top of page

Two Years Later, What Have We Learned?

Lauren Ramesbottom

Updated: Jan 10, 2022


Earlier today, I got in my car after training a client, and I screamed. I quite literally screamed into my steering wheel, and then started to cry. Not out of heartbreak – my heart has been broken for a long time over all of this – but out of sheer helplessness and rage. A cocktail of emotion that I’ve become intimately acquainted with over the last two years, and especially over the last week as my “holiday” was consumed with the anticipation and dread of yet another lockdown. We all heard the rumours, after all. And really, after 600+ days of this nightmare, why would we expect anything different? Why would we begin 2022 with expectations for anything beyond crushing disappointment and incompetence from a government whose sole purpose is (in theory) to advocate for the public they serve? I knew this lockdown was coming, but the confirmation of it stung worse than I anticipated. Because it’s more than pouring salt into a gaping wound – Doug Ford’s announcement of our return to a “modified Stage 2” is the final nail in the coffin for so many (people, businesses, entire industries in the case of hospitality and fitness). I wish – with everything in me – that this statement was an exaggeration, but it isn’t. For two years, I’ve watched elected officials and policy makers set fire to the lives and businesses of people I love in the name of “public health”, all while implementing measures that clearly defy any logic (and science) that should inform public health decisions. Quite honestly, I’ve never felt anger and disappointment like this. Perhaps that’s why I keep writing these articles – as limited as my reach may be, and as risky as it might feel to put myself and my opinions out there on any public platform in today’s climate, I don’t know what else to do. I’m at a loss, and as the saying goes, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for everything.” So if this is my hill to die on, then so be it. What other option is there? First and foremost, regardless of your stance on the specifics of the pandemic response, I want you to understand how scared people currently are to speak up and ask questions that they have every right to ask. My following, including those who read my articles, is incredibly modest. In this sense, my sample size is small – and even still, I’ve been sent hundreds of messages both from people I know personally, and people I’ve never met, detailing a paralyzing sense of fear in regards to voicing their opinion. I’ve had people reach out to tell me they broke down in tears reading something I wrote, because it encapsulated many of the things they were too scared to even say out loud, due to fear of unfair backlash or being “cancelled” across social and professional circles. I don’t just say this to incite sympathy for everyone who has felt silenced or bullied into quiet submission (although, it’s certainly warranted), I say this to illustrate how dangerous this landscape is. Discussions – and subsequent warnings about – censorship and cancel culture are not conspiracy theories. These concerns are entirely warranted, and are attempting to steer us away from a final tipping point in which we eliminate any and all opportunity for critical thinking and debate that is, historically, the lifeblood of a free society. We have to stop taking such a venomous and volatile approach to disagreement and discussion. Secondly, I think it’s important to expand upon a few points made in my last post. Specifically, I asked questions pertaining to the underlying premise of our pandemic response – Everything we’ve done over the last two years has been in the effort to protect public health and increasingly fragile healthcare systems, right? So, why then, has natural immunity been completely ignored (or dismissed as pseudoscience), in addition to available treatment protocols? Why are we still relying on lockdowns, two years later, when we know that lockdowns are not only ineffective in controlling the pandemic, but cause an exceptional amount of harm including increased poverty and an on-going mental health crisis? Now, before you jump to any conclusions, please note that this is definitively not an anti-vax or anti-COVID stance. The assumption that any discussion alluding to options beyond (or in addition to) a vaccination protocol and/or lockdowns is “anti-vax” or “anti-science” is a huge part of the problem we currently face. Many of the experts and doctors presently advocating for consideration of natural immunity and early treatments/intervention are themselves, vaccinated, and oftentimes, have dedicated much of their career(s) to immunology, infectious disease, and vaccine development. Whether you believe wholeheartedly in the vaccine (and boosters), find yourself somewhere in the middle, or are entirely against it, ultimately shouldn’t matter right now. We now know that transmission occurs regardless of vaccine status, we know that efficacy wanes over time, and we don’t know (with data-backed certainty) that a booster protocol is A) Safe for mass distribution over the long-term with repeated dosing across all age groups and B) Will be enough to address and mitigate against the spread of emerging variants of concern, such as Omicron. This doesn’t mean vaccines should be disregarded – vaccine-derived immunity is a key part of the response to any pandemic/infectious disease. But it is not (or at least, shouldn’t be) the only available response and at some point, we have to stop putting all our eggs in a basket we know is broken. If you need further proof of this, look to Israel – earlier this week, it was reported that despite rolling out more than 4.2 million coronavirus booster shots to the country's population of 9.3 million since July, daily cases in Israel have risen in the past two weeks from around 700 to the more than 4,000 reported on Sunday. Israel’s Prime Minister warns – and I quote – “the storm is coming to us these very days.” Alternatively, the use of currently available, repurposed treatment protocols such as monoclonal antibodies (which have Emergency Use Authorization), and those heavily debated in the media including (potentially) Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, in addition to vaccines and the continued promotion of lifestyle interventions such as Vitamin D supplementation, exercise, sleep, stress management, and more, could save lives. Isn’t that the whole point? If this is really about public health and protecting the vulnerable, why are our leaders (and mainstream media) actively condemning and blocking the use of any intervention method(s) beyond vaccine compliance, booster protocols, masks/social distancing measures, and restrictions/lockdowns? At the very least, shouldn't we be able to discuss these options openly and enthusiastically, rather than exclusively relying on vaccines and awaiting treatment protocols like Paxlovid and Merck? To this point, in his recent episode on The Joe Rogan Experience, Dr. Robert Malone, who is the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents and has “close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times”, noted that there are modelling studies that indicate over half a million excess deaths have happened in the United States alone through the intentional blockade of early COVID-19 treatment by the U.S. government. On the subject of natural immunity, a recent (preprint, awaiting peer review) study from Israel comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity, found that breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, while very low (highest rate = 1.5%), were significantly higher than the rates of reinfection and hospitalization in previously infected individuals. If you want some of the specifics, I’ll include them here:

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm. Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.


Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.


If you take anything from the study referenced above, I hope it’s this: natural immunity is not pseudoscience or right-wing conspiracy, and the discussion of its relevance should not be interpreted as an anti-vax sentiment. We have to stop interpreting science and public policy in such a polarized vacuum of comprehension. The relevance of one thing does not always immediately undermine the relevance of another.


And before anyone jumps to discredit experts like Dr. Malone on the basis of him being “mired in controversy” (or something of the sort), let me remind you that there are many highly respected experts currently being “blackballed” by their respective fields/peers, and/or de-platformed due to censorship efforts. While some may interpret this as cause to dismiss their efforts to distribute information, I urge you to look deeper into those matters before coming to any certain conclusion. And if we are going to disregard anyone who is associated with controversy, let’s not forget that many (if not all) of our current political leaders, and health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci, are also “mired in controversy” for a variety of indiscretions and/or conflict of interest. Do the rules of critical judgement only apply to those who are cast aside after expressing an unpopular opinion or concern?


Over the last few months especially, I’ve seen so many “anti-science” accusations being thrown around in an increasingly damaging manner, aimed at arguments that are – in no way – anti-science. Quite the contrary, in fact. But seeking out this information takes time and effort that is far too often abandoned in favour of whatever selective studies, research, or experts mainstream media chooses to serve up on a platter. Again, I do not mean to slide down the slope of any conspiracy theory here (quite frankly, I do not have the energy), but I urge you to remember that media conglomerates have skin in the game, financially and politically. As humans, we are all subject to bias and exist in our own echo chambers of anecdotal evidence and opinions, but in the case of mainstream media, bias is exemplified by direct financial gain for perpetuating whatever narrative is most favourable to ratings and to those in power (politicians, big corporations, etc.). So, whatever you’re reading online, I urge you to consume that information with relative caution and, at the very least, consider who might have something to gain from whatever narrative is being pushed forward at all costs (even when that narrative seemingly stops making sense).


Now, turning our attention to lockdown measures, specifically, it’s important to acknowledge the unprecedented damage which lockdowns inflict from a social and economic perspective. In December of this year, even the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement indicating that they are not in favour of large-scale COVID-19 lockdowns because of “the economic impact and how it affects people’s mental health.” In the early days of the pandemic, lockdowns were sold as a temporary band-aid to buy our government and health officials time to come up with a plan while, hopefully, protecting hospitals and long-term care facilities. But nothing about that “two week lockdown” was temporary, as we know. Rather than acting as a temporary solution, our government has continued to lean on lockdown measures as a crutch to excuse their own inaction and misplaced spending. We spent (tax payer) money on an unnecessary election, social distancing bracelets that were never widely used, COVID-19 field hospitals that remained empty, and half-baked (often inaccessible and inadequate) financial relief programs that often failed to protect increasingly vulnerable small businesses, and what do we have to show for it? Our officials keep citing a healthcare system near the brink of complete collapse, but what have we actually done to prevent that? Have we built new hospitals or increased healthcare capacity? Have we refurbished existing emergency care? Have we offered paid sick leave to frontline workers? Have we addressed the staffing crisis currently plaguing public healthcare and long-term care? Moreover, why are we still using case numbers as a primary metric or justification to make population-wide decisions when we know transmission is inevitable?


It’s no longer March of 2020. What excuse should be made for any of our government officials and policy makers to have not, by this point, adjusted and pivoted their response based on emerging data and accrued social and economic destruction? As of today, over 76% of the Ontario population is fully vaccinated, and over 82% is partially vaccinated. We’ve complied with mask mandates, social distancing guidelines, never-ending lockdowns, restrictions, and missed holidays and celebrations. We’ve accepted a divisive vaccine mandate that, in itself, no longer makes sense when we know transmission occurs across social and professional settings regardless of vaccine status. We’ve felt sympathy for our friends in healthcare who are utterly perplexed, lost, burnt out, or broken from the last two years. We’ve watched as some of those same workers, who were deemed frontline heroes just last year, were dismissed from their jobs due to a medical decision, at a time when the industry is experiencing a mass exodus and staffing crisis. Businesses have closed (many for good), relationships have been destroyed, entire industries have been crippled, mental health has suffered (studies from 2021 found that 17% of Canadians ages 16 and 24 were seriously contemplating suicide), children have been stripped of in-person learning and social development, diagnoses have been missed, procedures have been delayed, and public health has, ultimately, been completely neglected. To find ourselves in this position, over two years into a pandemic, is beyond heartbreaking – it’s just unacceptable.


As Daniel Alexander Zeck recently tweeted, “Stop and think for a minute: Do you honestly think the measures governments have imposed upon the people have brought us closer to health? Or do you think they’ve proliferated sickness? In other words, are we collectively more content, connected, resilient, loving, unified, vibrant and peaceful? Or are we more disconnected, weak, fearful, dull and divided? And as James Manson tweeted, how should we describe the deaths of people who *will* shortly die of suicide from mental anguish or financial ruin? How do we qualify those deaths? Are they “from” or “with” COVID?


Why are we so willing to minimize or dismiss the very real suffering and sacrifice made by those who have spent over two years complying to measures that have slowly destroyed them? When will we recognize that, for many, the loss of livelihood can (or will) contribute to the loss of a life? When will we admit that the selective punishment of industries such as hospitality, fitness, and personal care services, is unfair and unjust? Where is the data to support these decisions? As Martin Kulldorff, an Epidemiologist, Biostatistician and Infectious Disease expert shared, “The idea that COVID is spreading because we didn’t lockdown, mandate, contact trace, or mitigate enough is farcical. Never before have people complied with more public health edicts. In good faith, people did their part. It was the ineffective and damaging policies that failed.” Kulldroff also noted that lockdowns postpone infections (prolonging the pandemic), generate more contagious variants (increasing the herd immunity threshold needed for endemic stage), cause collateral damage on other health outcomes, and put the biggest burden on kids and working class.


And if you think it’s a matter of “just 21 more days” and more government relief, I urge you to reconsider that, too. Presently, over 40% of US dollars in existence were printed in the last 12 months, and Canada’s federal deficit is expected to be more than 15% of GDP in the fiscal year 2020-21. In fact, over the course of COVID-19, Canada’s deficit has grown faster than any other developed country, with the debt forecast to hit $1.6 trillion this year. I’ll save you the economics lesson and put this simply – printing more money to facilitate further lockdowns is not a viable solution. There is no such thing as “free” money, and we are only just beginning to realize the impact of the inflation promised on the other side of pandemic spending. As of November 2021, Statistics Canada reported Canada's annual inflation rate was at 4.7%, the highest since March 2003, with supply chain disruptions expected to continue to exert upward pressure on prices. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again – we will be paying the bill for this pandemic long after it has come to pass, and mounting national debt is not something to brush off as a “small price to pay”, especially when we seem to be spending money in all the wrong places. Social and economic consequences are intrinsically linked, in many ways,


So, I ask you – if Canada is one of the only countries in the world still consistently resorting to these flawed, restrictive measures (seemingly with no alternative plan or course of action) despite having one of the highest vaccination rates, when and where does this end? How have we still been given no direction or reassurance from elected officials (who are public servants – they quite literally work for us) as to how we will learn to live with this virus while minimizing its impact on those most vulnerable to it? We will not eliminate the virus, we know this, and we’ve known this for a long time. So, again… where and when does this pandemic end? When will Canadians get the post-pandemic future they were promised? Why does the responsibility and sacrifice of this pandemic continue to fall on the shoulders of the public and small business owners who are literally hanging on by a thread? At what point do we say “enough is enough”, and demand something different?


As Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result” – and let me tell you, I feel absolutely insane. The writing is on the wall: It’s time to find a new balance with COVID-19 in Canada, and that will never happen if we keep moving backwards rather than forwards. More importantly, we have to abandon the in-fighting and political/social division that consumed most of 2020/2021 in order to (finally) regain common ground with each other and collectively speak up and push back, to move forward beyond this pandemic.

2,710 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

1 Comment


andrewbrinn2
Jan 06, 2022

Yikes! There's a lot to unpack here. But before doing so, I want to be clear that small business owners have every right to feel as if they've been left behind by governments' pandemic response. It is entirely reasonable to question whether gyms/fitness centres should be permitted to continue to operate in some limited capacity during lockdowns in the same way other health care providers have been permitted to (i.e., chiropractors, RMTs, etc.). The financial support for such businesses has also been woefully inadequate. It is perfectly reasonable to question certain policy decisions or the intentions of certain decision makers.


That said, the author laments being cast off as 'anti-science' yet all of her arguments peculiarly bear the hallmarks of…


Like
bottom of page