The Coronavirus pandemic raises many ethical dilemmas. One question posed relates to the rationing of scarce medical resources. .If there are two patients with Coronavirus – but only one ventilator – who should receive the lifesaving treatment? Another dilemma faced by politicians is the purported choice between the health of the economy, or the health of Canadians..In recent weeks, the U.S., U.K. and Canada were confronted with an Imperial College report laying out dire consequences if extreme action was not taken to halt the spread of the virus. The Imperial College team used infection and death rates from China, South Korea, Italy and ran a simulation. If no action was taken, 80 per cent of people would get the disease and 0.9 per cent of them would die. In Alberta alone, that would mean a staggering 31,000 deaths. It’s worse if the country runs out of ventilators. .Alternatively, if schools, gyms, restaurants and all large gatherings were shut down, the health care system would remain functioning and fewer people die. However, if the lockdown was lifted before a vaccine is widely available – potentially one year to 18 months from now – there is risk of resurgence. .On the basis of this report, countries around the world have locked down. But, many people – including Bill Gates and Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis – have criticized the report as too pessimistic. Ioannidispoints out that the only situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship. Of seven hundred passengers and crew members, seven died. This is a one per cent mortality rate, which is low given the close and prolonged exposure among the passengers as well as the more elderly mean age. Ioannidis believes it’s quite possible the infection rate is substantially lower than 80 per cent, and a reasonable fatality estimate could range from 0.05 per cent to one per cent. This dramatically reduces the number of potential deaths. .On the other hand, shuttering businesses has massive economic repercussions. This isn’t merely a question of saving lives versus alleged greed. Either way, lives are at risk. In one week alone, half a million Canadians filed for Employment Insurance. That number will climb to astronomical proportions before the lockdown can be lifted. When nearly half of Canadians are already living paycheck-to-paycheck, we can anticipate record numbers of bankruptcies and devastating consequences that will last far longer than the virus. The deaths of millions to a virus is horrifying, but so are millions of people losing marriages, homes, livelihoods, increased substance abuse and suicide. Not to mention the unprecedented powers blithely handed over to governments – unheard of in peace or sometimes even war. Sweeping new powers are being handed to governments, with little evidence or debate, and even less assurance that these powers will ever be handed back..These ethical dilemmas of economy versus health or granting one patient a ventilator assume that the choices are binary, but this is a false assumption. When there is only one ventilator, the answer isn’t necessarily to choose one patient, but rather to jerry-rig the ventilator to save both – as doctors are doing. Likewise, we needn’t choose between destroying the economy or saving lives. .Taiwan has kept shops, restaurants and schools open, yet is doing much better than Canada at containing the virus. Some steps Taiwan took – such as testing all passengers arriving from China – are too late, but others could still be implemented. Taiwan could easily have been decimated by Coronavirus as many Taiwanese live and work in China. If you believe the CBC, Taiwan is actually a province of China..Both Canada and Taiwan discovered their first case within days of each other, but as of March 23rd Canada had 2,091 cases and 23 deaths. Taiwan had only 195 cases and two deaths, .One aspect of Taiwan’s approach Canada should copy is widespread testing. Canada’s draconian policies have removed the big advantages that democratic societies posses. Namely, large datasets, entrepreneurial experience and creative thinking. By shutting everything down we have effectively eliminated our greatest advantage – access to the great hordes of people who need to be tested and reported. Those at high risk or already infected should be locked down while stores, restaurants and places of worship should be opened on condition they take the temperature of all who come in the doors. Business owners would be highly motivated to comply. .It is time to stop viewing options as binary and look for solutions which protect health and the economy. Widespread testing and quarantine of individuals at risk and those infected would be the best way to do this..Tessa Littlejohn is a columnist for the Western Standard
The Coronavirus pandemic raises many ethical dilemmas. One question posed relates to the rationing of scarce medical resources. .If there are two patients with Coronavirus – but only one ventilator – who should receive the lifesaving treatment? Another dilemma faced by politicians is the purported choice between the health of the economy, or the health of Canadians..In recent weeks, the U.S., U.K. and Canada were confronted with an Imperial College report laying out dire consequences if extreme action was not taken to halt the spread of the virus. The Imperial College team used infection and death rates from China, South Korea, Italy and ran a simulation. If no action was taken, 80 per cent of people would get the disease and 0.9 per cent of them would die. In Alberta alone, that would mean a staggering 31,000 deaths. It’s worse if the country runs out of ventilators. .Alternatively, if schools, gyms, restaurants and all large gatherings were shut down, the health care system would remain functioning and fewer people die. However, if the lockdown was lifted before a vaccine is widely available – potentially one year to 18 months from now – there is risk of resurgence. .On the basis of this report, countries around the world have locked down. But, many people – including Bill Gates and Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis – have criticized the report as too pessimistic. Ioannidispoints out that the only situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship. Of seven hundred passengers and crew members, seven died. This is a one per cent mortality rate, which is low given the close and prolonged exposure among the passengers as well as the more elderly mean age. Ioannidis believes it’s quite possible the infection rate is substantially lower than 80 per cent, and a reasonable fatality estimate could range from 0.05 per cent to one per cent. This dramatically reduces the number of potential deaths. .On the other hand, shuttering businesses has massive economic repercussions. This isn’t merely a question of saving lives versus alleged greed. Either way, lives are at risk. In one week alone, half a million Canadians filed for Employment Insurance. That number will climb to astronomical proportions before the lockdown can be lifted. When nearly half of Canadians are already living paycheck-to-paycheck, we can anticipate record numbers of bankruptcies and devastating consequences that will last far longer than the virus. The deaths of millions to a virus is horrifying, but so are millions of people losing marriages, homes, livelihoods, increased substance abuse and suicide. Not to mention the unprecedented powers blithely handed over to governments – unheard of in peace or sometimes even war. Sweeping new powers are being handed to governments, with little evidence or debate, and even less assurance that these powers will ever be handed back..These ethical dilemmas of economy versus health or granting one patient a ventilator assume that the choices are binary, but this is a false assumption. When there is only one ventilator, the answer isn’t necessarily to choose one patient, but rather to jerry-rig the ventilator to save both – as doctors are doing. Likewise, we needn’t choose between destroying the economy or saving lives. .Taiwan has kept shops, restaurants and schools open, yet is doing much better than Canada at containing the virus. Some steps Taiwan took – such as testing all passengers arriving from China – are too late, but others could still be implemented. Taiwan could easily have been decimated by Coronavirus as many Taiwanese live and work in China. If you believe the CBC, Taiwan is actually a province of China..Both Canada and Taiwan discovered their first case within days of each other, but as of March 23rd Canada had 2,091 cases and 23 deaths. Taiwan had only 195 cases and two deaths, .One aspect of Taiwan’s approach Canada should copy is widespread testing. Canada’s draconian policies have removed the big advantages that democratic societies posses. Namely, large datasets, entrepreneurial experience and creative thinking. By shutting everything down we have effectively eliminated our greatest advantage – access to the great hordes of people who need to be tested and reported. Those at high risk or already infected should be locked down while stores, restaurants and places of worship should be opened on condition they take the temperature of all who come in the doors. Business owners would be highly motivated to comply. .It is time to stop viewing options as binary and look for solutions which protect health and the economy. Widespread testing and quarantine of individuals at risk and those infected would be the best way to do this..Tessa Littlejohn is a columnist for the Western Standard
