Solution to

Covid
Can you prove it wrong?
Introduction
I am very worried about the general lack of common sense, partisan politics gone wild, and media bias.
These phenomena taken in aggregate are really stopping our ability as a society from dealing with this
crisis in a rational manner. Having considered the crisis, I believe that the best way out of this crisis is
to first realize that the current solutions (shutdowns to bring Covid cases down) are not the best way
forward; second, articulate what a proper solution would look like; and finally, identify solutions that
meet the criteria for a proper solution. With this work done, once we agree on everything, we can then
decide how to move forward together. I am hoping the reddit community can help me see any errors
that I have made in this paper. If I am mistaken (I am frequently wrong), I welcome the correction. I am
hoping you could pick out any logical contradictions, and conclusions that are not supported by facts.
Thank you in advance for reading this paper and picking it apart.

Essential Prerequisite
In this doc I rely on an open letter penned by Mr. Roman Baber, who is a politician with a properly
calibrated moral compass. His letter contains very well cited data that I reuse. I suggest the reader
quickly read this letter: https://www.scribd.com/document/490795157/PC-MPP-Roman-Baber-s-
Letter-to-Doug-Ford-on-lockdowns

Mr. Baber and the way forward

Mr Roman Baber is a polarizing figure. His open letter to Premier Ford that resulted in Mr Baber’s
removal from caucus and the Conservative party united many like minded people, while being very
unpopular with those who hold dear the status quo. Prior to his open letter the only legitimate narrative
was “lock down for saving life”. Any other narrative or action was relegated to “Covid deniers” or “anti
maskers” or “bad community members”. Mr Baber’s letter and world view created (or rather banded
together) a legitimate camp which is “open up for saving life”. The contents of his letter are all facts
from legitimate sources. With all due respect to Mr. Baber (to whom I am very grateful), Mr. Baber
cannot succeed in proving that the adverse health effects he cites in his open letter are exclusively the
direct result of the lock down. The fact that death has increased due to suicides, narcotic overdoses, and
lack of medical attention (including procedures that did not happen and the terrible lack of cancer
diagnosis) since the virus hit us in March 2020 is true. Furthermore, is very likely that the shutdown is
contributing to these unfortunate deaths. However, where Mr Baber and myself deviate is that the
deaths could be due to the gloomy and scary news coverage, it could be the unemployment, it could be
record debt, it could be preexisting conditions, it could be a several factors in aggregate. It is
impossible to say with 100% certainty that the lock down is the only factor that caused those deaths.
Surely the lockdown is not helping, but that is not the same as pinning the loss of life that is articulated
in the letter solely on the lock-down. This small nuance which separates my views from Mr Baber’s
positions us miles apart.

What is the point? I am equally concerned with exactly the same items as Mr. Roman Baber, yet I
believe the argument of “lockdown” vs. “lift the lockdown” is not the correct approach to lifting
ourselves out of this collective place of suffering. Mr. Baber opened up the space for discussion, and I
am very grateful to him for it. Moving forward, we need to shift the conversation away from a
“lockdown vs. open up” argument to something with a longer term vision. As my voice in Provincial
Parliament, I am reaching out to speak with you about the actions I feel need immediate attention by
the sitting Government. There are three pillars to what I am planning to discuss:

1. The current approach is too expensive for the results it produces

2. What does a long term solution look like?

3. What paths lead us to a long term solution?

(1) At present the Current Approach is Problematic

Solutions that circle back to the beginning of the problem after having spent scarce resources are
typically not in the realm of super successful solutions. If we examine the current Ontario approach, it
seems that when the number of people infected with Covid hits some preset marker, we lock down with
the purpose of bringing down the number of cases. I understand that models are used to predict
outcomes, and so on, but on a simplified level, at specific markers, a shut down is the tool of choice,
and is the only tool. I believe it’s important to note that the key issue with shutdowns, is that they are
expensive in every sense. If bringing down the numbers of cases when some value in the model meets
or exceeds a threshold was of no economic cost, and no human cost, then this would be a no brainer.
However, since shutdowns have significant costs, while NOT providing a permanent solution, this
route is not one that should be further pursued. These shutdowns are expensive in terms of the money
lost by individuals, companies, and the government. The loss also extends to quality of life, loss of the
freedoms assured by the charter of rights and freedoms, and definitely a partial contributor to the issues
that Mr Baber has raised.

What are the long term benefits for paying the incredibly high costs of shutting down? From a long
term perspective, there are absolutely no benefits; not even a single one. That is a fact. Since the growth
of the virus is exponential, once the shutdown is lifted it is only a matter of time before we relax, start
acting like social creatures, and have the numbers of people ill with Covid come roaring back. The only
solutions to eliminating viruses with rates of spread that are exponential is to bring the case count to
zero or to change how human beings behave. For anyone to expect human beings to stop behaving like
social animals after thousands of years of social behavior, it is simply not a valid expectation. As for
bringing the cases down to zero, since the intent of shutdowns (as we are using them in Ontario) is not
to bring the case count to zero, shut downs have no long term impact on future Covid cases. There is
just no arguing with how exponential growth works. As long as the Covid cases are not at zero,
exponential grown assures that when we reopen the case count will grow, and grow, and grow.
Flattening the curve is a phrase that is no longer being used, largely because it’s such a ridiculous
proposition; what do you do after the curve is flat? It will just grow exponentially again! From a long
term perspective, shut downs and reopenings which do not bring the case count to zero do not bring
any long term benefits; not a single long term benefit is had.

One counter argument to “zero gain from a long term perspective” is that shut downs prevent the
spread in the short term, which allows us to administer immunizations, which sets up the long term by
preventing the ability of the virus to find suitable hosts to live in and spread. This option is examined in
a later section in this document, and as a spoiler, there are better means of achieving long term
solutions, which is the subject matter of that section (page 10 in “Note on Vaccination as an Exit
Strategy”).
How about the short term? The present wisdom is that shutdowns are preventing the overwhelming of
the ICU departments (which is a specific subset of our medical system) and protecting vulnerable
populations that are under immediate risk (saving lives). Both of these measures are indeed important
and worthwhile. First, lets consider the shut down as a tool for not overwhelming the province wide
ICU capacity. The first real question we must address is: are ICU beds (as an aggregate of all ICU beds
in the province) at a risk of being overwhelmed? In March 2020, all we had were models for predicting
the future. According to the models the answer was “yes”. Almost one year later, we have enough
historical data to answer the question without having to predict the future (which is always
questionable as humans are bad at this activity). Looking at historical data from Roman Baber’s open
letter which is Ministry of Health numbers, we see that both the hospital capacity, and ICU capacity is
the lowest it has been in 3 years.

Mr. Roman Baber further writes (with his sources cited and correct):

On January 4, 2021, the ICU Occupancy rate was 80.6%, with Covid
taking up only 16% of total ICU beds. Today, there are 385 Covid ICU
patients, that’s less than one patient per Ontario’s 492 Hospitals.

Fact: our hospitals are not overwhelmed with Covid patients. What we can not derive from these
numbers, is if the reason for such low numbers is related to shutdowns. For example, shutdowns do
have a profound effect on ICU occupancy and Hospital occupancy in general. When people spend less
time outside, there are less motor vehicle accidents, fewer alcohol fueled conflicts (ex: knife fight), and
other events that contribute to occupancy. The shut down is of course also helping keep ICU occupancy
down due a reduction in viral infections such as severe flu cases, and of course Covid. So far we have
looked at both sides of the ICU occupancy argument; namely, the ICU is no where near full, but that
could be the outcome of the lockdown. One item worth quickly mentioning, is that ICU beds are
incredibly expensive, and our system is always trying to achieve maximum ICU bed utilization rate,
BUT the rate should never be 100%. The right number of ICU beds across the province is the number
where every bed is full, but at all times there is always one spare bed. Don’t let the high occupancy
numbers throw you off, that’s simply how our system works; it’s normal. The ICU occupancy number
aggregates all the available beds in all the hospitals, and when one hospital ICU is at 100% patients get
moved around to another hospital with available beds. Another idea worth noting is that we are very
fortunate that the current crisis affects only a specific section of the medical system, which is the ICU.
The potential influx of Covid patients to the hospital is limited to a specific narrow domain in the
hospital.

With both sides of the ICU occupancy articulated, we have to realize that our hospital system is not
stressed. Since our hospital system is at the lowest occupancy rates over the last 3 years, logically, we
cannot use the current and historical levels of ICU occupancy to justify a lockdown. Since at present
we have so much capacity, any argument for a shutdown based on ICU occupancy, is invalid. There is
sufficient surplus of ICU beds. If the current occupancy rates invalidate the argument that a shutdown
is a tool to prevent overwhelming the ICU capacity, then what would be a logically valid reason or
prerequisite for using a shut down to prevent overwhelming the ICU capacity? Well, we would need to
open up, and hit a high occupancy record that is below 99.5% (meaning we never reach a point where
there are no beds available). For us to use Covid as a justification for a lockdown, the ICU occupancy
rates have to hit a high occupancy record. Only under such such a condition could we then say, we are
close to being overwhelmed, we must shut down. Covid is a new added load on the hospitals without
reducing any of the other reasons for hospital occupancy. The right thing to do, is not to shut down, and
see how the ICU capacity fares. The problem is that today it has fared a little too well. It’s possible that
the ICU occupancy model had enough slack in it to absorb the new Covid cases. Perhaps the model
took into account the high immigration rate, perhaps it accounted for an aging demographic, perhaps
there was slack because a corona outbreak was bound to happen (a SARS lesson), perhaps an act of
terrorism was accounted for, who knows. The point is that until we see a capacity problem with the
ICU occupancy, it is irrational to state that we need to shut down while the capacity is the lowest it’s
ever been in three years.

A counter argument to seeing how the current ICU bed quantity model handles a small additive load is
as follows: Imagine that we follow the suggestion to not shut down until we reach record or very high
ICU occupancy, and only once we pass that critical marker do we then enact a shut down. What if the
momentum of the spread of infection continues to flood the ICUs in Ontario, and then overwhelms the
total ICU capacity? Fair enough. The logical thing to do is to build field hospitals, which is already
being done (see: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/first-ontario-covid-19-field-hospital-open-for-patients-in-
burlington-1.5253900). Field hospitals can be put up very rapidly, and staffed with local family doctors
that are guided by expert ICU doctors. As a person who spent 5 days in Sunnybrook’s ICU in
September 2020, I can tell you that’s pretty much how it already works; where instead of family
physicians you have students in various stages of their journey, and most of the hour to hour work is
done by nurses. I won’t waste time to argue that building temporary field hospitals to temporarily
increase ICU capacity to is much cheaper than shutting down Ontario’s economy. It’s pretty obvious.

The conclusion is that given the record low ICU and hospital occupancy, coupled with the increase in
field hospitals, and the ability to quickly build field hospitals (which should be reasonably easy and fast
to do), the claim that a shut down is warranted to prevent overwhelming the ICU capacity is not a
rational argument. It is an argument that contradicts reality. It contradicts the historical data which was
collected with Covid in our society. It is completely irrational to claim that ICU occupancy can be
overwhelmed given that beds can be quickly added via field hospitals, and that the existing pool of ICU
beds is way under utilized. Should this change and a record high ICU occupancy occurs, that would be
the only rational argument to say that a shutdown is warranted to prevent the ICU capacity from being
overwhelmed. So the first short term premise that the shutdown prevents overwhelming ICU capacity
is not rational. It is not a valid short term benefit given the current and historical state of the medical
system.

Lets consider the second short term justification/benefit for a shut down, which is saving the lives of
those who are very vulnerable to passing “with Covid”. The foundation of this perspective is that by
enacting shutdowns we reduce the spread of the virus (dropping the total case count), which brings
about a reduction in the chances of vulnerable people from contracting the virus. Historical data of who
has passed “with Covid” in the last year clearly tells us which population is at risk, and it is the elderly
in Group Living Settings. Since we know who is susceptible, the attention of the government should be
to protect those who are vulnerable; not those who are generally unaffected by Covid. The right thing
to do is to protect of old age homes. It must be stated that protecting old age homes is not directly
correlated to the free movement of citizens in Ontario. For example, we can put temporary housing at
nursing homes, and hire workers that live at the nursing homes and work 2 week “shifts”, with the first
four days of each shift spent in quarantine. Proper security on premises can prevent any entrance that
has not been approved. Such actions solve the issue of vulnerable populations, and are completely and
wholly detached from the free mobility of the citizens of Ontario. So, it seems that the second short
term benefit of shut downs is also invalid as other, less expensive (both economical cost and personal
cost) options are possible and plausible. We don’t need to shut down to save 80% of those who died
with Covid, we need to protect a specific population, which is already in one physical location!

Having examined the long term benefits, and the short term benefits that are used to justify the lock
downs, we can see that those benefits are without merit. Since the shutdowns are so expensive, and
don’t actually provide the benefits that are used to justify them, we need to pursue other paths to
achieve the results we desire.

Before leaving this topic, I want to acknowledge how unprecedented this novel outbreak is. Initially,
when the fatality rate was pegged at 5%, the first shut down was completely justified. 10 or so months
into this novel situation, we have so much information that it is possible to see that Covid wasn’t the
danger we thought it was in March 2020. We cannot hold anyone accountable for any “mistakes” as
there is a learning curve with anything novel. Now, that we have the luxury of knowing, now is the
time to shift gears to something different than shutdowns, CERB, and other programs that were put up
in a time when no information was availble. The line in the sand of when lock downs became an
inappropriate long term tool to manage this crisis is different for different people. However, what is
clear now, is that a plan with a much longer temporal distance is badly needed. We need to shift from
plans with a 2 week to a 2 month time periods to plans with a much longer time period. Which is the
subject matter of the next sections.
(2) “Long Term Solution” Premise
How can we define what is an acceptable long term solution to the current crisis? Is such a thing
possible? I am suggesting that the first step in finding a permanent solution is to define criteria which
must exist in any proposal for a potential solution. By being able to narrow the infinite amount of
options that we have down to options that meet a specific set of criteria is a good start. The criteria that
I suggest is as follows:
• Social Gatherings – We are social creatures and the inability for people to get together, is
something that must be reinstated. Having the ability to celebrate birthdays, weddings, mourn
the loss of loved ones, date, play, learn, and all other forms of social gatherings must be
reinstated in anything resembling a long term solution.
• Athletics for All – Athletics promotes health, and vitality. It promotes community and good
sportsmanship. It builds bridges. We must get back to a healthy lifestyle by reinstating all sports
at all levels of competition. Without athletics, we will be worse off as a society.
• Freedom to work – The government should not have the right to prevent people from working.
That is unacceptable. The government’s job is to state the rules by which people must work.
The definitions of safety standards and acceptable practices through legislation is the domain of
government. The imposition of a ban on work is an unacceptable practice. All people must be
encouraged to work, and to produce items that are of utility for our society. The freedom for
everyone to work within the confines of the law MUST be reinstated. Instead of shutting down
restaurants, we can mandate wiping all handles after they are touched by a customer in a public
area; we can mandate movement of a certain amount of air from each table, we can automate
food delivery from kitchen to the table, We can set capacity limits, and so on. Disallowing
restaurants to serve patrons that want to sit and eat is a grave boundary violation by the
government. Any solution for the current crisis must contain in it the incentive for people to
work.
• Reinstatement of Freedoms promised to all Canadians by our Charter – The reinstatement of the
charter of rights and freedoms is absolutely a must.
• Minimizing Government debt– the money we are spending on temporary solutions is going to
be carried on the backs of our children. Let’s adapt a solution that will have result in the least
amount of total debt in the long run. Meaning, let’s stop spending money on paths that lead us
back to the initial starting point. Let’s decide on a long term solution to the issue at hand, and
implement it now without wasting money on temporary solutions that bring zero long term
benefit.
(3) Long Term Solution Options
It seems to me that if we use the high level premises outlined in the previous section, we are bound to
two options. Each solution has it’s own costs and benefits and there is no easy decision here. I am not
advocating for either option, and welcome any new suggestions that meet the “long term solution
premise”. As far as I can see there are two possible solutions that meet the long terms solution premise,
they are ‘Acceptance’ and ‘Elimination’. Here goes…

Option #1 - Acceptance
This option is the acceptance that Covid is a new additive risk in society, and take action to minimize
it’s impact. The first part of “acceptance” is to realize that Covid will be an additive illness in society.
By additive I mean that is is an additional risk on top of all the existing risks of passing away. This
seems very scary, and indeed at present many people are very scared. Let’s examine some concepts
regarding the option of living with Covid in our societies. I think a decent starting place is looking at
countries that let Covid “go natural”. By “going natural” I mean do we have view of Covid where the
group of people acted in a way that allowed the virus to interact with the human society without the
society altering it’s behavior pattern? A preliminary search online yields an Al Jazeera piece on Brazil
(see: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/2/1/brazils-covid-19-catastrophe-nothing-less-than-
criminal). Al Jazerra is a legit media outlet, so I assume that anything under it’s banner has been vetted
for outright lies. The article tells us that the following about the President of Brazil:

Bolsonaro not only claimed that COVID-19 is just “a little flu” but
also actively encouraged his supporters not to wear masks or practice
physical distancing. He attended crowded events, shook hands and
hugged people at the height of the first wave, and repeatedly ignored
the scientific consensus on the best ways to defeat the virus.

This seems like a society that let Covid “go natural”. This has to be taken with a grain of salt. We live
in an age where Brazil’s citizens are not in the dark about what is going on in the world. Many know
about Covid and the decision by many of the countries on the planet to lock down, wear masks and so
on. I am sure some people did just that, and that Covid did not genuinely “go natural”. For the time
being we will make the simplification that it did, as drastic action such as a national shutdown was not
taken. So, what happened in Brazil under their administration? The latest numbers from
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country#cite_note-2) tell the
following story:

So, in a nation of 212,559,409 people 244,737 people died in the first year of the virus. This is
0.00116% of the population. These numbers tell us that 1.16 people out of 1000 died due to Covid. To
be completely honest this number is a bit vague, in that we don’t know if the person died with Covid,
or from Covid, we don’t know that every person that passed was tested for Covid, We don’t know how
legitimate the testing that allowed a death to be recorded was, we don’t know that every Covid
registered death was tested, we don’t know that every case of Covid was tested for Covid. There is lots
we don’t know. However, since the mortality numbers in Brazil due to Covid are aligned with the
higher side of Covid reported deaths per 100,000 I think we can assume that the numbers tell the story
of a virus that “went natural”. With these numbers, I think that we can plant a marker here on the worst
case scenario for the option of “Acceptance”, even though that is not really the option of “Acceptance”
as we did not yet engage the second part where we invest in minimizing the impact of Covid for a
developed country. Let’s engage the element of “Acceptance” where the society takes action to
minimize the harm presented by Covid. What does harm minimizing look like? I believe the first step
is to look at a country that got affected even more than Brazil. In the US the death rate from Covid per
100,000 was 151 (again, that number is a bit vague). What does that mean? Let’s break it down by age
group (See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html):

Age Group Fatality rate Example

0–19 0.003% 3 people per 100,000
20–49 0.02% 2 people per 10,000
50–69 0.5% 5 people per 1000
70 or over 5.4% 54 people per 1000

We can see that as the age increases the risk of passing increases as well. These numbers are again a bit
“blind” as we don’t know if the people that pass have specific lifestyle issues. For example, the
numbers I got from CDC don’t tell us if 100% of the 5 people in a 1000 in the 50-69 are smokers, or
are overweight, or are alcoholics, and so on. Looking at Mr. Babers initial open letter, which is the
situation in Ontario, Canada, he writes:

“Regretfully, since the start of the Pandeminc about 5,000 Ontarians

died from/with Covid. Approximately 4,000 (~80%) of all Covid
deaths occurred in Group Living Settings. Of all 5,000 deaths, over
3,000 died in Long Term Care where victims were on average in their
last year of life”

What the CDC numbers and Mr. Baber’s numbers tell me is that the risk is disproportionally bared by
the elderly. Again, at this time we still didn’t factor lifestyle and general health, which I believe would
show that lifestyle does play a role. What we can deduce from all these numbers is that the best
investment to prevent death from Covid is by protecting the elderly. As a society (in Canada) we can
reduce the death rate of 58 per 100,000 by about 80% by focusing on Long Term Homes. As previously
mentioned we could put temporary housing at nursing homes, and have workers that live at the nursing
homes for 2 week “shifts”, with the first four days of each shift spent in quarantine. Proper security on
premises can prevent any entrance that has not been approved. This measure alone would drop fatalities
by 60% to 80%! We can go further by offering people who meet the criteria for vulnerable populations
guaranteed income, deliver food to them, and provide service that is needed to secure their safety. We
can also increase hospital funding. Of course vaccinations would also play an important role. Beyond
these core actions, we can take tons of other actions, that at some point begin to have a diminishing rate
of return.

All this sounds pretty doable, and relegates Covid fatalities to other risk activities that we undertake
daily without batting an eyelash (ex: driving). However, it’s not that simple as there is another issue
beyond Covid fatalities. I believe the term is ‘long hauler’, which is when people that should get over
Covid like a typical illness get long term symptoms (see: https://nypost.com/2020/08/20/young-
healthy-covid-19-survivors-are-facing-long-term-issues/). My personal sample size of 7 people who got
Covid and have beat it without having any ‘long hauler’ is a joke as far as sample sizes go, and I am not
sure what to make of these ‘long haulers’ and what are the odds of being one. Since the mainstream
media seems to have a preference for scaring it’s audience, and have not dedicated much coverage to
‘long haulers’ my heuristics are telling me the odds are even lower than fatalities; but that is an
assumption that is very, very large.

Having looked through what “Acceptance” option looks like, it meets the “long term solution premise”
which means we can all go back to “regular” without having to sacrifice Grandma. Of course there are
costs, where the vulnerable have to self isolate, and only have physical meetings with those who have
self isolated. However, that is the current state anyway, and locking down doesn’t solve that same issue.
Other costs are going to be economic as increasing the costs running Long Term Care, but that is a
welcome change, as eventually, the chances are that we will all end up there. Why not invest in our
seniors? I will gladly take a reasonable additive tax on my income to treat the elderly with the dignity
they deserve, but were not getting pre Covid.

Option #2 – Elimination
This option is the elimination of Covid’s existence in Canada. In a nutshell, we can close all our
boarders, and do a very strict shut down, where the likes of Tim Horton’s, LCBO, Canabis Stores, and
everything truly non essential is shut down. With heavily constricted mobility everyone with Covid will
beat it or unfortunately succumb to the illness, and in a relatively short time frame, our nation can be
Covid free. Once the country is Covid free, no one will be able to enter without having spent an
appropriate time in government run/contracted quarantine for a duration sufficient to proving that the
person is Covid free. Is there a model that exists for us to consider? This is the Chinese approach, and
the Australian approach. There is not much to discuss in this high level view of this option, as it’s pretty
straight forward.

The issue with this option is the costs to have people quarantine on arrival. This will kill tourism from
abroad, be a huge pain for the logistics industry, international athletics, and so on; there is definitively
an economic cost, that is likely higher than the “Acceptance” option. The only benefit is that the
additive mortality of Covid is now gone.

Note on Vaccination as an Exit Strategy

Some might say that the best way forward is to keep Ontario’s current policy of rolling shut downs; and
as we carry out large scale immunizations, eventually there would be no need for the rolling shut
downs. Once everyone is immunized, the rolling shutdowns would end. Such a solution will allow for
boarders to remain open, for mortality to be low, and have a return to regular life.

The only issue is that this is not an actually possible. Immunization has a time window, which is about
a year. Also, we cannot immunize people under 17, pregnant women, and the very weak (including the
very elderly). Furthermore, the virus mutates, which means that a single shot wold not cover all Covid
variants. Some variants would be “vaccine escapees”. In the viruses young age of about a year or so,
we already have a few new variants, bringing the total count of Covid variants to at least three. As each
strain mutates, and the number of strains proliferate, vaccination will be a ‘guesstimate’ much like the
flu vaccination, which is an annual guesstimate. Since the vaccination did not eliminate the flu (which
has a similar transmission pattern) why would the same identical approach have a different result on
Covid? Vaccinations are not a complete solution in themselves, and are more likely a part of the
“Acceptance” option suggested in this section.
Closing Thoughts
I understand that these high order concepts extend beyond the domain of the Ontario Provincial
Parliament. I understand that the federal government would need to be involved. The point of today is
to hear how you receive this information and if you would back this initiative? Does this make sense?
Is this already in motion? Is something else already in motion that is a parallel plan? What is it if such a
plan exists?

When we look at events that happened decades ago and longer, it’s so clear what had to be done. Once
you hear the options, the solutions are so obvious. Likely because you are so detached from the
influences of the day, and there is no personal cost to you to call the right action. How will our children
and grandchildren look at our collective response to a virus with a low death rate that appeared in
2020? Will burning through our economic potential for no real solution via shutdowns be the solution
they state as the right way forward? I have my reservations, and call on common sense, partisan
politics, and media bias to be put aside for the sake of everyone who is affected by this Pandemic;
which is at the very least everyone in Canada (see: https://nationalpost.com/news/plunging-revenues-
and-sky-high-deficits-could-turn-catastrophic-for-canadian-governments-report-warns)