Key lessons from the COVID crisis
After a year of dealing with COVID-19, it’s clear that the governmental response has left much to be desired. Though we are not out of the woods yet, there are a number of key lessons governments must learn, in order to properly prepare us for any future emergencies, and help us do a better job of balancing health protections and fundamental freedoms as we continue to address the third wave of this pandemic.
❚ Don’t assign the management of a public emergency to public bureaucracies:
When the COVID-19 crisis began, it was labelled as a “health emergency,” and its management was assigned to government health bureaucracies. But it soon expanded into a “public emergency,” with social, economic, financial and logistical dimensions that go far beyond the expertise of public-health bureaucrats. In future, it would be better to assign the management of emergencies brought on by infectious diseases to the less-bureaucratic federal and provincial emergency measures organizations, which were specifically designed to deal with such crises.
❚ Remember and apply the triage principle:
The triage principle focuses first and foremost on protecting the most vulnerable, and only after their safety has been secured, expands to focus on less-vulnerable targets. In future, the initial response to a similar public emergency should not be to protect the entire population, but to protect the most vulnerable.
❚ When applying science and expert advice to a public emergency, apply all the relevant science and expertise, not just that of the obvious disciplines:
When COVID-19 hit, medical health officers were made the chief implementers of, and spokespersons for, the governmental response, backed by input from virologists and epidemiologists. In future, if the initial emergency expands into a public emergency with social, economic, financial, organizational and logistical impacts, governments should also seek the advice of sociologists, psychologists, economists and experts in public finance, procurement and supply chain management.
❚ Balance reporting and addressing the health impacts of the emergency with the major impacts of the health-protection measures that have been adopted:
At the start of the pandemic, the statements made by the prime minister, the premiers and their health officers focused almost exclusively on the public-health impacts, as measured primarily by case numbers. In future, we should strive to balance such reporting with an honest assessment of any widespread negative impacts that result from the emergency measures themselves.
In the case of the measures that have been taken to cope with COVID-19, the attendant increases in suicides, alcohol consumption, drug overdoses, domestic violence, job losses, income losses, business failures and violations of fundamental rights and freedoms are all relevant to our overall response. It is necessary for politicians and the voting public to have knowledge of any unintended consequences in order to properly assess the merits of the governmental response.
❚ Publicly demonstrate the reasonableness of, and justification for, any limitations imposed on the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of Canadians:
In future, if the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of Canadians are infringed upon by any emergency measures, the justification for, and reasonableness of, such measures must be demonstrated — not only to “courts of competent jurisdiction,” as provided for by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also to the individuals and groups whose rights have been infringed.
❚ Respect “freedom of the press and other media of communications,” as guaranteed by the charter, to report on the public emergency and to provide the public with essential information on it, while constraining the use of such media to spread misinformation, fear and panic:
Mass media and social media play a vital and positive role in communicating information needed by the public to cope with a public emergency. But the same media can also play a negative role if it’s used, deliberately or inadvertently, to communicate misinformation, unfounded exaggerations or sensational speculations that generate unwarranted public fears. In future, government should strive to strike a balance between respecting freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and ensuring that those freedoms are not used to incite panic and communicate misinformation.
WE MUST BALANCE OUR RELIANCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
❚ Resist the temptation to believe that there is always a technological remedy for whatever is the cause of a public emergency.
With respect to the COVID -19 crisis, scientific analysis of the virus and the development of vaccines have played an enormously positive role in coping with this public-health emergency. But it would be a mistake to believe that no real changes in personal and public health practices or responsibilities are required to cope with such emergencies in the future, because science and technology can be relied upon to completely eliminate the causes. In coping with future public emergencies, we must balance our reliance on science and technology with a parallel emphasis on embracing any necessary behavioural changes that would help address such emergencies.