Ontario sending troubling mixed messages on virus
As it tries to contain the spread of coronavirus, the Ontario government has to sell two contradictory messages simultaneously.
The first is the one with which we are most familiar: The public is at great risk from the virus, so stay home; venture out only when absolutely necessary; and stay at least six feet away from other people. That message is supported by regular updates on more COVID- 19 cases, more deaths and more restrictions on everyday life. If all of this makes you scared, then that’s a mission accomplished for the government, which wants to stop the spread of the virus at all costs.
Unless you work in one of the many jobs government has deemed essential, that is. If you are an essential worker, the message for you is completely different. You are expected to show up for work every day, and, if you don’t, in many cases your employer won’t pay you. If you feel your job is too risky, you could quit, but you won’t be eligible for the new Canadian Emergency Response Benefit that is giving millions of other Canadians $2,000 a month. As compensation, the rest of us routinely refer to people working in essential jobs as heroes.
The government’s twopronged strategy is necessary for obvious reasons. Both the food supply chain and health care are critical. We can’t afford to have people deemed essential not coming to work.
And yet, the government’s messages are difficult to square. On the one hand, we are told that the danger of a person merely passing by another is so extreme that people wandering on the grass in public parks must be disciplined with provincially set fines that start at $ 880. On the other, we expect people working in grocery stores to spend hours in an environment where hundreds of people pass them every day at distances that can’t be entirely controlled.
Is interacting with others a relatively low- risk activity or a life- threatening act of social irresponsibility, and how do we draw the line?
Ostensibly, only essential work is still being performed, but essential is difficult to define. For example, the guy who sets up my lawn sprinkler system is still allowed to work. The tree service that I need to grind a stump has been shut down for reasons that are a little difficult to grasp.
Ontario has also put a hold on certain residential construction, although not construction that is already going on right now, while the virus is at its peak. Instead, it won’t allow future housing starts. All that does is create a work shortage and damage the construction industry down the line.
The LCBO remains open and people say it would be unfair to close the stores because of the needs of alcoholics. OK, but if human interaction is so potentially deadly, why would the needs of alcoholics trump those of LCBO workers?
Clearly, deciding what stays open, what closes, and who takes the risks is not easy, once we get beyond the need to have every healthcare worker on the front lines.
It has to be noted that low- income Ontarians are bearing a lot of the burden. Low- wage workers are still expected to go to their jobs at the corner store, the pharmacy or the supermarket. Many of them have to risk their health by taking public transit to get to work.
White- collar employees who can work from home at full salary might suffer a measure of inconvenience, but it’s nothing compared to what others are facing for far less money. The difference between the two classes of workers is better described as economic necessity than heroism.
The risk for the government is that its two conflicting messages will undermine each other. If people see a lot of others going to work and not getting sick, it can undercut the fear necessary to make people support drastic restrictions on their personal and work lives. If the fear campaign is too aggressive, it can make essential workers reluctant to come to work.
We are already seeing that. Service Canada had to shut its in- person centres because so many employees refused to work. The Ontario grocery chain Longo’s reports that seven to eight per cent of its employees won’t come in. It is surely not unique.
The provincial government’s decision on who works and who doesn’t was made quickly, and justifiably so. As the virus fight drags on, it would be wise to do some real risk assessment on what work is dangerous and what is not. That might offer reassurance to retail workers and let the government communicate more fact and less supposition.