As COVID-19 infiltrates every province and territory in Canada, premiers are ramping up efforts to limit non-essential contact and stem the spread of the virus. As per federal guidelines, leaders have ordered limits on the number of people allowed to gather, but the numbers range widely — from 50 or less in British Columbia to zero in Quebec.
Experts worry that the wide range in the limits could confuse Canadians and underplay the gravity of the pandemic. They advise that it might be time for the federal government to “take the helm” and issue a national standard.
“There’s nothing magical about the number five or 10,” said Craig Janes, director of the University of Waterloo’s school of public health. “It’s really just a signal that we don’t want any big gatherings and so, they’re just defining ‘big’ in a different way.”
In mid-March, the federal government instituted a ban on all gatherings of 50 or more. In the two weeks since, most provinces and territories have dramatically slashed their limits by more than half to mitigate the local spread of the virus.
Quebec, the hardest-hit province with over 4,000 confirmed cases and 33 deaths, has implemented one of the strictest bans, prohibiting gatherings of two or more.
Ontario — the second hardest-hit province — and Nova Scotia have prohibited public groups with more than five members. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Yukon have issued orders banning gatherings of 10 or more people. Despite a low number of cases, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut have banned all public gatherings.
Alberta and British Columbia — which reports the third highest provincial count of COVID-19 cases — are relatively more lenient, with the former allowing up to 15 people to gather and the latter still preaching federal guidelines.
Deciding on a number depends on two factors — the risk of infection in a province and the risk authorities are willing to take, according to Dr. Brenda Coleman, an infectious disease expert at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto.
“There’s a fair discrepancy across the provinces,” she explained. “For example, Manitoba doesn’t seem to have as many (cases), while Quebec does have quite a few. So Quebec is bound to say that they have to have smaller groups of people to reduce the chances of that transmission.”
According to Tim Caulfield, a public health and law expert at the University of Alberta, non-scientific factors also come into play. “(Leaders) are balancing the realities associated with their jurisdictions,” he said. “Local authorities, what the community thinks, the size of the areas. If it’s a big city, you’re going to want to make that number lower to enhance the possibility of effective social distancing.”
Ultimately, “there’s a lot of case-by-case analysis going on for each community,” he added.
Most provinces have declared a state of emergency, allowing them powers to restrict the movement of Canadians within their jurisdiction and close down non-essential services to slow the spread of COVID-19. “I think as there’s been a growing understanding and appreciation for the rapid spread of the disease, (provinces) have reduced the number of public gatherings,” said Brett Skinner, who heads the Canadian Health Policy Institute.
However, last week Dr. Kevin Smith, the president of the University Health Network called on the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act as a response to COVID-19. Under the act, the power to prohibit travel and restrict the operation and distribution of essential services and good would be turned over to the federal government.
“I want to see it so that we can flatten this curve and prevent any additional spread of this very deadly virus,” he told CP24. “I believe that we should do everything we can and it is what we don’t do that we will regret from this time forward.”
Janes agreed, explaining that it’s important to keep in mind the “lag time” between the time of infection and the number of cases. “Whatever is going to happen three weeks from now will be related the infections happening now,” he said. “So my preference is, there is consistent messaging across the country … rather than leaving it up to each premier to decide what would be the most politically palatable.”
The inconsistency in messaging could also be attributed to how quickly each premier responded to the crisis and the current spread of the virus in each province, according to David Zakus, who teaches public health at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health. “It’s interesting how even some premiers woke up to it at different rates,” while others were already resisting the virus with social distancing, etc., he explained. “Had there been a strict national infrastructure early on, we might have even been in a much safer position rather than waiting for each province to get on board and watch how the other provinces are suffering before getting on board.”
It’s also important to note the proportion of those infected in a province to the total population of the province. Five cases in Ontario versus five cases in Saskatchewan mean different things, he said. “Right now what we’re doing is telling people the actual prevalence numbers when we should be telling them the ratio,” he explained.
Ultimately, “If we keep hearing different things from different jurisdictions, it could add a little bit to the confusion,” he said. “And right now, there is no space for confusion.”
However, that’s not to say that Canadians should use the differences in messaging as an excuse to take the virus lightly. “I think governments are signalling to the public that this is a serious crisis,” said Skinner. “It’s clear to anyone who watches the news or reads the paper that this should not be taken lightly.”
Copyright Postmedia Network Inc., 2020
