The curfew issue “has become a political debate and the scientific world, faced with political debates, takes a step back”. Having made the premise clear, however, “in my opinion it is not an hour more or an hour less that will change the dynamics of the epidemic” of Covid-19. Carlo Signorelli, professor of Hygiene and Public Health at the Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan, explains this to Adnkronos Salute. What makes the difference is “the general behavior of people”. Crucial, the expert warns, even more “in this very delicate phase in which we could move towards the elimination of cases, especially serious ones. And there is a good chance that it will end up like this – hopes the specialist – because if the cases have dropped last year without a vaccine, in June-July, they could even more so this year with the vaccinated population “. This is why, with this as a goal, “we must have careful behaviors – exhorts Signorelli – especially among young people”, but not only, among all “in interpersonal relationships. So masks, distances and hygiene”. It is true, the teacher underlines, “there are no scientific data that tell us how much the curfew protects. There is no evidence and those who try to look for them will not find them, also because it is rather difficult to produce them. There is a feeling, however, that in the evening there are more interactions in the meeting places and that there are less possibilities to control and intervene “. “We should find the right balance”, is Signorelli’s invitation. On the one hand “to guarantee economic activities, which rightly ask to be able to reopen without major limitations, but in the same way”, on the other hand, “also to avoid compromising a decreasing curve which, if it were to go to zero, then give us the possibility of hoping for greater freedom “. But what would the hygienist answer to those who would like not only to postpone, but to completely eliminate the curfew? “I will not enter the political debate – repeats the expert – I would only pay attention to the signals we give, which are important. A complete elimination, in my opinion, could also be read as ‘the problem is over’. And the problem is not finished”.