo. While taking the measure of the specificity of the present times, it is based on a set of theoretical frameworks, methods and analyses elaborated in other contexts, remobilized, updated and enriched in the light of the issues associated with the Covid 19 pandemic. Moreover, this work aims at taking into account from the outset the global dimension of the pandemic, and not just the French situation. Thus, several national and even continental contexts are explored on one point or another and the global dimension of the pandemic is taken into account as such. Finally, this document also looks at the very way in which the humanities and social sciences were mobilized in France in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic, at the collaborative forms and multidisciplinary practices particularly adopted in the face of this pandemic. It is structured in five parts: the first deals with the way in which the HSS make the crisis a question and an object of knowledge (A - From the framing of the crisis in the public space to the crisis as an object of knowledge - the example of France). The second addresses a salient point of the analyses developed over the last few months, which consider the pandemic as a revealer, or even an amplifier of pre-existing issues (B). Then, the third part looks at the societies and governments confronted with the pandemic (C), in other words, the forms of crisis management by the political power, the mobilization of science and the exercise of power, as well as the measures taken and the attitudes of the populations with regard to these measures. The fourth part presents the way in which the time of the pandemic has been characterized by questions about the future, questions which in turn give rise to orientations for HSS research (D. Reinventing ourselves in times of pandemic). Finally, the fifth and last part invites the reader to discover how the HHS involved itself in times of pandemic, how they collaborated together and undertook to document the health crisis in the heat of the moment, while accepting to consider new questions, and adopt new methods under the effect of this crisis (E. When the crisis invites collaboration and reflection on the "transfer" of knowledge).

Dès les premières semaines de l’épidémie de la Covid-19, en France, plusieurs voix se sont levées pour dire que l’heure n’était pas à la réflexion éthique, mais à l’action, en soulignant néanmoins l’importance d’un retour d’expérience à l’issue de l’urgence. Dans cette visée, le Centre d’éthique clinique de l’AP-HP a proposé, dès la fin du 1er confinement national, à des soignants, comme à des patients ou à des proches, de revenir, s’ils le souhaitaient, sur les questionnements ou les difficultés éthiques rencontrées pendant cette période (ce qu’il a appelé des « relectures éthiques »). Entre mai et septembre 2020, 31 professionnels y ont participé, 1 seul patient (médecin à la retraite) a été rencontré et aucun proche. Cet article souhaite partager la façon dont ces professionnels sont revenus, dans l’après-coup, sur les premiers mois de la crise. Plus d’une année plus tard, à l’heure où ce qui était « inhabituel » commence par devenir « ordinaire », et le « retour à la vie normale » semble à l’horizon, il n’est pas inutile de rappeler leurs réactions, leurs interrogations et leurs malaises. Au croisement des entretiens, c’est un questionnement quant à ce que soigner veut dire aujourd’hui et au rôle de la médecine en contexte de crise que l’on voit émerger. From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in France, many argued that now was the time for action, not ethics, while acknowledging the need for feedback once the crisis had passed. To this end, the Parisian clinical ethics’ center suggested that health professionals, patients, and families come back on difficulties or questions they might have had during the first national lockdown once it was over. We called it ethical debriefs. Between May and September 2021, 31 professionals agreed to participate, but only 1 patient (a retired physician) and no proxy was met. The aim of this article is to share how these health professionals revisited the first months of the crisis. Indeed today, more than one year since Covid started and as what was once unusual is becoming common practice, it is useful not to forget how they reacted, what their questions were and where did their ethical difficulties lie at that time. Now that coming back to normal might be conceivable, all these interviews highlight the importance of a questioning on what caring for patients means nowadays, as well as on the definition of role of medicine in a context of crisis.

Even though much has been learned about the new pathogen SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of uncertainty remains. In this paper we argue that what is important to know under uncertainty is whether harm accelerates and whether health policies achieve deceleration of harm. For this, we need to see cases in relation to diagnostic effort and not to look at indicators based on cases only, such as a number of widely used epidemiological indicators, including the reproduction number, do. To do so overlooks a crucial dimension, namely the fact that the best we can know about cases will depend on some welldefined strategy of diagnostic effort, such as testing in the case of COVID-19. We will present a newly developed indicator to observe harm, the acceleration index, which is essentially an elasticity of cases in relation to tests. We will discuss what efficiency of testing means and propose that the corresponding health policy goal should be to find ever fewer cases with an ever-greater diagnostic effort. Easy and low-threshold testing will also be a means to give back people’s sovereignty to lead their life in an “open” as opposed to “locked-down” society.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic have had deleterious effects on mental health of students. Authors suggest that the psychological effects will persist long after COVID-19 has peaked, but we have no data to confirm this.ObjectivesObjective: The objective of this study is to compare clinical issues (concerns, anxiety and depression symptoms) and adjustment (coping strategies) in French university students during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 (during two periods of lockdown and two periods after lockdown)Methods Method: Data were collected anonymously at four timepoints: during France’s first national lockdown (23 April- 8 May 2020; nT1 = 1294); during the period after lockdown (9‑23 June 2020; nT2 = 321); 1 year after the first lockdown, which was also a lockdown period (23 April- 8 May 2021; nT3 = 2357); and 1 year after the first unlockdown, which was also a unlockdown period (9‑23 June 2021, nT4 = 1174). The following variables were measured: concerns, coping strategies, anxiety and depressive symptoms.ResultsIn 2021, students have significantly higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms than in 2020, and this is even more pronounced during the lockdown periods. For example, 44.1% had probable anxiety symptoms in the 2021 lockdown, compared to 33% in the 2020 lockdown. In the unlockdown periods, the rates are 21.7% in 2020 and 26.4% in 2021.ConclusionsOur results suggest that university students, known to be a vulnerable population with significant mental health deterioration, have become even more vulnerable with the COVID-19 pandemic.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Uprising in China, the global COVID-19 epidemic soon started to spread out in Europe. As no medical treatment was available, it became urgent to design optimal non-pharmaceutical policies. With the help of a SIR model, we contrast two policies, one based on herd immunity (adopted by Sweden and the Netherlands), the other based on ICU capacity shortage. Both policies led to the danger of a second wave. Policy efficiency corresponds to the absence or limitation of a second wave. The aim of the paper is to measure the efficiency of these policies using statistical models and data. As a measure of efficiency, we propose the ratio of the size of two observed waves using a double sigmoid model coming from the biological growth literature. The Oxford data set provides a policy severity index together with observed number of cases and deaths. This severity index is used to illustrate the key features of national policies for ten European countries and to help for statistical inference. We estimate basic reproduction numbers, identify key moments of the epidemic and provide an instrument for comparing the two reported waves between January and October 2020. We reached the following conclusions. With a soft but long lasting policy, Sweden managed to master the first wave for cases thanks to a low R 0 , but at the cost of a large number of deaths compared to other Nordic countries and Denmark is taken as an example. We predict the failure of herd immunity policy for the Netherlands. We could not identify a clear sanitary policy for large European countries. What we observed was a lack of control for observed cases, but not for deaths.

Group testing is a screening strategy that involves dividing a population into several disjointed groups of subjects. In its simplest implementation, each group is tested with a single test in the first phase, while in the second phase only subjects in positive groups, if any, need to be tested again individually. In this paper, we address the problem of group testing design, which aims to determine a partition into groups of a finite population in such a way that cardinality constraints on the size of each group and a constraint on the expected total number of tests are satisfied while minimizing a linear combination of the expected number of false negative and false positive classifications. First, we show that the properties and model introduced by Aprahmian et al. can be extended to the group test design problem, which is then modeled as a constrained shortest path problem on a specific graph. We design and implement an ad hoc algorithm to solve this problem. On instances based on Sant\'e Publique France data on Covid-19 screening tests, the results of the computational experiments are very promising.

International audience; Corona-Virus Disease (COVID-19), caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading rapidly worldwide causing the world to face a global health crisis. Countries are experiencing a new wave of contamination and are witnessing spikes in the disease without being able to control its spread again. This paper aims to analyze the mortality rate related to the COVID-19 pandemic infection in Tunisia and to assess the effectiveness of health control policies. Data collection for this document was stopped on October, 31 st , 2020.