Article content continued

There’s no doubt that a regime of mandatory isolation would pose a moral dilemma in a free society, but it is hard to imagine the state of freedom if the country can’t mitigate the number of infections and the coronavirus paralyzes the economy even further.

Even now, we aren’t tracking who is isolating or holding people to account for proper self-quarantining. Canada’s response is an experiment in good faith, and we’re already playing with long odds. The federal health minister and chief public health officer say the window is closing on social distancing. If that doesn’t work, what’s next?

Photo by Flavio Lo Scalzo/Reuters

Italy’s experience of some 3,500 deaths and more than 40,000 infections shows what could become of us if we don’t take immediate, urgent measures. Doctors in that country may eventually have to turn away people from hospitals and “leave them to nature,” due to a scarcity of resources. We must do everything possible to avoid having to face such choices here. But how far are the feds willing to go, and how far are we prepared to let them go?

Suspending non-essential work, travel and movement, even within Canada, should be on the table. But if the people will not accept such draconian measures and our government will not implement them, then citizens urgently need to step up by practising and preaching reduced social contact and more self-isolation for everyone’s benefit. And they need to do it now, not after thousands become ill.

Convincing people to do this starts by finding a language that will register the scope of the threat. “Emergency,” “crisis” and even “epidemic” no longer get the public’s attention. How many times have you heard someone say “exponential” when they only meant to say “significant”? The coronavirus is about to give us a harsh lesson in the plain meaning of words.