I’d like not to give up some experiences when COVID isolation is over, and to act on some lessons
Closeness.
This is associated with quiet and reduced busyness. A quiet, non-busy time is an excellent opportunity to spend more time being close with family and friends and pets and nature. It is a time to pay attention to what we see, hear, smell, and feel through touch and through our emotions. During this crisis we had more opportunity for closeness. Being in the same place as another, breathing the same air, looking at the same surroundings (if not watching individualized games and TV), hearing the same things (if not plugged into different electronics), but not doing different things, nor perhaps, anything at all, really.
Perhaps sitting next to another close enough to touch and feel the connection, the shared heartbeat and rhythm of breathing, and perceive the joy that comes with this.
Perhaps some liked and wanted more closeness, and would find ways to keep it for ourselves when we returned to “normal.”
Income.
As the Canadian governments provided ever more income supports in a variety of ways, I spoke frequently with friends who own businesses. They were concerned about lost customers, continued rent for their offices and warehouses, how long they could pay their employees and how they could reduce their exposure to disease, business and property taxes, whether their suppliers could stay in business, and about their own families and friends. Employees worried about whether they could stay employed and not risk the disease, while still paying their home and family expenses, rents, taxes, and so on.
We saw an entirely new level of government willingness to financially support all these, and it happened incredibly fast. Some people got support because they lost their jobs due to COVID. Others who had already been unemployed before COVID, realized that getting a job at that time was unlikely, and suggested that they should receive the same support. Subsequently it was found that some people had been supported inappropriately, and paybacks are still an issue. But no one has suggested that these quick measures were not good and necessary.
People on welfare, and on disability supports, saw that their incomes were exceeded by these new allowances (although for shorter times), and wondered why they were not eligible as well. They suspect they are poorly regarded1. Long have we arranged government support for varieties of people, but only the poorest are judged so much, and receive the least. And that begrudgingly. It’s almost as if someone wants to keep them poor, and never give them enough support to leap over the barriers of low income, poor shelter and poor health.
Perhaps as we increase our government support in so many new ways, we will cross this final barrier, and provide really effective aid to those who have been neglected so long. Basic Income and Modern Monetary Theory should be examined closely, soon.
Better politicians (Canada)
Astonished, we saw Canadian politicians work together across provincial and provincial/federal boundaries, as well as across parties (while keeping the institutional responsibilities of the Loyal Opposition to oppose and critique). We saw them defer to experts in epidemiology and other sciences. We did not see politics change afterwards. The usual self-serving platitudes and assurances have stopped giving way to presentations by people who know.
I had expressed hope that this would herald the death of the political campaigns and pledges based on ideology, or saying whatever will attract votes. We are accustomed to watching newly elected governments announce that they hadn’t realized how bad the books really were; cut back on expenses because they don’t meet the political “base’s” values; or increase expenses for the same reasons. We are accustomed to politicians not really knowing what they are talking about. They must be tutored by civil servants about what really can and cannot be done.
Of course we musn’t let politicians avoid the responsibilities of government decisions by only deferring to their staffs and experts. We must expect them to learn quickly, especially those who begin office with deep understanding of their responsibilities through careers in relevant fields. We want politicians to initiate long range planning, and long-running projects to continue in governments of the future, regardless of party.
We want individual politicians to bring to government their own, individual knowledge as well as their support for the platforms of the party and the government. We want them to examine party and government with discerning eye, critique what is being offered by others in all parties, including the leaders. We cannot afford their following the leader blindly in this age of growing authoritarianism. We want office-holders, both appointed and elected, to have demonstrated personal, career, and community-service accomplishments.
We want the parliamentary question periods and debates to be genuine, not scripted bafflegab written to keep them “on message.” We want parliamentary committees to do work worthy of the sum of their abilities, rather than be charade exercises quoting scripts written by the prime ministerial staff. We want an end to omnibus bills, too large to be comprehended. We want legislation to be passed only if it has merit, not simply because there are enough votes. (In those times, a minority federal government tried to get a small number {because of the pandemic} parliamentarians to vote on some bills without seeing them at all).
We saw that it is possible to have inspiring, nimble, almost a-partisan, government and politics. There is no reason to return to what had been normal.
I don’t think we learned these lessons from COVID.
We have learned to meet at distance more easily, and that has made possible many organizations whose members are very far apart, to meet more regularly and inexpensively.
But COVID has done some lasting damage (this is discussed so much in popular press that I won’t bother to cite sources.) There is a decline in physically personal contact; a decreased desire to socialize in person; an actual preference to related remotely, if at all. School grades are declining rapidly in some countries.
The increased use of electronic communication, together with malevolent social media, has made for less civilized behaviour both on-line and in person. Our young people are having difficulty realizing that conduct in the physical world can have permanent and horrible result in contrast to what they do virtually. The rise of AI along with these, has confused many, and is often thought to reduce or eliminate peoples’ ability and willingness to think for themselves.
Perhaps transactions are easier than principled behaviour, because anchoring values are difficult to find, or defend, or advance; transactions require no such forethought or steadfastness of character. It’s easier to do one deal at a time than take a stand.
But the lessons from COVID are still there. They can be learned. The solutions are obvious, although how to implement them perhaps not so obvious. It will take intention and will. I’m sure we can make the needed changes. I will continue to speak publicly to advocate these changes in public political forums. I hope my readers will, also.
I am sure that thoughts like these have occurred to everybody. I think we should say aloud at every possible opportunity, what we don’t want to lose; what we want changed; and what we want to keep among the many changes we experience now. Let us remember, preserve, and perpetuate the good things.
1 Below is a copy of my letter to some local politicians, showing how insufficient income supports were for welfare and disability supports during and after COVID, and my recommendation to improve matters:
I hope the following information will convince you that the current benefits should be raised absolutely by 30%, and annual adjustments for inflation hereafter added.
I had suggested earlier that the developing economic situation in Ontario will put more strain on food banks – more need, fewer people to donate and volunteer. As of now unemployment is at 700,000, up to 7.9%.
ODSP and inflation
ODSP rates (basic maximum amount, i.e., single person, no special problems)
2004 to 2018 annual increases were basically 1.5%
There were no increases between 2018 -2021.
But in 2019 the CPI (Ontario has basically the same CPI as Canada) increased by
1.9% and food costs at grocers 3.4%;
In 2020 CPI 0.7%, food 2.4%;
2021 CPI 3.4%, food 2.2%
2022 CPI 6.8% food 9.8%; ODSP increased by only 5%
2023 CPI 3.9% food 7.8%; ODSP by 6.5%
2024 2.4%, food 2.2%; ODSP by 3.5%
2025 CPI increased 1.7% by July; food 3.4% increase by July; ODSP 2.8%
You can see that ODSP has been significantly and cumulatively short of the changes in real costs of food, except 2024.
Everyone knows what’s been happening with rents, so I need not elaborate on that nor on utilities.
By the end of 2021 food costs had increased a total of 8%; in 2022 another 9.8%. The first ODSP increase since 2018 now was only 5% — less than 1/3 of the total increases in food.
In 2023 another 7.8%, with ODSP only 6.5%. leaving recipients even farther behind.
2024, another 2.2%, but ODSP 3.5%, better, but not nearly enough to make up for the failures of the previous years.
2025 rate increased more than CPI far but less than food.
I suggest that Region propose a 30% increase in the current benefits, plus annual increases to cover actual CPI inflation going forward. Because rates are set after the actual inflation, there remains the likelihood that further adjustments will be needed – actual benefits will always lag cost increases.
It is often said that the ODSP program is designed to keep disabled people poor, and deliberately make them feel badly about themselves. My frequent discussions with ODSP clients affirm this interpretation, although there are many other aspects of the program which factor into this understanding. I don’t suggest that this statement be part of the presentation to Region, but I think it is something to keep in mind when getting motivated for a presentation.
Upon reconsidering... 