When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Ontario in 2020, it was an emergency. It was a poorly understood and potentially catastrophic threat and we accepted that governments needed the latitude to use all of their powers to help us survive. We generally went along with what was needed from us. We understood that in such a fast-moving situation, decisions were being made quickly and that full transparency might sometimes be delayed.
That was two years ago. A lot has changed. People are now more knowledgeable about COVID-19 and increasingly dissatisfied with the way decisions are being made. The time has come to move from emergency thinking to making pandemic decisions in a more democratic way.
COVID-19 is a long-term problem for which we have a number of possible interventions including public health measures such as masking, vaccination, and testing; social measures such as tiered lockdowns, vaccination mandates, income support, and paid sick days; and new medical interventions to save lives and prevent hospitalization. But international evidence has shown us that we must act in a coordinated way for an effective response. For instance, we will need high rates of vaccination, companies will have to properly protect their employees, and we will all have to stick to the public health rules.
These will be big asks as we go into year three of the pandemic. The only way to continue to have an effective response is for government to strive for consensus on what needs to be done. Without consensus, increasing numbers of people will ignore public health measures.
Consensus does not require that 100 per cent or even 90 per cent completely agree with government policy decisions, but rather that there is a general agreement that measures are reasonable and thought through. To build consensus this government should consult, reach out past its base, and listen. They must seek out and consider all voices, including those of their opponents. Ontarians have never openly been asked what they think of pandemic measures by their government. It is time they were.
In order to meaningfully participate in that discussion and to build consensus we need more transparency. The Science Table produces evidence, but we need to know the reasons for specific policy decisions.
For instance: we have recently entered into another round of school closures and business and gathering limits. We saw evidence in mid-December from Ontario’s Science Table which projected that without a significant reduction in contacts our acute care system might be overwhelmed. Based partially on this, the government took limited steps heading into the holidays, then announced significant new restrictions, then announced the end of some of those restrictions shortly after they began and now have eased restrictions again. They gave Ontarians no understanding of why the decisions were taken. Why did we take limited action, then significant action, and then pull back?
We needed government to provide us with their inputs, thinking, and alternatives considered. If retail limits had been set at 75 per cent, or 25 per cent, instead or 50 per cent, what would the economic benefit have been, and what would the health cost have been? If high schools were kept open, what would the learning and mental well-being benefits have been? If action had been taken last year, before Christmas and New Year, instead of now, where would Ontario be?
If we had the evidence and knew our government’s thinking, we could all be part of the conversation and the government could start to build consensus by asking for our input.
Going forward, government should invite all MPPs to reach out to their constituencies through a non-partisan direct effort to understand their views; have parliamentary committees with fair representation commence virtual consultations on these important issues; and reflect back to us what it hears. They should make available what evidence and modelling are available, what impacts they project, the options on the table and why they made their decision. These steps would create a virtuous cycle – if the government transparently provided its plans based on possible futures, it would build trust. This new normal for democratic engagement could improve our willingness to support the pandemic response.
The public has been left ignored and left to guess at what really underlies some of the decisions made throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We are being asked to sacrifice and deserve to be provided with government’s evidence and decision making. We deserve better.