COFFINS ARE LINED UP INSIDE A CHURCH IN SERINA NEAR BERGAMO, ONE OF ITALY’S CITIES WORST-HIT BY THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS.
If not, it could get out of hand fast, says Jackson Doughart.
How do you convince 37 million people to take something seriously? In response to the novel coronavirus outbreak, public health bodies, politicians and the media have been blasting fairly simple instructions: keep your distance from other people, wash your hands often and stay home as much as possible.
But will this strategy work well enough to “flatten the curve” of the COVID-19 graph? Only data on infections and deaths, and the pressure placed on our hospitals over the coming months will answer this question. Yet it’s going to take time to find out if the message has gotten through. And by then, it will likely be too late to change course.
So far, governments have chosen against implementing forceful measures to limit social contact, such as legally restricting movement to necessities like receiving medical care and buying food. This understandably errs on the side of the economy and respecting individual choice. But let’s not deny that it is a gamble now that COVID-19 is here and spreading internally.
Yes, we’re seeing some good changes, such as whittling pedestrian traffic, reduced use of public transit and the closing of bars and restaurants — either by choice, or by edict. But there are still a lot of people who haven’t clued in. Apart from reported incidents like Queen’s University students crowding together on
St. Patrick’s Day, a new poll found that about a fifth of respondents haven’t changed their behaviour at all. It also found that only 58 per cent were “concerned” about COVID-19.
As the poll notes, those figures have risen significantly. But neither metric, especially the number of people refusing to change their habits, is encouraging. If this result is representative of the entire population, there remains a big risk of community transmission.
Speaking personally, the number of people I know who are taking a nonchalant attitude toward this crisis is baffling. Worse still are those who are labelling the recommended lifestyle changes as “giving in to hysteria,” or “going soft,” thus creating social pressure not to comply with the sensible directions we’re getting from the experts.
But apart from public education, what are the alternatives? A national “lock down,” à la France, would obviously come at a huge cost, with months or years of knock-on economic and social effects. But so will an inadequate response to the coronavirus, especially if relying on people’s discipline and public spirit doesn’t turn out to be effective.
There’s no doubt that a regime of mandatory isolation would pose a moral dilemma in a free society, but it is hard to imagine the state of freedom if the country can’t mitigate the number of infections and the coronavirus paralyzes the economy even further.
Even now, we aren’t tracking who is isolating or holding people to account for proper self-quarantining. Canada’s response is an experiment in good faith, and we’re already playing with long odds. The federal health minister and chief public health officer say the window is closing on social distancing. If that doesn’t work, what’s next?
Italy’s experience of some 3,500 deaths and more than 40,000 infections shows what could become of us if we don’t take immediate, urgent measures. Doctors in that country may eventually have to turn away people from hospitals due to a scarcity of resources. We must do everything possible to avoid having to face such choices here. But how far are the feds willing to go, and how far are we prepared to let them go?
Suspending non-essential work, travel and movement, even within Canada, should be on the table. But if the people will not accept such draconian measures and our government will not implement them, then citizens urgently need to step up by practising and preaching reduced social contact and more self-isolation for everyone’s benefit. And they need to do it now, not after thousands become ill.
Convincing people to do this starts by finding a language that will register the scope of the threat. “Emergency,” “crisis” and even “epidemic” no longer get the public’s attention. How many times have you heard someone say “exponential” when they only meant to say “significant”? The coronavirus is about to give us a harsh lesson in the plain meaning of words.
There may be one term that still holds its meaning of “a disaster beyond expectations” — catastrophe. What we’re seeing in Europe already passes this threshold. And if we’re going to use the honour system to prevent Canada from meeting the same fate, everyone needs to take their community obligations seriously. Don’t be a hero. If you can, then for heaven’s sake, stay home.