On Jan. 15, York Centre MPP Roman Baber penned an open letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford. In the letter, he claimed the current lockdown was causing disproportionate harm to the mental, physical, and economic health of Ontarians, and that the province would be better off without it.
On its surface, the letter is a critique of government policy rooted in solid statistical analysis. However, a closer examination of the text reveals a simplistic, ideologically-driven argument that pandemic policy should abandon the most vulnerable Ontarians to reduce the suffering of the majority.
Certainly a worrisome perspective, but also one that hides the real threat to public health—Ford’s reluctance to provide Ontarians the support they need amid COVID-19.
Ford had little patience for Baber’s anti-lockdown letter and quickly expelled him from the Progressive Conservative caucus. The premier stated that “there is no room for political ideology in our fight against COVID-19—rather, our response has been and will always be driven by evidence and data.”
The problem seemingly ended there. Ford stepped in to remove the ideologue and claim victory for ‘team science.’ At the time of writing this op-ed, cases are declining and the lockdown seems to be working.
However, it’s not that simple.
Baber is a convenient punching bag for Ford. He wrote a letter that blatantly ignored overflowing hospitals in his backyard, included exaggerated overdose statistics, and was shockingly willing to dismiss Canada’s total of over 6,000 COVID-19 related deaths as collateral damage.
His flimsy rhetoric collapses under a mountain of demonstrable evidence that COVID-19 poses a serious threat to frontline workers, the elderly, and marginalized communities. The ease with which Ford disposed of Baber is a testament to the unpopularity of anti-lockdown claims, which a majority of Ontarians reject.
The far more insidious threat comes from the people who take advantage of Baber’s lack of nuance to make themselves seem like heroes. The real threat comes from people like Ford.
Ford wants Ontarians to think about the lockdown and his pandemic response in absolute terms. Either you are pro-science and support the lockdown or you are like Baber, an anti-science ideologue. This false dichotomy allows Ford to frame any critique of the lockdown—and its many negative side effects—as anti-science and uncompassionate.
Baber is half correct; the lockdown is taking a catastrophic toll on the mental, physical, and economic health of Ontarians. However, it is unfortunate that Baber distorts the threat of COVID-19 to make his point, because that opens the door for Ford to frame the lockdown debate to suit his subtler conservative ideology.
Ford argues that Ontarians can only have one or the other. Either the lockdown is removed and thousands die of COVID-19, or the lockdown stays and Ontarians have no relief from social isolation and financial instability.
But those are not the only options.
The Ontario government could implement progressive policies that alleviate the suffering caused by the lockdown, yet Ford refuses to do so because his conservative ideology prioritizes restraint over dramatic action.
Investing more money in schools, testing facilities, mental health outreach, virtual community engagement programs, and wage subsidies could begin to address the increased overdoses, domestic abuse cases, mental health crises, and joblessness. One example of the benefits of investing in society has been Portugal’s focus on investing in healthcare rather than incarceration regarding drug use, seeing the number of known heroin users drop from 100,000 to 25,000 since these policies were implemented. Furthermore, these programs could exist without sacrificing thousands of lives by eliminating the lockdown.
Ford claims to be guided by science while Baber is guided by ideology, but Ford is the far more dangerous ideologue.
Ford benefits from personified strawmen like Baber because they occupy public attention with simplistic debates that contradict basic scientific facts. If everyone is debating the legitimacy of the lockdown, they are ignoring the Ontario government’s critical failure to invest in policies that meaningfully mitigate the negative impacts of the lockdown.
The overdose crisis is a perfect example of Ford’s ideological ploy. Overdose deaths have increased by approximately 40 per cent since the start of the pandemic, something Baber notes, but overstates, in his letter.
The U.S.-Canada border closure cut the supply chain of illicit drugs, increasing the likelihood that substances in Canada are cut with toxic additives as dealers try to stretch their products.
Also, restrictions on social interactions limit access to existing support networks, health care and social workers. Online alternatives are sometimes not an option for people with addictions, notably those who are low-income and do not have access to personal computers and the internet.
Eliminating strict pandemic guidelines is not the solution to this problem, as Baber and Ford would have you believe. Health experts have repeatedly stated that governments can help address the overdose crisis by increasing the safe supply of certain drugs, funding additional community support facilities, and decriminalizing illicit substances. To this end, the federal government has committed nearly $9.5 million to safer supply initiatives in Ontario. Ford has yet to make any meaningful act of the sort.
The simplistic rhetoric of Baber’s anti-lockdown movement makes Ford’s alternative seem competent by simply enforcing the lockdown and ignoring the ‘anti-science’ ideologues. However, in order to ensure the province comes out of this pandemic with its most vulnerable populations alive and well, Ontarians cannot be blinded by this false dichotomy, and must advocate for expansive policy solutions that forcefully address the dangers of COVID-19 and the side effects of the lockdown.
Featured image by Spencer Colby.
