John Ivison and Chris Selley argue The case for and against curfews.

Earlier this week, I suggested that the time is right to ditch the failed attempts to contain and manage COVID in favour of hard lockdowns in provinces where the virus threatens to overwhelm health systems.

It is fair to say, many readers did not agree. “This silly little virus is not Ebola,” was a typical response, if less scathing and profane than many.

Yet it’s clear that we are in a new, more destructive phase of the pandemic, and it’s equally evident that preventive measures in Canada’s largest provinces are not working.

On Thursday, Ontario reported a record number of new cases (3,519), new deaths ( 89) and COVID- related hospitalizations (1,472). The province has seen 200,000 cases since the pandemic started, but has taken just 47 days to add the latest 100,000.

Quebec’s numbers were equally dismal — another 2,500 cases — a trend that promoted Premier François Legault to introduce new restrictions on Wednesday, including an 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew for the next month.

The new interventions were aimed at preventing the health system from being swamped. INESSS, Quebec’s health institution, is reporting that some hospitals in the greater Montreal area are completely full; the province’s health minister, Christian Dubé, said some kidney transplant operations have been cancelled, and doctors say breast cancer patients are reporting larger tumours than before the pandemic because they’re being diagnosed late.

Some readers pointed out that further lockdowns are doomed because governments at all levels have lost public trust.

There is some truth to this. L’actualité, the French language news magazine, reported on Thursday that as part of his political deliberations, Legault estimated that 20- 30 per cent of Quebecers no longer comply with government restrictions.

The state can’t force people to conform. But in the early days of the pandemic, it was fear, rather than compulsion, that encouraged compliance. It may do so again.

A new variant of the virus that could be up to 60 per cent more transmissible is already present in Canada and will become predominant over time. We have record numbers of cases and deaths are on course to exceed the numbers we saw in April. The bulk of the population won’t be vaccinated until September.

As that grim picture becomes clearer, anxiety rather than enforcement could once again encourage good behaviour.

But governments have to set parameters than ensure that lockdowns are effective and avoid the necessity of fighting a third wave later this spring.

It is dubious whether Legault has gone far enough, particularly in his decision to resume the in- person school year on January 11 for primary students and January 18 for secondary kids.

David Buckeridge, professor at Mcgill University’s school of population and global health, lamented the decision to keep schools open. “A true ‘ reset’ means trying to interrupt enough transmission and I’m not sure this is going to do that,” he said.

The literature on the role children and schools play in transmission is clear. Studies in multiple countries link school closures to reductions in COVID cases and mortality.

This is not lost on parents. A majority of Canadians in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta think it is unsafe to send their kids back to school, according to a new poll conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies.

In some countries like Australia, the strategy has been to suppress, if not completely eradicate, the virus — an approach that has required aggressive, lengthy lockdowns that were only relaxed when COVID levels showed a steady decline. Success was aided by effective contact tracing, which included testing people who were not symptomatic.

Canada has taken a different approach, trying to control and manage the virus, as a means of ensuring the health care system is not overwhelmed. Testing has been almost exclusively reserved for people showing symptoms.

“The management model is not working terribly well,” said Buckeridge.

On vaccine distribution and rapid testing, Canada is being surpassed by its peers.

Buckeridge said governments have favoured PCR tests that require healthcare professional and laboratories. There have been concerns about the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests but Buckeridge said it has not been proven that the differences in sensitivity are meaningful.

Routine rapid testing of asymptomatic Canadians is one route back to normalcy but we seem no closer to that point than we were last March.

It is absurd for governments to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Legault called the new lockdown an “electroshock.” It is more likely to have the disruptive effect of static discharge and will probably have to be repeated in April.

Canada needs real shock treatment, accompanied by more competent vaccine distribution and contract tracing.

Then, we may finally be done with this terrible sickness by the time the snow melts.