Blame and Responsibility in the Pandemic Era: Part II

“You’ve been a bit quiet on all of this lately, eh? That’s not like you.” My friend locked eyes with me across the table, measuring my reaction. And for the record, he was right. I spent much of 2020, and a good portion of 2021, articulating my opinions across the internet to the best of my ability. My intention was never to be polarizing, divisive, or controversial; rather, as someone who has spent much of her life writing professionally online, it seemed like the only thing left within my control to do. But over the last 4 months, as Ontario crawled it’s way back into some version of relative normalcy while vaccines became readily available, I’ve felt myself step down from any soapbox I was previously happy to occupy. Not because I have nothing to say; quite the opposite, in fact. I’ve just admittedly been scared sh*tless of voicing my opinions in a climate that seems to favour misinformed ostracization and hostility. In April I wrote about the lack of nuance being offered to discussions surrounding the pandemic response, and the way in which we – members of the public – seemed so eager to weaponize responsibility for our circumstances, while unsympathetically minimizing the experiences of others. It seemed to me then that we were playing a dangerous social game, equating people to figureheads and stereotypes that reinforced our political or social standing and bias, rather than allowing any opportunity to find common ground. Little did I know, that was only the beginning. Or perhaps, it was just a sign of what was to come. Let me preface this by saying I have colleagues, friends and loved ones situated on every point of the political spectrum. No matter what I say, voicing a personal opinion on the decisions currently being made by members of parliament and public health experts will, in all likelihood, rock the boat in which I sit. It was precisely this desire for self-preservation and personal/professional peace that informed my decision to distance myself from this subject matter but, the more I think about it, the more I realize that’s a part of the problem. The fear to speak openly and honestly about what is happening across our communities only lends itself to the cavernous divide that exists between perceived sides: right vs. left, pro-vax vs. anti-vax, science vs. conspiracy, woke vs. everyone else. Many of us don't want to attract negative attention but, in doing so, we silence ourselves. There can be no collective voice, or adequate representation, after all, if we all relegate our thoughts to hushed whispers based on fear of social dissent and disapproval. Based on countless private conversations I’ve had over the last few months, I’m quite confident that the middle ground is, in fact, a rather busy place. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched a look of relief wash across the face of someone as they realized we were, in fact, on the same page. Once they realized that they could, in fact, speak from their gut and their heart rather than a place of political correctness that, in all reality, is subject to extreme bias and posturing. But those conversations have been, and remain, private. In the public arena, I’m still only hearing from the extreme ends of the spectrum, and polarization and volatility continue to bubble to the surface in ways that should make all of us nervous. First and foremost, it goes without saying that I am pro-choice. I have no qualms saying that out-loud. If you have gotten vaccinated (or plan to), all the power to you. If you have not (or don’t plan to), I understand and accept that choice just the same. We’ve labelled the decision to get vaccinated as a moral responsibility and civic duty across the entirety of the population but, ultimately, vaccination status remains under the category of personal health. These matters are typically private, personal, and should be respected. And while I realize the pandemic represents unprecedented circumstances, I simply do not agree that the decision to get vaccinated should come on the heels of public pressure or federal authority rather than personal choice. Of course, I wholeheartedly believe in science, as well as the power and importance of critical thinking. I would argue that science cannot exist without critical thinking – nor can it continue to move forward without being challenged and questioned at every turn. By definition, critical thinking is “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.” But right now, we’ve seemingly abandoned objectivity in favour of subjective arguments that aim to silence rather than advocate, and cancel or de-platform rather than debate. Just last week, I watched as a popular influencer who, although normally quiet in the realm of political issues, took to her story to state – rather simply – that she is “pro-choice”. She argued, much like I find myself arguing, that she believes everyone should have autonomy and agency over their body and what they choose to put in it, and she would not – and cannot – judge anyone for that decision. You can imagine my horror, then, when I saw her post a reply that almost immediately surfaced in her DM’s, comparing being “pro-choice” for a vaccine to being “pro-choice” for someone deciding to drive a car after drinking. You can imagine my horror, then, when I saw a headline published to the Toronto Star just last week quoting members of the public who argued that unvaccinated individuals should forfeit their right to healthcare, and that we should just let them “die off”. I assure you, this line of argument is a slippery slope. If we all have a personal responsibility to minimize our reliance on the healthcare system, there are a number of lifestyle decisions and indicators that would, in theory, dictate our respective access to services. After all, as Dr. Mike Hart recently said, "Hospitals are filled with people who make poor lifestyle choices." The overwhelming stress placed on our public healthcare system is not a novel problem, it existed before this pandemic and it will likely persist long after the pandemic comes to pass. And so, regardless of where you stand on vaccines, this kind of messaging should scare you. We have normalized hate speech and political/personal division in a way that directly benefits political leaders and their respective campaign strategies, while tearing communities apart. We are over-simplifying complicated issues, virtue signalling for diversity and human care despite being intolerant of opinions and experiences that don’t align with our own, and failing to consider the bigger picture that extends beyond the lens of this current crisis. Contrary to popular belief, there are entirely sane, educated and well-respected people existing at all ends of the spectrum of this debate. And contrary to popular belief, there are other aspects of the pandemic response to consider beyond your neighbour’s decision to get vaccinated or not. I may not be a virologist, but I do know that viruses spread; it’s in their nature to do so. In fact, we reportedly have more COVID-19 cases in Ontario right now than we did this time last year, despite over 80% of the population having a single dose of the vaccine, and over 70% full vaccinated. These vaccines are an incredible and important tool in minimizing the devastating impact of COVID-19 on our healthcare system through means of lessening the severity of symptoms, but they aren’t a blanket solution (whether or not we have 75% compliance or 100% compliance). The flu shot has never eradicated the flu, and these vaccines will not eradicate COVID-19. Variants will continue to emerge, and cases will continue to spike and drop throughout the year – simply because that is how viruses work. The questions, I would argue, that we should really be asking are: 1. Are deaths decreasing?

2. Are hospitals exceeding their capacity?

3. Are our policy makers reinforcing our healthcare system to address the demand placed on hospitals both with respect to COVID-19 and other public health stressors that have historically placed us at similar (or greater) ICU admission levels?

4. Are our policy makers addressing the continued exodus of qualified practitioners from the healthcare industry?

5. Are our leaders (policy makers, public health officials, members of the media) encouraging members of the public to apply effective lifestyle interventions such as healthy eating, quality sleep, regular exercise, vitamin D exposure, etc. which would, in turn, improve health outcomes and reduce stress on the healthcare system? If not, why? 6. Are our policy makers and members of the media actively working to censor the availability and accessibility of information pertaining to social, economic, and political narratives and debate? If so, why? 7. What measures can we put in place that improve public health outcomes without directly or indirectly violating personal rights/freedoms, and/or ushering in a wave of social/economic consequences that will ultimately prolong the lifespan of this pandemic?

8. What potential biases and motivations are informing popular media and the way(s) in which they are reporting information and framing narratives? 9. Why are we denying the effectiveness of natural immunity experienced by those who had, and recovered from, COVID-19? We measure antibodies for hepatitis and MMR vaccines, so why aren't we applying that same practice to COVID-19? 10. Why has the narrative shifted to "keeping our children safe" when the CDC recently released data that indicates fewer children are dying from COVID-19 than the flu/pneumonia (and drowning, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and vehicle accidents, for that matter)? Does it really make sense to make vaccines mandatory for this group, after all we have already put our children through over the last 18+ months?

Personally, the idea of a vaccine passport system is terrifying to me, and the arguments in favor of it strike me as disturbing and short-sighted. I say this not because I’m inherently pro or anti-vax – I understand, intimately, the weight of this pandemic and the devastating accounts of personal and professional loss associated with it. I, just like everyone else, want this nightmare to be over. But we should not forget that we can be vaccinated, and/or pro-vax, and still be against a vaccine passport. We also shouldn't forget that we are in the middle of an (incredibly expensive) snap election, political agendas are working overtime, popular media is largely owned and directed by the highest bidder (often political parties), and big pharma (no matter how relevant to Western society) is still big business. Political careers and billions of dollars are at stake, and the pandemic has (and will continue to) cost us far more than our temporary convenience and comfort. While that bill has yet to be paid in full, I can only hope that personal freedoms will not be added to the tab.

Simply stated, it seems highly unlikely that our government would pledge over 1 Billion dollars to create a vaccine passport infrastructure that they plan to abandon in 6-12 months once the crisis is averted. I think it’s disingenuous for any political leader to assure the public that once everyone gets vaccinated, this pandemic will be over. The associated timelines of booster shots have accelerated and seem to be ever-evolving, long-term efficacy (especially in relation to emerging variants) is still unknown, and Canada has made a deal with Pfizer to secure up to 60 million booster shots into 2024. The writing is on the wall: this pandemic is far from over. I don’t say this to be a pessimist; rather, I say this to be a realist. We have to learn to live with this virus, and with each other, in a way that doesn’t subject our healthcare system and the social climate to irreparable damage and turmoil.

On the policy side, I also don’t think it’s a matter of misinformed millennial privilege to say that civil liberties should be protected, and that coercing citizens to put a substance (regardless of its perceived efficacy and importance) into their body is a worrisome violation of fundamental rights. Moreover, an app-based passport system is likely to worsen the gaps in equality that already exist across our communities; many of which we pledged relentlessly to correct earlier this year while we were “listening and learning”. I also don’t believe it’s a matter of conspiracy to voice these concerns; if you feel yourself having a knee-jerk reaction to any of these points, I urge you to consider the many historical examples that serve as a cautionary tale of encroaching government authority. Just because it’s under the guise of public health and moral responsibility now, doesn’t mean it couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be repurposed later for other, less palatable uses. The decision to accept and push forward a vaccine passport system now doesn’t exist in a vacuum – ask yourself, if this infrastructure is created, mandated, and effectively established, does it really end here? How else could it be leveraged? Is public support for a divided society really warranted? Is that the solution we’ve been desperately waiting for?

Ultimately, I believe that every citizen of Canada has the right to move freely within our society and make their own bodily choices, and that those choices should not be dictated by the government, or leveraged as a means for dismissal from society and/or their respective livelihoods. I believe that a passport system would not only act as a discriminatory practice, but would place additional, unwarranted pressure on small businesses and industries that already bore the brunt of this pandemic. Moreover, it's an incredibly costly expenditure to be paid by taxpayers who are already staring down the barrel of a potentially decimated post-pandemic economy weighed down by countless examples of irresponsible (or misplaced) spending. I've also noticed that, more often than not, the people vocalizing their support of this passport system were also in favour of continued lockdowns despite the devastating impact on small businesses (especially industries like fitness, hospitality, and personal care services), and despite their own bias of having nothing comparable at stake. Why have we been so eager to volunteer the sacrifice of others, even when we aren't in the position to make that same sacrifice ourselves? Frankly, I believe we are putting people, and business owners, in an impossible situation, while allowing political leadership to forfeit any and all responsibility for the inevitable outcome(s) of the pandemic, placing it instead on the backs of the public. Surely, if we are too busy jumping to conclusions and engaging in volatile wars of opinion and popular narrative, we can’t view the decisions and policies of politicians under an aptly critical and careful lens. Instead, it seems, we will destroy each other before we ever consider that it might be to the benefit of select groups for us to be at perpetual odds, continuously displacing blame and responsibility onto our neighbours rather than regaining any social and political equilibrium. And if you don't agree with me, guess what? That's entirely okay, too. I understand that we are all subject to our own experiences and bias, and I think we should be capable of co-existing peacefully regardless of differing opinions.

I said it in April, and I’ll say it again now: Over the last year, I've watched friends, loved ones, and people I don't personally know lose everything, all while having people (who, conveniently, often haven't missed a paycheque) tell them to just "keep doing their part." To that, I urge you... if nothing else, please stop weaponizing responsibility in this way. This is a dangerous game, and moving forward, we have to stop disregarding the incredible sacrifices so many people have made to follow government orders in the name of public safety. We need to stop assuming the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner in the face of people trying their best to reasonably survive and move their lives forward. And regardless of personal and political opinion, we should remember that we still have to live with each other on the other side of this – one way or another.