LETTER QUESTIONS CONTINUING LOCKDOWN
Business, health leaders point to economic cost
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been “shifting the goalposts” in justifying the lockdowns over COVID-19, while portraying as “selfish” any hopes to reopen an increasingly damaged economy, a coalition of health experts and business executives say.
The Macdonald-laurier Institute released the letter, dated May 14 and co-signed by several business and health leaders, which said “the Liberal government has presented social distancing measures as a stark choice — either selflessly shut down the economy to save lives or selfishly worry about the economy and condemn thousands to a vicious illness.”
But that approach oversimplifies the decision facing governments, and “is being pursued at an almost incalculably large cost to the well-being of Canadians,” according to the letter, which was co-signed by 24 health professionals and business executives.
The letter comes amid some debate around the severity and length of economic shutdowns across Canada, which have shuttered the majority of businesses, put millions of people out of work, and obliterated corporate and government balance sheets. While some form of lockdown is widely believed to be a necessary measure in response to COVID-19, some people are questioning whether more limited shutdowns could have been equally as effective in keeping the health-care system from being overwhelmed.
“It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the fear we experienced at the beginning, when we knew so little about the virus, is exaggerated,” said Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of MLI. “We can rein that back now.”
Provincial governments are responsible for lifting economic restrictions, which were enforced under provincial emergency orders. But in an interview, Crowley said the tone in Ottawa has been conflicting with its provincial counterparts, which threatens to slow any efforts to return the economy to full capacity.
“What’s happening now is they’re convincing people to continue being afraid, when what we need is a message of reassurance and confidence from government,” he said. “They’re contributing to an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that is completely unhelpful as we try to move toward a more measured response to the virus.”
Crowley and others stress it is important not to understate the real health risks from the pandemic.
But the letter stresses that economic considerations should not merely be dismissed as callous, particularly in the face of evidence suggesting that the economic shock has taken a heavy toll on people’s mental and physical health, not to mention a rise in domestic abuse and other forms of violence.
As of early May, nearly eight million Canadians had applied for federal financial support after losing employment. Stock markets and public pension funds have faced a pummelling in recent months, wiping away vast sums of wealth and savings.
Further complicating the issue, the letter says, thresholds for a return to normal continue to shift. Ottawa has declined to endorse the reopening of the economy even as hospitals remain well below capacity — the metric that was initially used to justify the restrictions.
“The rationale for the lockdown seems to have morphed subtly from managing the outbreak by ‘flattening the curve’ to preventing the illness from infecting Canadians at all, pushing the timeline for a return to some economic activity into the summer and a return to ‘normal’ a year or more into the distance,” the letter said.
Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious diseases specialist and medical microbiologist in Oakville, Ont., said there is a “growing chorus” of medical professionals beginning to question strict lockdowns that have carried on for months.
“More people are taking the view that the risk-benefit calculation here, where you avert the risk of transmission in return for suppressing the economy, that it’s not a worthwhile sacrifice,” said Rau, who was not a signatory to the letter.
Part of the challenge facing governments, he says, is the blistering success with which people initially adhered to the lockdowns.
“We spooked people so well into staying home, to avoid social contact, that it is extremely difficult now to reverse that message.”
Sweden has become a focal point in the debate over what degree of lockdown is necessary and reasonable, after it took a relaxed view on social restrictions, allowing bars and restaurants to stay open, as well as school for younger people.
Covid-19-related deaths in the country are currently higher than neighbouring countries, but Swedish health experts expect that mortality rates over the long term will come out more or less equal to much of the developed world, which adhered to strict lockdown at a higher economic cost than Sweden incurred.
Dr. Mike Ryan, emergencies expert at the World Health Organization, acknowledged recently that Sweden’s approach could become a “future model” for virus lockdowns, with the caveat that viral infection would have to become the “new normal” under such a scenario.
WHAT WE NEED IS A MESSAGE OF REASSURANCE, CONFIDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT