Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 24, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A7 THINK TANK PERSPECTIVES EDITOR: BRAD OSWALD 204-697-7269 ? BRAD.OSWALD@FREEPRESS.MB.CA ? WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 FRIDAY APRIL 24, 2020 Ideas, Issues, Insights ELAINE THOMPSON / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILES Demonstrators gather at an April 19 protest opposing Washington state's stay-home order to slow the coronavirus outbreak. Protesters are not 'freedom fighters' O NE of the dangers of contracting COVID-19 is a cytokine storm. That's when your im-mune system overreacts to an infection and attacks healthy cells and tissues, with potentially fatal consequences. We are running a similar risk with our body politic. The same ideologies - freedom, federalism and free markets - that have enabled America's rise may bring us down if they are carried too far during a deadly pandemic. The danger is exacerbated by the right-wing crackpots who are protesting social-distancing rules in states such as California, Colorado, Wis- consin, Texas and Michigan. They seek to exploit the American sympathy for freedom fighters dating all the way back to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Trump adviser Stephen Moore even has the gall to call them "modern-day Rosa Parks" - as if the civil-rights icon fought for the right to infect other people. Typhoid Mary would be a more apt comparison. President Donald Trump expressed his support for the demonstrations by tweeting "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" and other states. Fox News's Laura Ingraham tweeted: "How many of those who urged our govt to help liberate the Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds, Afghanis, etc., are as committed now to liberating Virginia, Minnesota, California, etc?" This is deranged. Trump and Ingraham are misapplying the American impulse to fight for freedom in a situation where it does not belong. Saddam Hussein is not the governor of Michi- gan - and no Americans need "liberation" from public-health guidelines issued by elected leaders. While the anti-quarantine protesters are a fringe movement so far, our individual-rights ide- ology has already hindered the battle against the pandemic. One of the most effective responses to the virus in Asian countries such as China, Singa- pore and South Korea has been to isolate anyone testing positive in makeshift infirmaries to avoid infecting family members. "If I was forced to select only one intervention, it would be the rapid isolation of all cases," Bruce Aylward, who led a World Health Organization team to China, told the New York Times. But such a measure would be unthinkable to freedom- loving Americans. The question now is whether we will tolerate the kind of intrusive contact tracing that has become commonplace in countries from South Korea to Israel, which are using cellphones to identify anyone who has been in contact with an infected person. Tracing, combined with mass testing, offers the safest way to free us from home confinement, but it is sure to be resisted by Americans instinctively (and understandably) suspicious of government monitoring. Federalism is another cherished American con- cept whose misapplication now haunts us. Trump has refused to marshal a national response to a national problem. He has left the states to fight over protective equipment and ramp up testing on their own. We are also now seeing the limitations of the economic system that has made us the wealthi- est country in history. We are short of hospital beds because of a wave of hospital mergers and closures. That has made the hospital industry more cost-effective and profitable - but left us unprepared for a pandemic. Our devotion to free markets and hostility to big government also means the United States stands alone among in- dustrialized democracies in not having universal health coverage or paid family leave. Both shortfalls make it more difficult to con- vince workers to seek treatment for COVID-19 - and now many are losing their health insurance along with their jobs. Europe has also suffered from the novel coro- navirus, but it is not seeing American-style mass unemployment (22 million unemployment claims so far). Most European governments have stepped in to subsidize wages and guarantee jobs. That is a more effective, if costly, approach than the haphazard subsidies approved by Congress - including a small-business loan program that has already run out of money - yet it hasn't gained any traction here. No one is suggesting that we sacrifice our most cherished liberties. Indeed, our freedom of speech and our political checks and balances are critical advantages that prevent our government from simply covering up coronavirus deaths as Beijing tried to do. But some individual rights need to be scaled back in wartime - and we are now in the fight of our lives against a pandemic that has already killed more Americans in three months than died during the three years of the Korean War. It's a question of where you draw the line. I fear that we may already have erred too far on the side of individual freedom by not doing more contact tracing and isolation of patients; too far on the side of federalism by not co-ordinating a national response; and too far on the side of free markets by not guaranteeing jobs. The stay-at- home orders, draconian as they may seem, are the bare minimum needed to keep a pandemic that has already killed tens of thousands of Americans from killing hundreds of thousands. The protesters denouncing the lockdowns don't seem to get that, as the adage has it, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Or as we might say today: my right to work ends where your infection begins. -The Washington Post The new 'normal' won't look like the old one WITH the fi rst probable cases of COVID-19 in Manitoba having been identifi ed on March 12, we have been living with the pandemic and its impli- cations for more than a month and a half. It is hard to listen to the news, every day, and hear the death tolls around the world. It is hard to read the stories of people who have lost family members, friends and colleagues. It is incredible how much has changed in such a short period of time. If you offered a silent wish for things to return to "normal" about now, you would not be alone. Yet the pandemic doesn't have the same effect on everyone. Nor is that desired return to "normal" necessarily a good idea. If you watch your social media, you will see a wide range of "Living with COVID-19" stories. There are those with privilege, whose work or income remains uninterrupted, who have no children at home as "co-workers" whom they now have to school, on top of learning to work remotely for employers who expect the same level of performance as before, with perhaps a well- stocked liquor cabinet, a judicious pot supply, Net- flix to binge-watch after a nice afternoon nap, or some combination of all three, for these lucky few it has been a pyjamas-clad month, interrupted only by food-delivery services and the occasional awkward Zoom meeting. That privileged experience jars with the reality of other households, who are confined to smaller spaces, with poor internet or none, without cable television - but still with children to amuse, all day long, because teaching is impossible or impractical. Finding enough food, and praying for the means to buy it, is a constant, daily anxiety - and perhaps something that has never been a concern before, because there once was a steady job that is now gone, maybe for good. Then there are the people who live alone. For them, isolation really does mean isolation - face- to-face conversation means getting a response from the cat. Electronic devices make some hu- man interaction possible, but require both money and the technical ability to use them. For many seniors, especially those who are now locked into care facilities in an effort to keep them safe, even a telephone may be out of the question. Some businesses flipped to remote opera- tion in a matter of days; others face closure for longer than they can afford, assuming they are even able to reopen. For millions of Canadians, steady income has stopped, but those Visa bills and mortgage payments keep on coming, with interest rates unchanged. Government help is not fast enough - or not enough, period - and too many people and organizations here are falling through the cracks. Then there are the essential-services work- ers, who still have jobs outside the home, but are fraught with anxiety because of the risks they now face, every day, for the same meagre wages as before. New sanitation requirements, short- ages of personal protective equipment, stress and tension everywhere they work - on top of the daily concern for their own families - create a perfect mental-health storm. How much more can we take, and for how much longer? Glib answers from anyone about immi- nent returns to "normal" are wrong, however, for two reasons: First, if we return too soon, all these sacrifices will be pointless, as the virus roars back from somewhere else and the second wave starts. What's more, global problems require global solutions - our lives are interwoven with those of everyone on the planet, and our decisions need to be, too. Second, there is actually no going back to "the way we were," except in song. Any person, any business, any organization - and especially any politician - who thinks we will ever go back to the old "normal" is delusional. Comparisons are already being made to the af- termath of the Great Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. Add to them the Great War that set up these global disasters, and the world of 1914 was clearly gone forever. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we need to remember that while U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" pulled the United States out of its Depression, in Germany and Italy, a return to prosperity was offered through nationalism, fas- cism, genocide and war. I fear we face a similar choice today. Especially after the Great Pandemic, we need a Green New Deal for the planet - the same one that two months ago we apparently couldn't afford - but attempting a remix instead of the old elitism, economic disparity and racial injustice will only set the stage for further global disaster. For some readers, such problems seem light years away from what's happening here. For oth- ers, they are already local realities, every day. Whatever the new "normal" will be, however, it can't look and feel like the old one, or our troubles are just beginning. The world of 2019 is gone forever. What better choices will we make together in 2020? Peter Denton is an activist, author and sustainability consultant. His seventh book, Imagine a Joyful Economy (a collaboration with Gus Speth), was just published by Wood Lake Books. United front needed against Pallister's cuts DURING the pandemic in Manitoba, are we really "all in this together?" Everyone is saying it, but what does it actu- ally mean? And what could it mean at a time when all that we know as "normal" has been turned upside down? Many intelligent, passionate people have been critiquing government responses and suggesting ways forward. What's unusual, yet encouraging, is that there appears to be broad consensus across the political spectrum about what not to do. It seems as though everyone - with the exception of Premier Brian Pallister - agrees that this is not a time for austerity. The business sector is calling for a much- needed lifeline from our provincial govern- ment. Public-sector labour unions are working in earnest to keep their members working. Public-policy advocates are calling on the pro- vincial government to increase supports for those who are most vulnerable. And we are all calling for much needed health-care supplies and an increase in testing. All of this is necessary and possible. But for reasons which, it seems, could only be explained as ideological, the premier is sticking to an austerity agenda that sim- ply makes no sense. Even worse, the pre- mier seems to be using the pandemic to drive a deep wedge between Manitobans, exploiting the despair of those who have lost work in the private sector by explicitly calling on public- sector workers to share in the pain. The premier has made an extremely weak attempt to respond to pressure from promi- nent business leaders, through the recently announced Manitoba Gap Protection Pro- gram. But details are unclear, and the eligibil- ity criteria will exclude many vulnerable small businesses. The premier has yet to back off on plans for public-sector reductions, and he continues to demand cuts that will devas- tate Manitoba's universities. All this is being done at a time when the public is too weak and preoccupied to resist. We are unable to physically demonstrate our outrage. This seems to have emboldened the premier to ratchet up his austerity plans. Other governments have shown that we do not need to rob Peter to pay Paul to, as the premier describes it, support "our Manitoba family." We can support small business and community services while also ensuring public-sector institutions remain strong and our front-line health-care workers have what they need. We can quibble about the details, but most would agree the federal government has stepped up in a way that has pleasantly surprised those on both the left and the right. Outside of Manitoba, there isn't a provincial government talking about austerity right now. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Conser- vative provincial leaders such as Doug Ford in Ontario, Fran�ois Legault in Quebec, and even Jason Kenney in Alberta are pumping millions of dollars into unprecedented levels of support for public-sector programs, small businesses, non-profit organizations and im- portant institutions, including universities. Yet Pallister continues down a destructive and reckless path, stubbornly insistent on deficit reduction at all costs, despite the grow- ing opposition that tells him he is wrong. It is time for Manitobans to set aside ideo- logical differences and unite in our calls on the premier of Manitoba to stop the cuts. Just as the business community must sup- port the labour community in its efforts to keep workers employed, labour must demand government supports for business while also calling on its members to spend locally. And we all must push the provincial government to do more to increase income supports and housing for the most vulnerable. While we might disagree on many things, we seem to agree on one thing right now - the best way out of this ordeal is to invest. But at this critical time, we are led by a pre- mier who is ideologically hell-bent on auster- ity and deficit reduction at all costs. We're not na�ve enough to think we'll con- tinue to agree when this is all over, but this appears to be a moment when we do. So, let's take advantage of this moment for the health of our province. If we are truly committed to being "all in this together," then let's all get in this together to avoid irreparable damage. Those Manitobans who don't have a strong voice are imploring more of those who do - more business leaders, labour leaders and leaders in the voluntary and education sectors - to set aside differences and join together to tell the premier he is wrong. As for the rest of us, we may not be able to demonstrate our outrage on the steps of the Manitoba Legislative Building, but we, too, can act. Call your neighbours, friends, colleagues and relatives, and ask them to join you in insisting that Premier Pallister and his cabinet stop the cuts and invest our hard- earned tax dollars in the people of Manitoba. Let's show Premier Brian Pallister what it means to be "all in this together." Shauna MacKinnon teaches at the University of Winnipeg and Talia Syrie is a small-business owner. MAX BOOT PETER DENTON SHAUNA MACKINNON AND TALIA SYRIE A_07_Apr-24-20_FP_01.indd A7 2020-04-23 6:36 PM ;