Given the scarcity of vaccines, the choice of the Government of Quebec to give a period of 4 months between the first and the second dose offered the advantage of protecting a greater number of Quebecers with the first dose with the risk of a less protection for those who had received the first dose. The expected gains were greater than the risks, and it is a happy decision since a longer delay also improved protection for those who received the first dose.
Given the current availability of vaccines for the third dose, however, I see no advantage in limiting access to people aged 60 and over, in putting a 6-month delay between the second and the third dose, in starting a vaccination campaign whose slowness adds 3 to 4 weeks for the places available, at least in Saguenay, and which will leave a very large part of the vulnerable population without additional protection during the holiday season. Why take these risks when all the information coming from elsewhere indicates to us that there is danger in the remainder?
I understand that the situation in Quebec is different, given our high vaccination rate and the means of protection put in place, that our scientists closely monitor the evolution of vaccine protection and that we are a fascinating laboratory, that they will sound the alarm when the fifth wave breaks.
Will it be too late? We will then possibly be during the holiday season, and the delays in the vaccination campaign for the third dose could have very serious consequences for our health system and the health of our fellow citizens.
Again, why, in a third-dose vaccination campaign, does slowness make us take additional risks when there are no benefits? Why did our members of the National Assembly not raise this question more? Is drama necessary to get their attention and that of the government?