The first COVID 19 case in Canada was identified on January 25, 2020 in Toronto. He had recently returned from Wuhan, China, then the epicentre of the outbreak in the world. Since then the virus has spread across the country infecting at least one hundred thousand individuals and killing over eight thousand. The number of infections is almost certainly significantly higher than the one hundred thousand confirmed as that number reflects only those who have been tested and have been found positive. Many believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, something that is being confirmed as more information is gathered about this novel corona virus.

In response the federal and provincial governments sprang into action, introducing the Canadian population to a whole new vocabularly on what is, and how to respond to, a pandemic. Their efforts have had varying degrees of success in suppressing the virus while, at the same time, inflicting tremendous economic damage on the country as large sectors of the economy were shut down to support isolation and social distancing. Like the rest of the world, in the early stages of the pandemic, much of the response was made on the fly in the face of the great unknowns about the virus. On the whole, and probably justifiably, Canadians are satisfied with the performance of their governments during this emergency although that may also be a reflection of what they see happening to the south in the United States where the response is so dramatically controlled by the deep political divisions afflicting that country and where, to the astonishment of many, the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in the the world has become the epicentre of the pandemic.

Canadians have received different advice in different provinces but most of it has been based on the science as known at the time and health professionals have played a key role in communicating with and advising the public. That is especially so in my home province, British Columbia, where the Chief Medical Health Officer, Dr Bonny Henry has been the consistent voice of the province’s response. Dr Henry’s approach, which relies heavily on providing information to the public and recommending changes of behaviour while not leaning much on enforcement, seems to have been remarkably successful in “bending the curve” in B.C. and allowing for the gradual reopening of the economy. The province seems to be experiencing a slight uptick in cases now but that is the expected response to the reopening and is believed to be managable.

While I continue to admire and support Dr Henry and the approach of the provincial government to the pandemic, there is one area that I have never been able to reconcile with what otherwise seems sound, common sense, medical advice and that concerns the wearing of non medical masks by the public. In the very beginning of the pandemic Dr Henry and her counterparts across the country and nationally took the strong position that wearing masks was not necessary and, indeed, might even be harmful. I suspected then, and still do, that messaging was designed to protect the supply of medical masks for caregivers which were, increasingly, in short supply. If that is the case, it was a strategic mistake because in the end it could very well undermine the public trust in the messaging coming from the government.

In Canada we are aware that Asian Canadians are much more likely to wear masks than others. I had always assumed it was a vestige from countries that had much more serious pollution problems or less robust public health systems. This allowed me to feel superior as, I suspect, it did many others. It seems we were wrong.

We are told the COVID 19 virus is spread through droplets we expectorate when coughing, sneezing, talking, shouting, singing…all those things humans tend to do a lot of. And they are then received through our nasal passages, our mouths and throats and our eyes. I’m no epidemiologist but it struck me from the very beginning of the pandemic that covering at least our noses and mouths had to provide some level of protection from the virus. But, no, we were told, it did not. How could that be? But, like everyone else in BC, I had come to accept the advice from Dr Henry and her colleagues across the country as gospel so, although it made no sense to me, I accepted it, rather like I accept some other things in life that make no sense to me but that people clearly more qualified than me tell me simply is.

Then I began to notice a few dissenting voices across the globe, not just from Asia but elsewhere as well, voices that were sufficient for me to change my personal approach. I began carrying a mask whenever I went out and, if I was to go into a public enclosed space, would put it on. I mean, what was the harm? Shortly thereafter, Dr Henry and her colleagues began to suggest that might be helpful.

Since then, the message from above has continued to shift. Increasingly we are being told that it might be helpful to wear a mask when going into an enclosed public space, but really not much more. And I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Yes, there are some people who, for medical reasons, cannot wear a mask. But I expect this a small minority and they could certainly be exempted. So why wouldn’t the public health authorities at the very least give a very strong message that wearing a mask in an enclosed public area is highly recommended? And, for that matter, why would they not make it an order? I’ve heard the response that there would be enforcement problems, as there are with social distancing but that hasn’t prevented that advice being given the force of an order.

Increasingly there are studies emerging showing that wearing masks in public does result in a significant reduction in infections. One recent study from Germany found that it reduced transmission by forty percent. Think about that. If it is right, wearing masks in Canada from the outset of the pandemic would have reduced the number of known infections from over one hundred thousand to sixty thousand and, presumably, the number of deaths from over eight thousand to five thousand. Those are not inconsiderable numbers when we are counting human lives.

Unlike our neighbours to the south, whether or not to wear a mask in Canada is not a reflection of our politics, but it is a reflection of a failure of leadership on the issue. I am not finger pointing and suggesting there is any reason to look for blame as everyone does their best trying to guide us through the pandemic, just saying it’s time for public health leadership in Canada to do the right thing on the wearing of masks and order that they be worn.

Although it is often attributed to Winston Churchill, it was Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, who said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do madam?”

Over to you Dr Henry.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

On May 25th a woman named Amy Cooper was walking her dog in Central Park, New York City, and called police to claim she was being threatened by “an African American Man”.  The man, who was bird watching, had objected to Ms. Cooper having her dog off leash in an area where that was prohibited.  He was also named Cooper, Christiane Cooper.  This was three days after the story emerged of a black man who was jogging being shot and killed in coastal South Georgia and on the same day as a black man was killed by Minneapolis police during an arrest.  In the Minneapolis case, the man was already subdued, handcuffed and on the ground when an officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes as life seeped out of him.  The title “Karen” has now been attached to Ms. Cooper, a term that signifies an entitled white woman who, while believing in her own virtue, is actually blind to her weaknesses.

And now America is aflame.  Those of us of a certain age cannot help but think back to the 1968 murder of Martin Luther King and the riots that followed as all of America seemed ablaze.  Of course there are differences.  Todays events are unfolding as America holds the dubious title as the epicentre of the world wide COVID 19 pandemic and has a President with no moral authority and who is incapable of calming and soothing a fractured and fracturing nation.  In fact, it seems he is relishing the carnage that is unfolding on his watch and is issuing tweets that fan the flames.

Living in Canada we look with dismay at these events, secure in the belief that our country is immune from the forces being unleashed in America.  But are we?  For starters, it came as a shock to learn that Amy Cooper is a Canadian.  Yup.  One of us.  And she lives on the Upper Westside of Manhattan, one of the strongest bastions of liberalism in America.  By all accounts, she is well educated and had a good career.  In fact, I’d bet she prided herself on her liberal credentials.  That was evident in the language she used on the call.  She referred to Christiane Cooper as an “African American man”.  Not a negro, not a coloured person, not even a black person and certainly not by the “N” word. No, she used the politically correct and apparently racially sensitive “African American”. And yet she played the race card without giving thought to the potentially deadly consequences she might be unleashing on Mr. Cooper.

Of course America’s “original sin” of slavery, followed by Jim Crowe and violent segregation, is an open wound that never really seems to heal and isn’t present in any other western country to the same extent but that doesn’t give us a “get out of jail free” card on racism.  I believe that every human being on earth is a racist, just that some are less so or at least less visibly so.  We all feel some level of discomfort when dealing with human beings who are racially different from us.  Many, I hope most, have learned to overcome that part of our id but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.  I don’t know if it’s genetic or environmental but I think each of us harbours that nasty little virus.

Over the past few months there has been a significant rise in racist attacks on Canadians of Asian origin, presumably in response to the appearance of COVID 19 in China.  Some have been subtle but others have been truly shocking, including the attack on a 92 year old Asian man and last week’s attack on two Asian women trying to park their car in Vancouver.   Most of us line up and condemn these attacks, sometimes a little too loudly it seems to me, but at least we have learnt our lines.  But does that mean we have eliminated racism from our psyche’s.  I don’t think so.

Canada’s “original sin” is its treatment of indigenous people during and after the European occupation of the space we now call Canada.  For most at that time it would have been incomprehensible to be accused of racism because of the predominant attitudes towards, and treatment of, indigenous Canadians.  My own grandparents homesteaded at the end of the nineteenth century in central Alberta.  And they did so on “free” land given them by the government of Canada.  It would never have occurred to them that land had in some ways been occupied by indigenous Canadians for millenia and really wasn’t free. I grew up in a home where overt racism wasn’t present, nor would it have been tolerated, and yet we did have a certain innate sense of superiority because of our northern European roots, a sense that extended to other later settlers from elsewhere in Europe.

When I watch the video of Ms Cooper calling the police it is jarring, not so much because of what she’s doing and the danger it poses to the peaceful black man who is filiming her, but because it scratches an itch I have spent most of my life trying to stop.  I am a liberal middle class white man, well educated and now with a successful career behind me.  I have lived for nearly fifty years in one of the most racially diverse neighbourhoods in Canada.  I have had colleagues and employees of different races than mine, as well as friends and neighbours.  Stepping out my front door guarantees I will be interacting with dozens of people who are of a different race than me and whose life experience is fundamentally different than mine.  I openly celebrate the diversity of my neighbourhood and my country.  I strongly support high levels of immigration into Canada from around the world.  And yet… I know racism lurks somewhere deep inside of me.  How many of us, when involved in an unpleasant confrontation with a person who is of a different race, have seen the temptation to hurl the racial epithet, that most vile of weapons in our arsenal.  I have.  And I’ve suppressed it.  Decades of layering on of defences against that behaviour have held and, thank god, those words have never passed my mouth.  But they’ve been there and I have seen them.  And, I suspect so have you.

So what do we do?  There’s no simple or easy answer.  The best I can come up with is just keep trying.  Keep reminding yourself that people, no matter their skin colour, religion or ethnic background, are still people with feelings remarkably similar to your own. Canada makes a good start but it’s only a start and, at a time when the world is retreating into racial silos, we need to defend it as never before.

just sayin

Please share this blog.  If you would like to be notified when I publish a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

 

 

Yesterday the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled on a significant preliminary issue in the extradition proceedings for Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, finding that the doctrine of double criminality did apply in her case and allowing the extradition process to proceed. Essentially, what the court found was that the alleged crime the United States is seeking extradition for was fraud, specifically lying to the HSBC bank while attempting to secure funding. The court found that charge, if proven, would be a crime in Canada as well as in the United States and therefore falls under the purvue of the extradition treaty between Canada and the United States.

In its early stages, the response from the Peoples’ Republic of China has been entirely predictable, referring to Canada as a “clown on the international stage” and a stooge, complicit in America’s campaign to take down Huawei. Two days prior to the ruling spokespeople for the government of China, including the Chinese embassy in Canada, issued dire warnings of severe consequences to Canada if the ruling did not go Meng Wanzhou’s way and lead to her release, showing yet again a complete lack of understanding of Canada’s judicial and political system.

I have no doubt Beijing will now up the pressure on Canada, including on the two Canadian hostages it has held now for going on two years. Some commentators have suggested China will move ahead with espionage charges against the two Michaels and may sentence them to death. I think that is quite possible although I think it unlikely they will execute them, that probably being a road too far, although with the government of the PRC, one never really knows . I expect China will throw its support against Canada’s election to a seat on the U.N. Security Council and will try to find other ways to damage the Canadian economy.

There is also growing evidence that state players are behind at least half of the posts on social media concerning COVID 19, fuelling divisions in the west over how to respond to the pandemic. That is especially true in the United States which provides fertile ground for those divisions, particularly over the issue of when and how to reopen the economy. I expect we will learn shortly that China is one of the state players behind this campaign. After all, what could serve China’s interests more than a politically divided and economically weakened America. Expect some of the same tactics directed at Canada.

Canada finds itself in an impossible position on the two hostages. The price China has set for their release is one Canada cannot pay. This, despite the continuing mumblings of appeasers who, with a straight face, recommend a hostage exchange despite clear evidence that would be very unpopular with the majority of Canadians. The sad fact is there is little we can do to alleviate the suffering of the two Michaels and the sooner we come to realize that the better. Our policy towards China cannot be dictated by hostage taking.

While all this is going on, and under cover of the COVID 19 pandemic, China is moving to extinguish the last vestiges of a democratic movement in Hong Kong in violation of the undertakings it made when Hong Kong was handed over to it in 1997. The rights and safety of 300,000 Canadians who live in Hong Kong are in jeopardy and Canada needs to speak up in their defence and in defence of the rule of law in international relations, including the absolute obligation for nations, irrespective of their size or power, to honour the binding international commitments they make.

In some respects, the conflict that has arisen because of the Meng Wanzhou extradition proceeding is good for Canada. What it has done for most Canadians is unmask China as the rogue state that it is and given the lie to the notion this country can have normal relations with it. Had the B.C. Supreme Court ruling gone the other way I have no doubt many of Canada’s leaders would have rushed to try to “normalize” relations with China and take us back to the point where we were before the conflict and before COVID 19 emerged from China. And they probably would have succeeded. The argument is seductive. All that money from trade. Support for the Security Council seat. An end to the constant hostility. Until next time that is.

So let us continue learning our lesson on how to deal with China. Every time it ups the ante another lesson is learned and hopefully we will reach a point where even the most compromised of Canada’s leaders will have to concede going back to “normal” is not an option.

On China Canada needs a clearly focussed foreign policy that draws on its long history of democratic government and the rule of law as well as the protection of human rights around the globe. Yes, there will be economic consequences. But here’s the thing. We’re suffering those consequences anyway and now we need to get on with life, including focussing our trading efforts away from China and towards partners we can rely on.

This is no time for the faint of heart and its past time for Canada’s leaders to move assertively on this file.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” box that will appear at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Three months and counting. That’s how long we’ve been dealing with the COVID 19 virus although, increasingly, there is evidence it was around and recognized in some areas long before that. There are now 4,152,043 cases in the world and at least 282,516 people have died from it.

Canada’s response falls somewhere above the middle on a scale from ineffective to very effective although, on balance, I think most governments in this country have managed it well, with a particular shoutout to my home province, British Columbia. At this point I’m not willing to join the armchair quarterbacks shouting from the sidelines that we should have done something earlier, or later or more aggressively. There will be plenty of time for that conversation when the pandemic is behind us, as well as a better environment in which to have it.

There is, however, one area where Canada’s policy is, at best, puzzling and, at worst, shameful and that’s on the role of the People’s Republic of China in the outbreak. In the past ten days we have seen Australia join with many of our other traditional allies calling for an external and independent review of the World Health Organization’s handling of the pandemic and, specifically, what role China played in shaping that response. Australia is a smaller country than Canada. It is much closer to China than Canada and it is much more dependent on China as a market for its exports than Canada. And yet, it wasn’t afraid to initiate the entirely reasonable call for the review. With utter predictability, China responded with not even thinly veiled threats to Australia’s beef and wine industry, all laced with the usual fury and outrage of a criminal caught in the act. To it’s considerable credit, the government of Australia openly called China out on these threats.

In the same period Taiwan sent 500,000 medical masks to Canada to help us with the pandemic. They didn’t sell them to us. They gave them. When asked to thank Taiwan publicly for this gift the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Francois-Pillippe Champagne, dodged, ultimately refusing to name Taiwan, offering instead a bromide to all those in the world helping Canada. At about the same time, Canada lent its support to the WHO position that any review of the handling of the pandemic by the WHO should be conducted internally, by the WHO. This followed the regrettable comments by Canada’s Minister of Health, Patty Hajdu, dismissing a reporter’s questions on the role of China in the pandemic as feeding online conspiracy theories and her continuing unflagging support for the role of the WHO and China in the pandemic. Up to that point, I thought she was doing a pretty decent job. Now I have trouble taking her seriously.

In fact, there is a deafening silence at all levels of the federal government on even the possiblity China acted irresponsibly, selfishly and not in accord with its international obligations. Why is that? I suppose one possibility is that Canada so desperately needs personal protective equipment that only China can supply and fears China retaliating for any perceived anti China comments from Canada by cutting off that supply. If that is the case it reinforces the belief we must never again be dependent on China for health or other crucial products. And, in any case, our allies like Australia and the Europeans have the same challenges accessing personal protective equipment and yet weren’t afraid to issue and support the call for an inquiry. It’s also possible the Canadian playbook for dealing with the blowback from the extradition proceedings against the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, is dictating our position during the pandemic, including passively accepting China’s holding in isolation the two Canadian hostages, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, for going on two years. But there’s a bigger and more troubling possibility. One I believe is really at the root of our treatment of China: the continuing belief by Canadian political, business and academic elites that, once all this is over, we can return to “normal” with China, including a vast expansion of our trading relationship with that nation.

The pro-China sentiment that has dictated Canadian foreign policy for decades infects all three major political parties although, in the case of the NDP, for a different reason. Both leading Liberals and leading Conservatives would like nothing more than a resumption of the pre-Meng Wanzhou and pre-pandemic relationship if only because that’s what their financial backers want. There is money to be made and they don’t want to miss out. In the case of the NDP, the support is more ideological. The rejoinder I usually hear from my friends on the left when I am critical of the PRC is “yes, but look at the number of people they have raised out of poverty.” Well, okay, and if the price for that is the type of repression we see from that government, including placing over one million Uyghurs in concentration camps, now renamed “re-education centres” (why does this remind me of Pol Pot?), and its people want to accept it, so be it. But it needs to stop at the Chinese border. And it hasn’t. Nor will it until other nations come to recognize the danger they put themselves in by cozying up to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

As if interference in the internal affairs of other countries or the assertion of bogus territorial claims in the South China Sea weren’t enough, now we have the most spectacular demonstration of the effect on the world of the PRC’s approach to governance with the COVID 19 pandemic. Two days ago the German intelligence services issued a report that concluded the Chinese asked the WHO to continue saying human to human transmission was not possible when China knew otherwise and to hold off declaring a pandemic. It appears the WHO complied which raises other questions but, more immediately, we now know the PRC used this “grace time” to secure as much of the world’s supply of personal protective equipment as was possible while virtually ensuring what could have been a local outbreak or, at worst, a localized epidemic, would turn into the worst health and economic disaster the world has seen in a century. Thus far, over five thousand Canadians have died from COVID 19.

And yet, we are surrounded by leaders who want us to return to “normal” with this authoritarian, repressive and expansionist dictatorship. I guess after eighty years the lessons of “Munich” really have been forgotten.

I voted for the Liberals in the last election, not because I am a Liberal but because I thought the Harper Conservatives were well past their “best by” date. Although the Trudeau Liberals have done some things I haven’t much liked, on the whole I’ve been satisfied with their leadership, including the management of the pandemic, but when I see the duck and cover responses to any questions about China’s role in the pandemic, I am chilled because if there was ever a time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with that country to ensure we are never again in its thrall, that time is now.

Canadians want leadership on this and Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are not providing it.

Come on Justin. It’s time for some spine.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog, click on the “follow” box that will pop up at the lower right hand side of the screen when you open the blog.

We are now approximately three months into the COVID 19 outbreak. Countries around the world have adopted various social distancing measures to slow the rate of spread of the disease. In the west most of those measures have been in place for close to two months, although longer in Italy, the early epicentre of the outbreak in Europe.

The United States is different from most other countries in a number of ways, some good, some not so good. And the public response to the social distancing measures is increasingly one of them. Unlike most other countries, whether western or otherwise, in the United States there is a rising chorus of opposition to the “stay at home” and “shelter in place” orders, opposition that is manifesting itself in noisy and provocative demonstrations across many parts of the nation. The demonstrations tend to be biggest and loudest in those states least affected by the virus, at least to date. In response, a number of state governments are going against the advice of medical professionals and scientists and are reopening their economies and society, some slowly, some quickly. Whether and to what extent this will lead to a spike in COVID 19 infections is yet to be seen although the predominant scientific opinion seems to be that it will. I should note, however, that many of the citizens of these states seem willing to play the role of guinea pig on this question. In a perverse kind of way, we should be thankful to them. We will all learn from their experience.

What has interested me in the past week or so are the reports that the support for the demonstrations against the COVID 19 suppression measures are being supported, or more accurately, funded, by the same groups that supported the Tea Party movement several years ago. That includes conservative foundations formed by groups like Koch Industries and some connected to the very wealthy Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. Which gets me thinking. What is their motivation? As the old saying goes “follow the money”. I like to believe I’m immune to conspiracy theories and I wouldn’t want to be starting one but I do expect very wealthy Americans are losing a lot of money because of the shutdown of the economy as well as being subject to limits on their personal freedom and I don’t expect they like that. In fact, I think they would like to open the economy and society up completely and let the virus rip (okay, I do know there are a number of obvious exceptions to this amongst the super rich. I am talking about those who have traditionally waged war against strong government in the United States).

If I’m right, the super rich are betting, probably correctly, that they can protect themselves and those closest to them from the virus while it tears through the rest of the population infecting millions and killing hundreds of thousands. And that will produce “herd immunity” although we don’t yet know whether the presence of antibodies does create immunity and, if so, for how long although there is reasonable speculation it does at least for a period. It’s a cynical calculation but one that might make perfect sense to someone sitting in a guilded penthouse or, for that matter, the White House.

Whether or not there’s an active conspiracy, I don’t know although I would be surprised if they don’t talk to each other about their shared interests.

On the other hand, while the kind of cynical ploy I’ve suggested would be considered reprehensible by most right thinking people, it does kind of frame the challenge we are all facing. As I asked in an earlier blog, “what if there is no vaccine?”. In the past week Gilead Pharmaceuticals stopped clinical trials on one of the more hopeful therapeutics because it wasn’t being effective treating COVID 19 patients and the search for a vaccine will take, at a minimum, a year during which countries will have to face an extraordinarily difficult choice: do they open the economy and risk increasing COVID 19 infections or do they keep the economy closed, suppressing COVID 19, but increasing unemployment, homelessness, poverty, despair and all the other social consequences, including death?

Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, has jump started the conversation in Canada by highlighting the need to achieve some kind of herd immunity. Dr Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Medical Health Officer, has responded that is not the path to pursue. But I’m not so sure. What is the alternative? Indefinitely hiding under our beds? Surely not. Keeping the daily infections very low while only marginally opening up the economy and society? Again, not sustainable and entirely predicated on the belief a vaccine will be developed within a reasonable timeline, something that is not at all sure.

I listen regularly to Dr Henry’s briefings in B.C. and last week, when asked what the daily infection rate needed to be before there could be significant opening of the economy and society, she responded that zero was the goal while allowing room for a slightly higher number. Given the quandry we are in I’m having difficulty accepting that. I think the real and difficult question is: what level of infection can we endure without causing the collapse of our healthcare system, including its need to provide all sorts of other medical services, including those often inaccurately labeled as “elective” or “non urgent”? In other words we need to accelerate the infection rate to get to “herd immunity” but do so in a very careful and monitored way that allows the healthcare system to provide full care to COVID 19 patients as well as all the other medical services the population requires.

Although I am not an expert in the field of epidemiological modelling, I supect there is sufficient data now to begin identifying, not the “sweet spot”, but the “sweet zone”, i.e. that range of infection we can properly manage. This is hard medicine to swallow. It will mean that a lot of people will get sick and some of them will die although the likelihood of that is lessened if we have a fully functioning healthcare system to look after them. And the very elderly and the frail will have to be protected as this happens which clearly is not as simple as it sounds.

I’ve read some of the outrage that Premier Legault’s comments have provoked from medical and scientific professionals but none of them can offer a viable alternative except continuing the suppression measures until a vaccine is found which could be a very long time, if at all. And that’s because there isn’t one barring us winning the research lottery and finding a therapeutic that can also act as a prophylactic.

We are getting very close to a point where some extremely difficult and controversial decisions will have to be made. I think it is time for our political leaders to prepare us for them.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the small “follow” box that should appear at the lower right of your screen when you open the blog.

Although it feels like an eternity, it’s only been about three months since most of us heard about the COVID 19 virus. In that time it has spread from being something exotic in way off China to a mortal and economic threat to all of us. The very foundations of our society and others seem to be trembling, in some cases on the verge of collapse. As of today there are over 2.4 million confirmed cases worldwide, with 167,369 deaths. Canada has 35,708 cases, with 1618 deaths.

From it’s first appearance, governments and private industry have been racing to find a vaccine that will stop its spread. As it morphed from a regional epidemic to a global pandemic that intensified with the harnessing of billions of dollars and thousands of minds and institutions. One thing that has impeded progress has been the lack of cooperation and coordination between countries as a world that was already collapsing into national silos approached the pandemic on a country by country basis. The most obvious and egregious example of this is Donald Trump’s decision to suspend funding to the World Health Organization at the very time we need the WHO most. Although he justifies this move by attacking the WHO’s response to the pandemic and, particularly, his view it is too favourable to China, it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to deflect blame from his own administration’s failure to respond to the virus in a timely and effective manner, and then to use it as the centrepiece of an election campaign focussed on arousing anti Chinese feelings in the United States. It would be contemptible under any circumstances but, faced with a life threatening pandemic, it is criminal.

For some time now we have been hearing officials suggesting a vaccine will take twelve to eighteen months to develop and be ready for use. It’s hard to know exactly where this estimate comes from but, according to many informed individuals, it is wildly optimistic at least when measured against the time needed to develop successful vaccines in the past. Of course it is possible the enormous resources being thrown at the challenge may allow for a significant shortening of the timeline or, for that matter, there may be a “eureka” moment when some brilliant scientist makes a breakthough that will be a game changer. But the odds against this are significant.

There is another, more troubling possibility that no one seems to be acknowledging: the possiblity that despite the best efforts and maximum resources, no effective vaccine will be found. As has been pointed out, COVID 19 is a Corona Virus, as is the common cold. Despite at least a century of research no effective vaccine against the common cold has been found.

I am not a scientist or a doctor but I have been a close observer of the attempts to find a vaccine for HIV over the past thirty five years. HIV is not a Corona Virus although, when I read some of the mechanics of how the COVID 19 virus invades and colonizes human cells, there does seem some similarity in how they both operate. And the simple fact is that, despite billions of dollars expended and enormous commitments of talent, no effective HIV vaccine has been found. So, what if we find ourselves in the same position with COVID 19?

At present, we are told there are two ways the pandemic will end: either when an effective vaccine is found and broadly administered or when so called “herd immunity” kicks in once the virus has infected eighty-three to ninety-four percent of the population. If a vaccine cannot be found we only have the second choice and that poses some very difficult medical and ethical challenges. We are all engaged in social distancing to “flatten the curve” with the hope the rate of infection can be kept at a level it doesn’t overwhelm the healthcare resources of Canada and other countries. The problem with this approach is that if we are left with the “herd immunity” option while flattening the curve dramatically it could take many years before a sufficient cohort of the population has antibodies, perhaps even longer than some of us can reasonably expect to live. And, by the way, the herd effect only works if exposure and the appearance of antibodies results in significant and long term immunity, something we don’t yet know. Aside from that important question, the alternative in the absence of a vaccine might be to allow infections to ramp up but we are told that would result in millions of deaths and the collapse of health care systems around the world. Talk about “catch 22”.

This seems like an impossible choice but one we may have to confront sooner or later. Even now, mere weeks into the shutdowns, there is a rising chorus in the United States to let up on the suppression measures and risk rising infections. This while significant parts of the country have not yet reached their peak infection under the current regime. I expect and hope Canada wont see similar pressure although I did note a few small and thus far marginal demonstrations on the weekend demanding the social distancing measures be lifted.

For most of us I expect the idea of letting the infection run rampant resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousand or millions of vulnerable people is repugnant. But that is now, and here I’m speaking as a senior citizen who is apparently more at risk of death if I become infected, I do not know how I would respond in the future if a vaccine is, or is seen to be, off the table. Would I choose to spend the rest of my life in the “locked down mode” with little if any access to the things I most enjoy in life, or would I be willing to risk all against the possibility of surviving? I don’t know the answer.

However, drawing on the experience of HIV, there may be a third choice. As most of you know, HIV, while still a terrible disease that is killing people all over the world, has been significantly tamed through the use of therapeutics, specifically drugs that stop it replicating, prevent it infecting and, in infected individuals, suppress it to the point there is little if any infectiousness. Finding these drugs took approximately thirty years and a great deal of political activism. Although it took decades to develop this treatment, it seems possible that timeline could be significantly shortened for anti virals that are effective against COVID 19. That’s because the knowledge accrued looking for an HIV thereapeutic (and also therapeutics against other viruses like Ebola) might have laid the foundation for a breakthough on a drug that is effective against COVID 19. If that’s the case, they might be available within months, not years, particularly if they are pre-existing drugs already approved for human use. I know there are a number of drugs being tested and developed. The rewards for the private sector would be enormous.

In the meantime, we can just keep our fingers crossed while continuing to flatten the curve.

just sayin

G

p.s. I want to acknowledge the input of several of my physician friends on this blog. I tested some of the ideas on facebook and requested their feedback before having the temerity to venture into this topic

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

Over one and a half million people worldwide have been infected with the COVID 19 virus and nearly one hundred thousand have died from it. In the coming weeks and months those numbers will grow exponentially, likely resulting in millions of deaths. As of today, the epicentre of the pandemic is the United States and particularly New York City where there are approximately eighty five thousand confirmed cases and forty seven hundred deaths. An astonishing eighteen thousand Italians have already died from the virus and that number is rising daily. On a smilar trjectory, but a few weeks behind Italy, Spain now has over one hundred and fifty thousand confirmed cases and fifteen thousand deaths. Almost every country in the world has infections, although some are under reporting them or, in some of the less developed countries, have not yet detected them. The toll in human lives is unlike anything my generation has ever witnessed although, through our parents, we have memories of the Spanish Flu Pandemic in 1918/20 and the Second World War.

As every day passes, it becomes clear this pandemic and its accompanying disruption will not end in weeks or months. It seems likely we will be fighting this virus at some level until there is a vaccine or effective therapeutics to treat it. Even with all the resources of the world focussed on those objectives, the likelihood of substantial relief in less than a year is slim.

While the health effects of the pandemic are rightly the principal focus now, the disruption and economic cost it’s causing will be with us well beyond the lifetimes of people in my age cohort (I’m 70). In an earlier blog I stated I didn’t believe things would change after the pandemic. What I was responding to was the Kumbaya hope that seemed to be emerging that, once we were all through this, we would emerge better and more empathetic and with more collaborative nations. If anything, I believe that is even less likely today than when I wrote it. I was not saying the world will not be changed. It will be and in deeply troubling ways.

The landscape that emerges after the pandemic is finally over will be almost unrecognizable. Institutions we have thought immutable will be profoundly changed, if not gone. Whole nation states will collapse leading to chaos, war and famine in several parts of the world. The strongest democracies will survive but they will be profoundly weakened, both from the loss of their citizens but also from the failure of many of their institutions. They will also be burdened with unfathomable amounts of debt. The newer and weaker democracies will accelerate their drift away from democracy as populations demand authority and order. So-called “strong men” in those countries will have taken advantage of this crisis to consolidate and expand their authority while working to eliminate any and all opposition, including an independent press.

The weakest countries of the world, some of whom will have collapsed, will continue to suffer from droughts, crop failures, new disease outbreaks and internicine wars, except there will be little intervention from the traditional sources of power in the world. The wealthiest democracies will be too burdened by debt and by their own internal needs to intervene meaningfully. International institutions like the United Nations will be weakened and pushing against powerful nativist headwinds.

The United States will be profoundly weakened by its experience as the epicentre of the pandemic. The complete failure of leadership by Donald Trump and his enablers responding to the pandemic will remove the final vestiges of credibility to the claim that “America is the leader of the free world”. Nations will look elsewhere. America, too, will be burdened with staggering amounts of debt, overwhelming business failures and massive unemployment. All this will exacerbate the already toxic divisions between “red America” and “blue America”. It will be a time of profound social unrest.

While the outcome doesn’t need to be this bad, it’s likely some version of this will emerge. It is, of course, possible some thing will happen that will lessen the impact, including America electing Joe Biden in November and he, then, reasserting America’s leadership role in collaborating with its allies to rebuild and strengthen the Western Alliance. But, even then, so much damage has been done and the internal economic and social burdens on America will be so great after the pandemic, there is little likelihood we’ll see the kind of “Marshall Plan” response America led after the Second World War.

So who will benefit from this chaos? Russia, of course, will be happy to see disarray amongst the western democracies but it is too weak economically to gain much. The one country that can and will is China. I know there are conspiracy theories circulating that the COVID 19 pandemic was deliberately started by China but that makes little if any sense, not because the Peoples Republic of China isn’t capable of doing so but because the risk to its economy and stability was simply too great to take that gamble. However, now that it seems to have had some success containing the virus at home, it is reverting to its old playbook of blame shifting while using the pandemic to curry favour with nations struggling to contain it, including Canada. This is made enormously easier by the staggering incompetence and chauvinism of the Trump administration. But don’t misunderstand me, I think all countries, including Canada should willingly accept Chinese aid whether it is supplying personal protective equipment, respirators or advice and expertise. But be under no illusion, this generosity is part of China’s grand plan to replace America as the world’s major superpower and its “generosity” comes with strings and expectations.

And, to end where I began, remember China is the reason we are having this pandemic. The environment that permitted cross species movement of the virus (particularly the wild animal markets), the failure to respond quickly to the first cases of COVID 19, the lack of transparency in the initial weeks of the epidemic all facilitated the virus’s spread until it became a pandemic. That doesn’t absolve other world leaders for their failure to respond in a timely and appropriate way, but none of this would have happened without China’s initial actions. So, yes, China is to blame and we need to remember that as we chart our way forward.

If any good comes out of this disaster it will be that countries like Canada may move to limit the previously unlimited push for globalization. It is clear now that countries like Canada cannot rely on others to look after their most basic needs (including, by the way, our reliance on the United States) and the push for “one world” needs a reset. I really don’t know yet if our leaders have learned that lesson or, once the pandemic is over, they will revert to listening to the siren song of a wealthy China.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” box that will pop up on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Today is International AIDS Day. I thought it appropriate to republish this blog from last Spring

My longtime partner died on April 1, 1986, the forty second person in Canada to be diagnosed with AIDS. Although he was given only three months to live at the time of his diagnosis, he survived for one year and two weeks; one year and two weeks of the closest thing to hell I can imagine. He was forty years old.

The first cases of what would become known as AIDS in the United States were identified in 1981. Canada’s first cases were identified a year later. Despite the exponential growth in AIDS cases most governments were slow to respond probably because the disease was attacking marginalized minorities, especially gay men and intravenous drug users. When cases appeared that resulted from blood transfusions, heterosexual behaviour and vertical transmission from mothers to babies the patients were referred to as “innocent”, implying pretty explicitly that anyone else who had the disease was “guilty” and somehow less worthy of compassion.

Far too many politicians and journalists treated AIDS as a joke. Some of the exchanges or comments are cringeworthy today but, at the time, were thought funny by many. It was all a piece with the very slow government response to the epidemic, resulting in many more infected people and deaths. President Ronald Reagan didn’t even use the word “AIDS” until 1985 by which time thousands of young Americans had died from it. Things were a bit better in Canada, but far from perfect, with some politicians and aspiring politicians behaving deplorably. In British Columbia Premier Bill Vander Zalm used his narrow view of what it meant to be a Christian to slow and interfere with the province’s response. While Jason Kenny, now the Premier of Alberta, has an indelible stain on his character from his particularly odious role in San Francisco at the time.

In those days an AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence. Not a 90% survival rate. Not a 50% survival rate. Not a 20% survival rate. 0%. I had friends who, when confronted with their diagnosis, killed themselves rather than face the horrors of end stage AIDS with all the stigma and rejection that came with it. And I saw far too many families turning their backs on their sick gay sons.

During the next fifteen years I watched as a deadly virus decimated my world, killing indiscriminately and cruelly. I remember walking down the long hallway at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver late at night with no one around and feeling completely alone, abandoned. I remember walking through the AIDS wards at that same hospital and at St. Vincents in New York, catching glimpses of faces that, only weeks earlier, had been young and vibrant, now reduced to wizened old men staring fearfully out at at a world that had turned its back on them. I remember the stink of death and decay seeping into every corner of those wards and clinging to my clothes. I remember the groans, the cries, the weeping. And I remember the countless funerals and memorial services, always a mix of denial and unspeakable grief.

There was no welling up of support from the public; no social solidarity in the face of the deadly foe. In fact, in the broad public, it was something best ignored or, worse, seen as a validation of deeply held homophobic prejudice. That these were fellow human beings didn’t matter as they died by the thousands.

Of course there were exceptions, particularly in the medical community and amongst healthcare workers. Men and women who behaved well; admirably; sometimes even heroically. But they were the exception. For the most part, a relatively small and stigmatized minority, gay men and their lesbian allies, were on their own and they responded magnificently, whether providing care to the sick and dying; lobbying and fighting for government support; delivering meals to people too sick to shop or cook for themselves; pushing for new treatments and expedited approvals and manning help lines to try to reassure terrified young men looking for support and hope.

And now we have a new viral plague descending upon us, except this time it threatens us all. There are no “innocent” victims and no “guilty” victims, unless of course you count the stigmatization of Asians led by the appalling President of the United States. It has already evaded our Maginot Lines and set up encampments amongst us, invisible encampments from which it silently reaches out and infects us one by one. The public is alarmed and rightly so. Every minute of news is taken up with coverage of COVID 19; every level of government is mobilized in the battle; no measure is too much; no expenditure out of the question in our fight to defeat this enemy. And all of this just weeks after its arrival on our shores.

Medical scientists tell us the death toll from COVID 19 could reach into the millions with older people most at risk. As someone in his seventies I am told if I contract the virus my chances of survival are 90+ percent. What a difference from 0%, and for people who have most of their lives behind them; who have had a chance to experience the joy of living, not those just about to venture out on that wonderful journey. By the way, since its initial identification AIDS has killed over 33 million people.

So, as you cower in the face of this onslaught, try to imagine if you can what it would be like if you were alone facing this enemy. Try to imagine if you can the mortal threat pointed at you now as the subject of jokes. Try to imagine if you can, being treated as a leper by the world that gave you life, that nurtured you and that you believed you were a valued member of. Try to imagine if you can looking out the window of a hospital room with the most important person in the world to you dying a horrible death behind you while the world goes about its business as if nothing was happening. Yes, the band did play on.

I am not trying to write a jeremiad to shame or condemn. I leave that to the Larry Kramers of this world. The searing flame of my fury has been mostly extinguished by the decades. But I do hope people will pause and reflect when we hear the sterling cries “we are all in this together” and maybe, just maybe, some minds will change and soften so that if the next epidemic doesn’t touch them as intimately as this one, they will be able to rally in defence of even their most marginalized neighbours.

Increasingly, articles are appearing stating “nothing will ever be the same after this”. Really? I wish I could believe that. But I can’t. Oh, those most closely affected will never forget it and it will shape their futures in unpredictable ways. My grandmother died from the Spanish flu in 1919, leaving a two week old daughter orphaned. That daughter was my mother and her mother’s death affected and twisted my family’s life over the next century. But for most people, once the noise dies down; once the economic damage is somehow repaired, the memories will fade as will the lessons attached to them.

Oh, there will be inquires, studies, public hearings with recommendations. But mostly the lessons won’t be learned until it happens again.

That’s who we are as a species. It’s the hard wiring.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

And they’re off. Eight candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and, as a result, Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. And not one of them inspiring much hope for those of us looking for a viable alternative to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. For most Canadians, most of the candidates will have virtually no name recognition: Marilyn Gladu, an MP from Ontario; Jim Karahalios, an Ontario lawyer who has received the backing of the conservative group “Campaign Life Coalition”; Leslyn Lewis, another Ontario lawyer who was born in Jamaica, defeated in her one attempt to become an MP and a strong opponent of abortion and same sex marriage; Derek Sloan, another Ontario lawyer, this one a rookie MP who believes the cause of sexual orientation is scientifically unclear and who has also received the endorsement of “Campaign for Life”; Rick Peterson, an Alberta businessman who supports a “flat” tax and rolling back Canada’s gun control laws; Rudy Husny, a former Conservative Party staffer and twice failed federal candidate who is from Quebec; Erin O’Toole, an MP from Ontario and cabinet minister in the Harper government who describes himself as “a true blue Conservative”, whatever that means; and Peter MacKay, the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada who, having denied that was his intention, then orchestrated with Stephen Harper the cannibalisation of the Progressive Conservative Party by the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada. He also served as a cabinet minister in the Harper government and is currently a lawyer in Toronto.

I’m pretty well informed about Canadian politics and the only two candidates I have ever heard of are Erin O’Toole and Peter MacKay. Now that may be because I’ve somehow missed the brilliant contribution to Canada of the other six but I think it unlikely. More likely, the presence of these unknowns simply reflects the paucity of talent vying for the leadership of what should be Canada’s government in waiting. The fact that five of them represent views that most Canadians consigned to the dust bin of history in the last century only confirms my suspician that this is not a party ready for prime time. In fact, it may never be. And while I’m on the subject, what’s with self styled conservatives preoccupation with homosexuality…just askin?

I would like to describe the contest as between Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs except I can’t locate Snow White. We are told Peter MacKay is the frontrunner and he probably has the most name recognition but with that comes a record many will have forgotten but will be reminded of soon enough. Perhaps his most memorable turn on the stage was when his then girlfriend Belinda Stronach left him at the altar (okay, it was on the opposition benches) and defected to the governing Liberals. But there are more substantive memories to bring up. Lest we forget, he was the minister who had a penchant for using government planes, including Cormorant helicopters that were badly needed elsewhere, to attend what could at best be charitably called “political events” (is that lobster claws I hear cracking?) and then dissembling about it only to be called out when the facts were revealed. And what about the full blown push to puchase American stealth fighters while underestimating the actual cost (I’m being charitable again) by half and then staging a photo-op with a mockup of the plane, complete with with Minister McKay sitting in the cockpit giving a thumbs up that cost a mere $47,000 (why does the image of President George Bush declaring “mission accomplished” on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier come to mind?). Oh, and did I mention the actual cost of Canadian participation in the Libyan war was $100,000,000, not the $50,000,000 he reported to the House of Commons?

A dwarf indeed.

So, does that leave us with Erin O’Toole? Aside from a relatively minor “scandal” involving fundraising for his last leadership campaign, he doesn’t seem to have behaved badly while a minister and leaves a record of quiet competence. If I’m sounding underwhelmed, it’s because I am but at least so far, so good. But what else does he stand for? I have no idea and I look forward to hearing in the coming weeks.

But no matter what any of the candidates say, they still have to pander to a socially conservative western base that is astonishingly out of touch with much of the rest of Canada, whether on issues like abortion or same sex marriage (or for that matter, existence) or, the elephant in the room, climate change. One by one, they line up to say they oppose the carbon tax but offer little if anything as an alternative strategy. This, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for parties in the last election that support the carbon tax. What does that mean? Once elected as leader, will they reverse their position or continue the ostrich head in sand approach the party has taken to climate change over the past years? I really don’t know but either way, they lose all credibility.

I write this as someone who would love to support a viable modern conservative voice in Canada. But, try as I do, I can’t seem to find one. And that will mean Canada’s perpetually governing party will remain in office until it totally discredits itself. That could be a long time.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog.

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower left of your screen when you open the blog.

Having just returned from an eight day visit to New York and south Florida I have a few observations on the current state of the American political scene and, particularly, the Democratic nominating contest.

What is striking is the growing fear by Americans who do not support President Trump that he may win a second four year term this November. That results from several things including a robust economy but, most importantly, the seeming disarray of the Democratic Party as it tries to decide who to nominate to oppose him. The prospect of four more years of an administration best characterized as grifters is leading to despair over the fate of the Republic, not to mention the Western World.

There is also a profound sense of loss of community in America as people who believed that, despite disagreements over specific policies, there was still a strong core of support for fundamental American values and the institutions that support them. Suddenly, they’re aware that many of their fellow Americans don’t share even the most sacrosanct of values and beliefs and are willing to openly behave in ways that, even a few years ago, would have been unthinkable.

Lending fuel to this is the Democratic nominating process which seems to have been going on forever and is now pointing to the increasing likelihood that the weakest candidate against Donald Trump will be the nominee. Bernie Sanders won the Nevada caucuses yesterday in a convincing manner, drawing support from across the ideological and racial spectrum. This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing wisdom that the primary concern of Democrats is to select the candidate best able to beat Trump and the view that Senator Sanders, for a whole host of reasons, is not that person. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that Donald Trump was effusive in his congratulations to Senator Sanders or that U.S. Intelligence services believe Russia is working to help Sanders win the nomination. They obviously share the view he will make Trump’s path to reelection easier.

I found the Nevada all candidates’ debate particularly frustrating. Why is it helpful for Senator Elizabeth Warren to launch ad hominen attacks on Michael Bloomberg? Yes, it allowed her to raise money to continue her campaign although it seems to have done little to improve her showing in the Nevada caucuses. What it did do is lessen the possibility that Bloomberg will be able to unite the so called moderate wing of the party while tarnishing the reputation of a man with a long and mostly honourable public life behind him. Of course, his enormous wealth bothers some but, unlike the current occupant of the White House, it is entirely self made and is being used now to support many worthwhile political and charitable causes in the country. The only real winner in diminishing Michael Bloomgerg is Donald Trump and why, except for the most selfish of reasons, would any Democratic candidate want that?

Much is being made of the difficulty some candidates are having attracting support from communities of colour, particularly Mayor Pete and Senator Klobachar and noting, correctly, that it will be very difficult to win the nomination without that support. Of course that’s true and the South Carolina primary next week will undoubtedly highlight it. But here’s the thing. The Democrats aren’t going to win the election in South Carolina; or in Kentucky; or in Missouri; or in Mississippi; or in Georgia; or in all those other states that are and will remain reliably Republican. They will win the election in the suburbs of Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin and, maybe, Ohio. And they will win there only if they nominate a candidate who can attract the support of, often Republican, educated women; the same support that allowed them to win back the House in 2018. And nominating a 78 year old self declared socialist with a heart condition whose predominant speaking style is yelling at people doesn’t seem a particularly good strategy to get that support. I hope I’m wrong but the long trajectory of American history says otherwise. What’s more, if the Democrats don’t attract those votes for the top of their ticket, many of them just won’t vote causing losses down ticket as well. Say goodbye to the House.

While all Democrats seem to agree four more years of Donald Trump and his merry band of opportunists and grifters will be a disaster, none of them really cares enough to subjugate their own egos and particular ideological agendas to ensure that doesn’t happen. That is especially true of the supporters of Bernie Sanders who, by the way, bear a lot of responsibility for Donald Trump’s election in the first place.

I still don’t know who the strongest candidate will be except I am certain he or she will come from the centre of the party. Unfortunately that centre is following the same path the Republicans did in 2016, allowing division to clear a path to the nomination for one Donald J. Trump. To be clear, I think it is incorrect and very unfair to describe Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Trump but that doesn’t lessen my view he cannot win an election against Trump.

The whole world is watching helplessly as this plays out. Hoping for the best but fearing the worst.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.