Alberta's new restrictions are weak and bound to cause more deaths. As public health experts warn of hospitals being full now, we need to take drastic action to stifle the rise in COVID cases.
Many of the new "restrictions" although "mandatory" are not enforceable. Such is the rule that only those who live together can sit in a restaurant together. Will each person be asked to show a piece of mail with their address on it?
IT seems Conservatives like unenforceable rules. The late Notley government was criticized for abolishing the old requirement that to vote in addition to other conditions you had to have lived in Albert for nine months prior to the election. Its was never enforced as it was impossible in many cases to prove it. But the Conservative criticized her for getting rid of it. NOW they have brought in another similarly-unenforceable rule and are being described by the Conservative-loyal press (public and private) as bringing in strong measures to address COVID.
The new "restriction" that bars are forced to close a couple hours earlier will do little to stop the spread.
Meanwhile a country very much like ours, a member of the British Commonwealth, English-speaking, pioneer culture, has dealt more strongly with COVID's second wave when it emerged in that country.
That country is Australia.
In Australia, when their second wave hit and infections surged in July, the government imposed draconian restrictions immediately in some regions. This had the effect of halting the spread
As a news article relates, "when Australia was hit with a surge of COVID-19 cases in late July just weeks after declaring victory against the first wave, it prompted one of the world's longest lockdowns in Melbourne, for example, closing virtually everything that wasn't a grocery store or hospital for nearly four months.
In many cities, roadblocks were established to ensure people stayed home. Even when restrictions were eased there was a nightly curfew, and in the initial lockdown people weren't allowed to be more than five kilometres away from home in certain regions. Break a rule, and you could face a fine of $1,300.
School at first had an extended holiday break — and then education was moved, in many places, entirely online. Restrictions were sometimes so draconian that in some areas, it was illegal to walk your dog even on your own street.
...
Australians arriving from outside the country had to apply to return — there were daily limits — and every one of them was required to quarantine in a government-designated hotel, sometimes guarded by soldiers.
...
It has come at the cost of a million jobs nationwide and thousands of now-failed businesses. But it was worth it, says Dr. Nancy Baxter, who runs the University of Melbourne's School of Population and Global Health.
"You can't have a well-functioning economy with a raging pandemic. It's not an economy versus lives," she told CBC News.
Baxter is a Canadian who moved to Melbourne just before that city entered its first lockdown. She now worries about her friends in Canada, where the approach to the pandemic has been very different...."
(From David Common, Jason Ho "How Australia succeeded in lowering COVID·19 cases to near-zero," CBC News, Posted: Nov 25, 2020)
The choice seems to be between:
being financial embattled (through government-imposed lock-down) and some deaths
OR
massive deaths and being financially embattled through economic dislocations, illnesses and lack of customers due to illness and voluntary self-imposed lock-downs).
Which do you prefer?
Thanks for reading.
=====================================
Comments