Time to rethink the coronavirus strategy

In one week, it will be my birthday. A lot can still change between now and then, but, back in the spring, when the novel coronavirus pandemic began, I had thought by now the end would have come, or at least it would be in sight.

The latter might still be a possibility if the powers that be stop messing around with the vaccines, but that doesn't change the fact that, as of right now, the pandemic rages on and is well out of control. Only a handful of places on Earth will get to experience something resembling a "normal" Christmas, which, sadly, will not likely include me or anyone in my neighbourhood.

A reality which, in the spring, I would never have thought possible- and, really, one that never should have come.

Everyone has their reasons why the pandemic has gone sideways after a summer of hope. I know I have mine. Truth is, few of us are actually researching the novel coronavirus, so it's hard to really make determinations on this front, especially in regards to the most important question- the path forward.

The only thing I can say, knowing what I know, is that perhaps the coronavirus strategy is just not working.

Let's think about this for a second. We, in the Western world, have been told since early March there are "tried and true" guidelines to "stop the spread". You know what they are, so I won't repeat them. For nine months, the vast majority of us have been diligent in following these rules, being patient and making the "tough sacrifices" that we need to do to "curb the curve".

Or so we thought.

Back in June, when case counts were falling and it appeared that the pandemic was truly ebbing out of sight, it was easy to "suck it up" and follow the restrictions.

They were actually working, weren't they?

Then, August hit and the numbers again started to go sideways. Everyone had their excuses reasons, and so began the first in what would be many of these so-called "targeted measures". Each one was different depending on the jurisdiction, but the vast majority targeted indoor establishments where people tended to gather, whether at the home or at gyms, restaurants or bars.

We were told back then that these measures were necessary to "curb the curve" and, not knowing any better, we believed it.

That was September. As time progressed, so too did the cases, which were still growing and growing regularly. If the "targeted measures" had any effect, they were negligible, at best.

Which leads us to now, where several places are in lockdown or what the government calls a lockdown. Predictably, the government- which seemingly has "no other options available"- took this time to wag the finger at us, the public, blaming our "recklessness" and our "fatigue" for causing the lockdown to happen in the first place.

"If only you were such good children..."

My first instinct would be to lash out and say, "I've been a good boy! Don't blame me!". My next instinct would be to call the tactic for what it is, a deflectionary tactic designed to stop the public from asking the government the tough questions it doesn't feel like answering (though it should).

However, while momentarily therapeutic, such reactions gets me nowhere.

So I'm going to take a different approach and conclude that, after all these so-called "targeted measures" that none of them work at all. In fact, I'll just go out on a limb and say that none of our measures or recommendations that we've employed since the pandemic began have worked at all.

If the failure to get the pandemic under control was due to a few miscreants holding house parties and businesses openly flouting the rules, then the numbers would ebb as soon as you deal with them.

They haven't.

If the failure is tied to certain businesses, such as restaurants and bars, being risky, then you'd see the numbers ebb as soon as you shut them down.

They haven't.

If the failure is tied to "pandemic fatigue" and people thus "relaxing from the threat", then the numbers should ebb once the threat becomes "real" again and people get their guards back up.

They haven't.

If the failure is due to people getting together for Thanksgiving or Labour Day, or even the kids returning to school, then you'd see the numbers jump around in correlation to those events.

You guessed it...they haven't.

So maybe, just maybe, all the recommendations we were told from the beginning have no effect at all. I mean, if masking, distancing and washing your hands really did work, then the novel coronavirus would not spread as wantonly and as brazenly as it has. The numbers should, you know, ebb once those practices become commonplace.

You already know what I will say about that.

Yes, I know this is where it will be pointed out "there's nuances to all this" and, indeed, they're right. It's always pointed out by the powers that be that there's still a lot of unknowns when it comes to the novel coronavirus and, in the middle of a pandemic, employing the "precautionary principle" and "using what you think works best" is better than doing nothing.

However, at the same time, even when don't know what will work, you still have to account for the times when what you're doing doesn't work and change course accordingly. It's bad leadership and policymaking to pursue the same policies when it becomes clear they're not working. This is Policymaking 101 for the best of times- in the middle of a crisis where answers are demanded and excuses are forbidden, this becomes even more prudent.

Especially now, when literally billions of lives and livelihoods hang in the balance in a way that hasn't been seen in generations. No one has time for finger-waving and excuses, and we certainly don't have time to keep on going along with policies that are essentially meaningless.

It's here where someone will likely bring up the vaccines, because there's been a lot of great news about them lately. I do think there's a real chance they'll come out soon and end the pandemic sooner rather than later, because governments know the urgency in deploying them so they have at least a better incentive to get this right than other parts of the pandemic response.

Still, that's likely a few months away at best and it's still bad strategy. Even if it's 80% or 90% that the vaccines will roar the world back to life in March 2021, you still have to account for the chance that it doesn't. If governments think the public's patience is gone now, wait until they've dragged the pandemic into the summer or even the fall of 2021.

So I think the government has to make one of two choices, ones that to my knowledge are the best ones to work.

One would be a no-nonsense, full, total and complete lockdown, where only what is truly essential is open and public interaction is kept to a minimum. You apply this until the case counts get to zero or near zero, after which managing the pandemic shouldn't be a problem. This is akin to what was done in Victoria, Australia and it worked wonders. Say what you will about Victorian Premier Dan Andrews but his decisiveness means that Australia will actually get to celebrate their Christmases properly while we'll be literally left in the cold.

Yes, an approach like this will mean people will not be happy. Yes, an approach like this means that the government will need to give people and businesses meaningful relief so they don't need to worry about leaving their homes for work just so they can pay their bills. However, an approach like this is the only one that makes sense when you have a deadly disease out there- if the disease is so scary that no one should be "out and about" so they can catch it, why risk giving the disease any opportunity to spread?

The other would be to literally reopen every business- and I mean every business- and tweak the guidelines so that the risk for every business is as minimal as it can be while still allowing them to be functional. You also accept that not everyone is going to take the same amount of risk with the virus, and you accept that, inevitably, the virus is going to spread- you just want to mitigate its effects as much as possible. This means that instead of shutting down restaurants, throwing a fit because someone's hosting a party and telling people not to hug their friends, you tell people "here's what we recommend you do to do those activities safely"...and then let people use their brains and figure out how they want to proceed.

I want to stress that I'm not talking about the "herd immunity" approach. While I do believe it's possible, I don't believe it's a sound strategy to hope for it as long as the chances are there you won't achieve it.

Rather, it's about accepting our reality. We don't test everyone so we don't know how many people truly have the virus, so we have no hope of containing it right now. Until we get to that point, the only option, really (besides quashing the spread completely with a lockdown), is accepting that it will spread, let people know of the risks and then allow them to assess that risk on an individual level. Yes, a strategy like this means there will be people getting sick and dying (unfortunately), and yes, the government will have to commit to investing in massive amounts of resources to handle the pressures, but "managing the disease" is what we do for all the other diseases out there, so why should the novel coronavirus be any different?

I don't know. I'm not researching the novel coronavirus so take all of that with a grain of salt. It may work, it may not work.

One thing is clear to me, though- nine months of whatever the government has been doing to contain the virus has not been working. Their guidelines, their recommendations, their measures have meant nothing and they'll continue to mean nothing the more they lean on them. In the time of a crisis, it's inexcusable that the government would just allow it to drag on and do nothing meaningful to end it as quickly as possible. There's only so long we, as the public, can accept finger-waving and lecturing from the government before we get to asking them, "what have you done for us"?

-DG