We have witnessed the entire population of Quebec being placed under curfew, which looks a lot like house arrest. The people of Quebec have not committed a crime. There is no insurrection.

The government of Quebec claims that the people of Quebec are being placed under, what amounts to, house arrest in order to curtail the widespread or continued spread of the coronavirus. I believe the people of Canada, regardless of province, should not be held hostage under anything that even looks like house arrest if they have not been convicted of a crime. The government should not be telling people who can and cannot come into their home, or how many can be in the home. Small vendors should not be shut down while big box stores remain open. This is government choosing winners and losers; this is government choosing privileged and non-privileged; and that is not government’s job. In these matters of personal privacy and freedom, I think the Government may make recommendations but government should not be interfering in the private lives of law abiding individuals to the extent it is, because it will not be successful. It will not achieve its desired end without inflicting an alternate hardship on the society. It will serve to make criminals out of, otherwise, law abiding individuals. Government should not be making laws that make basic living and peaceful behaviour criminal.

I do not believe the government should be selecting the winners and looser by implementing social policy (lockdown) that is absolutely discriminatory (essential vs nonessential, rich vs poor, large vs small, urban vs rural, bureaucrat vs non-bureaucrat) or social policy that is in direct conflict with the absolute right of individuals not to be incarcerated if they have not been convicted of a crime.

I believe the spread of the coronavirus is completely out of control largely due to the high percentage of infected individuals that are asymptotic (believed to be between 30% and 40% of infected individuals (Dr. Anthony Fauci)). The spread of the coronavirus by this number of individuals compounded exponentially is absolutely horrendous (do the numbers for me, I don’t have the time and I am not practiced). The bad news…the spread of the virus is completely out of control (you won’t get that genie back in the bottle—the government will not be able to curtail the spread). The good news is that there is likely a tremendous number of individuals that are already immune (nobody I know of has calculated this number yet). I think it is relevant to note that, given the number of asymptomatic individuals, there would be no hope of containing the virus without a much better tracking mechanism.

I believe the government was right to have implemented an information program encouraging the widespread use of masks, hand sanitizers, and the practice of social distancing.

However, I think the government should be more proactive in battling the spread of the coronavirus. I think it would be more appropriate, economical, and effective if the government acted to make vitamin D, zinc and Ivermectin readily available for all households and individuals, and informed the people of the proper doses to take as a prophylactic treatment. I think it would be more reasonable, economical and effective if the government directed money to be spent on subsidizing the wages of healthcare workers employed in extended care facilities in order to further secure the continued work of these individuals, increase the number of individuals employed in this work and improve the level of performance expected from these workers. I think it would be more reasonable, economical, and effective if the government directed funds to be spent on the upgrading of long term (extended) care facilities so that they had proper means of sanitizing and ensuring the safety of products and people going into the extended care facilities. I think it would be more reasonable, economical, and cost effective for the government to direct funds to ensure that there are adequate supplies for, and proper use of personal protective equipment within all long-term care facilities. I think it would be more reasonable, economical and effective for the government to ensure that proper practices where in place in all extended care facilities to ensure that the residents/patients remain safe from infection and that they are being properly cared for at all times. Why am I so concerned about long-term care facilities and older individuals—because 80% of the deaths have occurred among individuals over the age of 65; 60% occurred among individuals over the age of 75; and 33% occurred among individuals over the age of 85 (cdc, Jan 13, 2021).

I think it is implicit that the emphasis should be on dealing with the problem where the problem is most severe. If you are going to protect older individuals then protect the older individuals directly. Do not manipulate the lives of the rest of the population hoping it will protect the at-risk population. Also, at-risk individuals that are still functioning independently (not in long-term care facilities) are capable of taking adequate measures to protect themselves if they have good information. They deserve to have the best information available. They deserve to know that 30% to 40% of the infected individuals that they may encounter will not have any symptoms. They deserve the cooperation of other individuals, and that cooperation should be encouraged and supported (not mandated of other individuals) by government bodies.  Asking people to participate allows for some discretion in the relationship and encourages people to treat each other with respect and as equals. One group is not endowed with greater rights than another group.

As an aside, in the first lockdown in the province of Ontario many businesses, gas bars, restaurants, etc had curb service, till service, but not restroom facilities service. I think one of the most inhumane things that one person can do to another person is to deny them access to restroom facilities when they are in need. In the interest obeying a faceless impersonal government mandate, a great number of individuals (truckers, travelers, pregnant women, etc) were subjected to very inhumane treatment. The government mandate provided no room for discretion and no room for humane considerations.

I think every effort should be made to provide the vaccines to the high-risk and at-risk individuals, first. People that have developed immunity, as a result of being exposed to the coronavirus, do not need to be vaccinated. People that are under the age of 50 have a 28% (CDC, Jan 19, 2021) chance that they will need hospitalization if exposed to the coronavirus. I think they should be allowed to choose whether or not they receive a vaccination. If they are taking vitamin D, Zinc, and Ivermectin as a prophylactic treatment, the chance that they may need hospitalization is likely to be considerably less than the 28% recorded so far.

The plan should be to directly secure the safety of the at-risk and high-risk individuals, to bolster the immunity of the population at large, thereby reducing the potential severity of infections; and to direct government funds into the economy where those funds will be most effect in directly reducing the risk of infection where the risk of infection is the greatest and potentially most harmful.

To date, the deemed non-essential businesses and workers have shouldered the bulk of the hardship of this pandemic. To the largest part, politicians and bureaucrats have retired to working in the comfort of their homes and have not lost a single penny of income. There is a very large gap between the experience of each of these groups. I think the governance of the country would be greatly improved if there was not such a gap between these two groups.

If the government had a targeted proactive approach to battling the coronavirus there may have been no second wave and there would not be any need for even considering a second lockdown.

As a long-term plan to be better prepared to handle the next pandemic, I suggest we restructure how we govern ourselves. I suggest we need to continually refresh the mindsets of the people we elected to our governments. We need representatives that will honour and respect the rights of Canadians and not be the arbiters of winners and losers. I believe we would be better served if there were term limits for all our elected representatives. I suggest we need to refresh our population of bureaucrats and to continually refresh the mindset of our bureaucrats by implementing term limits for all levels of bureaucratic management.