Mayor Plante: what’s on her mind
Metro has some items about Mayor Plante: she’s worried about people coming back from trips south carrying disease; she regrets how the hasty introduction of safe active transit lanes was taken badly; she speaks about her response to departures from her party and what she intends to do to shore up the party’s solidarity going into an election year.
Jason 12:16 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
Quick question: Why is non-essential travel even allowed?
Kate 12:44 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
I wish I understood that myself. I suspect it’s that government knows that if it banned travel outright it would be unpopular, for one, and for another, that such a rule would be hard to enforce. Authority never likes to look weak, and nothing’s weaker than making rules that can’t be enforced.
Spi 13:18 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
Chapter 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, or are we going to suspend constitutional rights now?
Kate 14:42 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
States of emergency include overrides, Spi.
MtlWeb 14:58 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
Decisions…….sorry Spi but deferring to the charter during this pandemic is as noble as asking for the public’s word to govern themselves for 2 weeks before and after their trip, to avoid cross-site transmission, let alone protect their own contacts’ health.
Since everyone is allowed to define ‘essential travel’ as it applies to their own needs and wants, there should be a decree that can protect both destinations while still allowing those who need or just want to travel to do so: To book a ticket, the traveller must pay for a private PCR test & a one night stay at hotel near airport, test done in evening (within 12h of flight) with result in early AM: PCR negative, allowed to go on flight; PCR positive, not allowed to fly & must remain 14d at hotel to ensure isolation measures adhered to. Same process for return, on arrival, 1-night stay including PCR test, result available in AM…if negative can go home, if positive 14 day stay….only way to leave hotel if positive is if in need of health care……should be the cost of travelling during this pandemic. Break the rules, you’re placed on a no-fly list.
Whoever does not want to follow guidelines and respect the effect & potential of C19 can always opt out and claim their constitutional rights are being violated but FIRST they can present themselves at any one of our hospitals for a 16 hour shift, 12 hours scheduled and 4 hours forced to stay – they will be asked to A) help our PABs assist the staff in mobilizing/positioning/cleaning patients, while wearing full PPE including that reusable N-95 then without stopping for a pee, snack, smoke, etc….B) join our RTs and RNs in ER when a new admission presents and requires endotracheal intubation, full PPE (same mask as above) in case patient is C19+, staff will show them how to place an IV, suction their oropharynx and assist with placing the tube…and finally, they can participate in the newly created triage for ‘critical care allocation’ teams ( includes an MD intensivist, an ethics officer, and a mix of critical care staff)…their mandate, forced upon them by the situation, is to decide which decompensating patients waiting for an ICU bed in ER or on the wards or even already in an ICU bed can use or stay in that same ICU bed, based on their prognosis & medical history. Decisions need to be made based on supply and demand of health-care resources….these decisions are counter to everything the field of medicine has stood for in Canada throughout these health care professionals’ careers and will likely haunt them for the rest of their careers and lives. Does this sound like a Michael Crichton novel or episode 47 of ER? Perhaps, but it’s what is being planned as you are reading this since the need for critical care and hospital beds is projected to spike in the middle of January. Those who ‘decided’ to take a trip because they’ve had such a rough time away from the sun, beach and buffet cuisine are likely to return to Montreal during this same period, and make things even worse.
Do I sound bitter, a fear-mongerer, a pessimist, someone who wants to sacrifice the constitution’s guarantees and freedoms to try to help as many people as possible from our community live? Will do anything to care for our sickest of the sick, no matter who and have only been doing it for the last 30 years but at this point, listening to people defend their right to fly to Cuba, I and all of my colleagues are just exhausted, pissed off, fed up and in utter disbelief as to how selfish, ignorant, self-entitled, and full of sh** so many of our neighbours are showing themselves and sadly their children to be.
Sorry Kate, for writing a novel.
Kate 16:01 on 2020-12-24 Permalink
MtlWeb, no worries. People need to understand this stuff and you’ve written well and passionately about it.
Chris 00:07 on 2020-12-25 Permalink
OTOH, some people (not saying anyone here) seem to be acting like we should do anything and everything to save every last person from covid, no matter the cost. Well, you know what: we shouldn’t. Nor do we do so for air pollution, car crashes, cancer, heart disease, or anything else. It’s a balance between saving as many as we can, without making the cure worse than the disease. We’ve been doing reasonably well overall I think.
Dhomas 08:41 on 2020-12-25 Permalink
That sentence… “The cure is worse than the disease”. Please stop. We should do as much as possible to save people from heart disease, climate change, car crashes, etc. Is not eating a steak every day “worse than the disease”? Is taking public transit over a personal vehicle “worse than the disease”?
We will never be able to save everyone from every disease, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Chris 19:34 on 2020-12-25 Permalink
>We should do as much as possible to save people from heart disease, climate change, car crashes, etc
That phrase… “as much as possible”. Please stop. 🙂 So we should ban high cholesterol food, cigarettes, and cars, right? That would be doing “as much as possible”. But we don’t do that, do we? Why not? Because, (in the view of many,) it would be a cure worse than the disease.
>Is not eating a steak every day “worse than the disease”?
Is never eating steak ever again?
>Is taking public transit over a personal vehicle “worse than the disease”?
Is everyone giving up all personal vehicles forever? Getting rid of all cars would save many air pollution and collision deaths. That would be doing “as much as possible”.
People are only willing to go so far for climate change, covid, or anything else.
dhomas 20:06 on 2020-12-25 Permalink
@Chris In my view, there are three main reasons people don’t do as much as they could for the environment.
1) the alternatives are easier.
2) the alternatives are cheaper (somewhat related to point 1).
3) it seems pointless if not everyone is working toward the same goal. Probably the biggest reason.
There is a “cure” for this, though it probably could only be applied gradually, or there would be too much pushback.
1) It’s far more convenient in most cases to use products that are bad for the environment, and to humans by association. We all know (well, most of us) that single use plastics are bad for the environment, but it’s much easier to send individually wrapped snacks in our kids’ lunches than it would be to put them in reusable containers. Same goes for using cars over public transit. I’m sure we could come up with many more examples.
2) it’s much more expensive to use sustainable products. It’s so much cheaper to buy made-in-China products that will go to the landfill after a few uses, but most people will go for the cheaper option because it’s available.
3) this one is probably the most important reason. Why should one try so hard to reduce their own impact on the environment if their neighbour, the next country over, or the giant ethically-questionable corporation is going to do exactly the opposite. Seems quite pointless, doesn’t it? Like our efforts are completely negated by the actions of others.
The solution to this problem, similar to what the government is trying to do with the C19 pandemic, is strong government to put in place extreme solutions, and push them through as quickly as possible while avoiding public backlash that would cause a backslide back into bad behaviours. Make the convenient option unavailable (banning single use plastics, for example); make the cheap option more expensive (carbon taxes, tariffs on environment-damaging products, ban ICE vehicles, etc); apply these new rules universally and hold other countries accountable for their actions. That last part is the hardest to do, because it needs to be applied globally. But it’s not impossible! The Montreal Protocol in the late 80’s showed us that we CAN come together across the globe to take needed actions for the planet.
So, all this to say, I don’t think the fact that the government takes these actions to stem the spread of the pandemic and not for the environment (or any other public good) does NOT mean they should stop the C19 restrictions. It means they should take similarly drastic measures for those other causes as well!