Article content continued

Canadians have been living in bubbles. Everyone knows that. Until recently, however, governments have not gone out of their way to call them that.

That politicians are starting to say “bubble” out loud is an indication that the word itself, which sounds non-scientific, vaguely frivolous, lighter than air and a bit silly, is actually a powerful tool of pandemic response enforcement. People instinctively get it in a way they never did with “social distancing” and other technocratic terms of art.

In an effort to reduce social isolation, especially for those living alone, your household can join up with one other household

The key evidence for this is New Zealand, which pioneered bubble messaging, and is now earning admiration for the clarity of its emergency communications. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has just declared a sort of victory as she dropped an emergency level and said the virus is “currently eliminated” in the island country, meaning not spreading locally.

Her government’s advice was centred on the bubble concept. “You can slightly extend your household bubble, but keep it local, small and exclusive,” a government statement said, suggesting a single friend, or a caregiver, or someone who needs care. One or two people is okay to add, but you cannot combine more than two bubbles. Furthermore, in New Zealand’s new bubble regime, siblings cannot both extend bubbles to their parents, and anyone can add two people to their bubble, but not if those others live in separate bubbles themselves.

Complex as it is, this was a far catchier concept than the one mooted in Belgium, for example, which was reported to be proposing something like an isolation team, an unwieldy bubble of 10 people who have mutually chosen to be socially exclusive with each other. The plan was leaked to the media, perhaps because it seems to flirt with exponential disaster, as all it would take is one person to break the trust. It did not appear in a subsequent official report of advice.