My Dad came from a true pioneering family. Hardworking farmers in the Fraser Valley area of B. C. When he was four years old, his mother needed a hysterectomy, which she survived. Then she went back to work. She died of a hemorrhage incurred by lugging a pail of pig slop across the farmyard.
As you may have guessed, there is a moral here. A tough constitution and a pioneering spirit are no defence if you try to go back to normal too quickly after an illness. Recent medical literature is full of studies showing the negative effects on young hockey players who go back on the ice too soon after a concussion. As with my grandmother, the social and economic pressures to tough it out and get back in production are hard to fight. Our continued Protestant Work Ethic prejudice against “laziness” doesn’t help.
So, when Saskatchewan puts up a plan to get back to work next month, it sends shivers down my spine. I can’t help but notice that the headline on CBC gave the plan “High Marks.”
Right; the businesspeople all thought it was great. The Fed of Labour rep gave it an F. I don’t see that the asked any representatives of other vulnerable groups, like medical people, the aged and the ill.
It’s the statistics that give me pause. You see, Saskatchewan, being a sparsely populated province, was not so susceptible to infection spread as a denser population like, say, Ontario. Which is all very well, but it also means that fewer people in Saskatchewan have actually survived the disease. They are nowhere near herd immunity. They have not come up with any vaccines, cures, or treatments. They don’t seem to have any large testing-and-detection system planned. At the moment, there is serious doubt in medical circles whether testing for antibodies tells us anything at all.
What has Changed?
Basically nothing. People have had a taste of lockdown and they don’t like it, so they are prime subjects to be persuaded by people they trust that “this time it will be different.”
Yes, the population has had time to practice social distancing, and employers have had time to develop security procedures. So there will be less danger from those who know and care what happens.
But then there’s the other group. The ones that will say, “Oh, boy. It’s all over! We can go back to normal.” And they will gather in large groups and spread the disease all over again.
And thus we jump back on the roller coaster, and close everything down again.
The Bottom Line
As long as there have been no medical breakthroughs, there are only two factors that might allow the loosening of restrictions.
- If data shows that the onset of warm weather has made a difference to the infection rate, that would be optimistic. Of course, since part of the effect of warmer weather is the spreading out of the population, we have circumvented that effect with our lockdown, so that may not work.
- The other positive indicator would be the development of a comprehensive system for testing and tracking of infection paths.
Otherwise, the optimistic predictions of possible easing of restrictions are pie in the sky dreams of businessmen who don’t care that people are going to die so they can resume making a buck.
What’s holding my enthusiasm down is the fact that the only way to find out is to risk killing a bunch of people, one of whom may be me.