Re: “Lockdown is unjustified,” Letters, July 2
When I first read Dan Metzger’s letter I was annoyed and started to write a letter, starting research to refute his justifications for why we should put the vulnerable in our society at risk.
Then life got in the way and I questioned whether he was worth the time. He doesn’t make the decisions.
Then came the attack on Rideau Hall. A man, distraught by the financial impact of the restrictions of physical distancing, took it on himself to try and kill the prime minister and he left a note. That note and Metzger’s letter were unsettlingly similar.
The attacker and Metzger portray the measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 as an effective house arrest.
This is preposterous. We are free to go out. We are free to shop. We just have to take measures to protect ourselves and others.
Metzger says we should follow Sweden’s example. Sweden had minimal restrictions on their society and they’re facing the highest COVID-19 deaths per capita than most of its Scandinavian neighbours. The death toll was particularly high on their seniors.
Should we have sacrificed our seniors?
The measures required to slow the spread of COVID-19 call on our reserves of empathy and fortitude. We live in a society that asks that we think of others and take steps to protect everyone. Our healthcare system is built on this. We all pay taxes that support a health care system that few of us need. We all pay taxes to fund our schools yet there’s only a short period when we actually have children in that system. Some of us never do, but we all pay.
We’ll get through this pandemic but acting together, by taking steps to protect each other and we’ll get through this so long as we keep a sense of proportion that’s not evident in Metzger’s letter.
Metzger writes that our actions to slow COVID-19’s spread are not justified. Look to the United States and I think it’s clear our actions are justified.
Chris Shepherd
Nelson