When it comes to singling out the most ludicrous of pandemic restrictions that Canadians endured, the list of contenders is long. But there’s one that I continue to go back to as, if not the most ridiculous, then at least the most inhumane.
It was March 2021, and lockdowns had thankfully been lifted to some degree and schools were open at that point in Ontario. But I had been hearing from parents across the province that when a child in their kids’ class had tested positive for COVID-19, their child was sent home with some truly alarming guidelines.
In Peel Region, if a student was deemed a close contact of a kid who later went on to test positive for the virus, the health board issued guidelines to their parents instructing them to isolate the child alone in a separate room for 14 days.
A child, even a small one. Completely alone, separate from family members. For two full weeks. And not even because the child was ill with the virus, but because there was the chance they would later come down with it because one of their classmates had it.
One parent I interviewed over the phone about receiving the note mentioned at the end of our conversation that his child, who had received the note instructing him to isolate alone, had Down syndrome. The parent said there was no way they’d be following these guidelines.
The lockdowns were an emotionally charged period but I had done well to keep myself together. However, the idea that the state was instructing parents to keep special needs children away from their family for two weeks was too much to bear and I wept after that phone call.
While politicians and public health officials were stubbornly reluctant to ever admit they had gone too far with COVID-19 provisions, this was one rule where the dam broke and some of them did concede that this policy was wrong, and it was largely retracted.
Most parents would of course have disregarded such a crazy instruction anyway, although social media reports at the time had some parents admit that they had gone along with it.
“We know that if somebody may have COVID-19 we would like them to be isolated for up to 14 days,” said Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, at a news conference at the time. “However, we obviously understand that you can’t leave a child alone. You have to use common sense.”
This was one of the few times that the public was told that pandemic guidelines were just that, guidelines, and that one was free to interpret them using common sense.
For the most part though, things were rigid and zero interpretation was tolerated. We saw this in how blunt enforcement became. If just one person in a grocery store wasn’t wearing a mask, for whatever reason, there were times when the police were called to remove them, as if that was a wise use of police resources.
The challenge was that a lot of people, speaking out on social media, cheered these excesses along and were excited to see the crackdowns on those who didn’t strictly adhere to the rules.
Opinions are now quite different. When looking back on what happened, there are no doubt many people willing to admit that perhaps we went a little overboard with things.
One of the key pieces of evidence I kept going back to was a report authored by Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief medical officer, on how to deal with a pandemic. It was published a couple of years before COVID-19 came alone.
The report laid out a scenario where Canada would be hit by a virus that had a higher fatality rate than COVID-19 and also spread to more people. Yet despite all of this, the report stressed that the goal of government was to minimize the disruption to people’s lives and do everything possible to keep things functioning. The good doctor clearly didn’t follow her own advice.
The three-year anniversary statements currently being offered up by politicians largely focus on remembering those who died of the virus and honouring the hardships of medical staff and front line workers. Fair enough. But what about some self-reflection? What about commissions and inquiry into the appropriateness of government responses?
Despite the clear need for them, we’ve seen no such reports materialize in Canada so far. Perhaps officials don’t want to be in the position of defending the indefensible.
