"By normalizing border closures in such a cavalier way, Canada will surely pay a price in the future."
Normalizing? Did WWII 'normalize' internment camps?
Does this not assume the pandemic has become a 'normal' event? One would need a great deal more future behind us to demonstrate such an overstated conclusion. The conclusion appears to be driven by an otherwise unstated speculative bias.
"...By so obviously politicizing the border, Trudeau has opened the door to future arbitrary closures."
Politicizing? Arguments regarding the degree of border closure have raged, for and against, since the early days of the pandemic based upon health and economic criteria. The more questionable responses, as noted in this piece, happen in January 2021, the same month enraged ideology stormed the U.S. capital. If anything the Canadian response has been remarkable for the minimal degree of politicization from our political leaders compared to south of the border.
"Bizarrely, when our borders finally reopened to all vaccinated travellers last week, Canadians barely took notice."
Not exactly demonstrating the border is a hotbed of political activity. The quiet unpolitical nature of the border reopening is only 'bizarre' in light of the political conclusion being drawn around it, in this piece.
Now folks are protesting hospitals and politicizing health care workers which all the major party leaders are roundly condemning in the middle of an election. So much for politicizing the pandemic.
Arbitrary? It's one thing to argue the pros and cons of the effectiveness of various responses, but as your outline of events demonstrates, those responses were in response to events based upon health and economic criteria in the public domain. How is that arbitrary?
I think this piece's conclusion would be sitting on a much more solid foundation if it simply drew more of a lessons-to-be learned approach regarding the effectiveness of various responses rather than the definitive tone of censure it rather blindly asserts.
In other words, while one could have simply drawn attention to some important matters for future consideration, the conclusion here appears to be largely arbitrary, cavalier and one can only assume driven by an otherwise unstated political bias, since little in the piece leads one to it.
We did terribly with our borders. First, travel restrictions were ‘racist’ and we were more worried about PC garbage than the lives and well being of Canadians. Then we were screening at airports, but in fact we weren’t and provincial health authorities were sending screening teams to airports to try and stem the tide. It was sexy for Trudeau to close the border when Trump was POTUS….you know cause Trump is bad. Quarantine hotels were just to show that ‘something’ was being done even if it wasn’t effective. It’s all a joke.
For neighbors who claim to be "each others most trusted ally" we certainly don't behave that way, and we haven't for a long time.
Canada's decision makers fear American's becoming more influential in Canada, we get that (because they know they are second rate compared to them), but this continent doesn't work without free movement across the border. Canada isn't big or clever enough to go about it alone in an isolationist fashion.
Another one who has expertise in one area, and suddenly thinks that they are experts on pandemic response. And declaring all levels of government responses as disasters.
...man, that graph is a classic V-shaped recovery. GDP down 5%, and already recovering to pre-pandemic levels. That's last spring, and there are new difficulties, now, (like the rest of the world isn't). But in spring, Australia's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%, down from the 7.4% peak of the pandemic.
Canada's unemployment rate, of course, hit 13.5%, worst since 1976.
The author neglects to note that Canada has lost 714 citizens per million, Australia 43. That's over 25,000 Canadians that would still be alive if we had "...suffered Australia's fate".
These figures confirm the analysis that you get if you don't ask a right-winger, or at least ask an honest right-winger, if you can find one. (I joined The Line because it has some...maybe not this time.) Over and over again, we find the most-aggressive pandemic fighting measures, however draconian to personal comfort and visiting, the best measures for the economy.
And prattling about how tough it is to have troops keeping you in your neighbourhood, without looking at GDP and unemployment numbers, is a bit dishonest for an economics professor.
Not sure I follow the argument here.
"By normalizing border closures in such a cavalier way, Canada will surely pay a price in the future."
Normalizing? Did WWII 'normalize' internment camps?
Does this not assume the pandemic has become a 'normal' event? One would need a great deal more future behind us to demonstrate such an overstated conclusion. The conclusion appears to be driven by an otherwise unstated speculative bias.
"...By so obviously politicizing the border, Trudeau has opened the door to future arbitrary closures."
Politicizing? Arguments regarding the degree of border closure have raged, for and against, since the early days of the pandemic based upon health and economic criteria. The more questionable responses, as noted in this piece, happen in January 2021, the same month enraged ideology stormed the U.S. capital. If anything the Canadian response has been remarkable for the minimal degree of politicization from our political leaders compared to south of the border.
"Bizarrely, when our borders finally reopened to all vaccinated travellers last week, Canadians barely took notice."
Not exactly demonstrating the border is a hotbed of political activity. The quiet unpolitical nature of the border reopening is only 'bizarre' in light of the political conclusion being drawn around it, in this piece.
Now folks are protesting hospitals and politicizing health care workers which all the major party leaders are roundly condemning in the middle of an election. So much for politicizing the pandemic.
Arbitrary? It's one thing to argue the pros and cons of the effectiveness of various responses, but as your outline of events demonstrates, those responses were in response to events based upon health and economic criteria in the public domain. How is that arbitrary?
I think this piece's conclusion would be sitting on a much more solid foundation if it simply drew more of a lessons-to-be learned approach regarding the effectiveness of various responses rather than the definitive tone of censure it rather blindly asserts.
In other words, while one could have simply drawn attention to some important matters for future consideration, the conclusion here appears to be largely arbitrary, cavalier and one can only assume driven by an otherwise unstated political bias, since little in the piece leads one to it.
We did terribly with our borders. First, travel restrictions were ‘racist’ and we were more worried about PC garbage than the lives and well being of Canadians. Then we were screening at airports, but in fact we weren’t and provincial health authorities were sending screening teams to airports to try and stem the tide. It was sexy for Trudeau to close the border when Trump was POTUS….you know cause Trump is bad. Quarantine hotels were just to show that ‘something’ was being done even if it wasn’t effective. It’s all a joke.
For neighbors who claim to be "each others most trusted ally" we certainly don't behave that way, and we haven't for a long time.
Canada's decision makers fear American's becoming more influential in Canada, we get that (because they know they are second rate compared to them), but this continent doesn't work without free movement across the border. Canada isn't big or clever enough to go about it alone in an isolationist fashion.
Another one who has expertise in one area, and suddenly thinks that they are experts on pandemic response. And declaring all levels of government responses as disasters.
A pretty one-sided analysis. Australia is just dismissed out-of-hand as a disaster, without diggin into the economic statistics:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/australia-s-gdp-exceeds-estimates-recouping-pandemic-losses-1.1611434
...man, that graph is a classic V-shaped recovery. GDP down 5%, and already recovering to pre-pandemic levels. That's last spring, and there are new difficulties, now, (like the rest of the world isn't). But in spring, Australia's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%, down from the 7.4% peak of the pandemic.
Canada's unemployment rate, of course, hit 13.5%, worst since 1976.
The author neglects to note that Canada has lost 714 citizens per million, Australia 43. That's over 25,000 Canadians that would still be alive if we had "...suffered Australia's fate".
These figures confirm the analysis that you get if you don't ask a right-winger, or at least ask an honest right-winger, if you can find one. (I joined The Line because it has some...maybe not this time.) Over and over again, we find the most-aggressive pandemic fighting measures, however draconian to personal comfort and visiting, the best measures for the economy.
And prattling about how tough it is to have troops keeping you in your neighbourhood, without looking at GDP and unemployment numbers, is a bit dishonest for an economics professor.