While politicians regain control of the COVID-19 narrative, a void...

Like a lot of people, I'm confused by the apparent lack of a roadmap for COVID-19 recovery in society. Newspapers float a lot of ideas, but it's increasingly hard to tell which have serious intent behind them and which are just the napkin scribblings of career jockeys that find the notion of recovering through methodical, nose-to-the-grind diligence and hard work increasingly boring and tedious.

At first I perceived this to be an issue with our leaders and a lack of planning or vision. After all, most leaders simply look at what other people are doing and copy it within their own fiefdom. And there's no-one to copy in this situation. But, lately, I'm becoming convinced that this recent void is intentional.

I think what we are seeing is a weeks-long transition from a strategy led by medical advice based on data, testing, and targets, focused solely on virus case management, to one that is led by politicians who are accountable for the longer-term health of the economy of which all other goods (including the healthcare system) depend.

I think it has become increasingly apparent that we can't afford to have the recovery led solely by medical advice. It seemed prudent at the beginning when there was so little information about how the virus would spread, but it's now emerging that their concerns are very solitary and, really, the models were overly pessimistic. This mirrors the public's own reaction - very cautious at the beginning, but increasingly relaxed as they see no or very little impact within their sphere and are emboldened by each inconsequential, tentative step outside The Village.

What we are doing in lockdown isn't "scientific". It's likely good advice, and the advice comes from scientists, but it's not science because it has never been tried before, there are too many variables, and there is a strong cultural component to outcomes. There's no "if you do X then Y will happen". It's a hypothesis that we can't afford to complete controlled tests on at the scale required. Scientists aren't elected, and they don't have to consider the broad variety of concerns that politicians do, yet politicians are the ones that will take fire when the results take too long to materialize.

So, I think what we may be seeing is a void while the deckchairs are reorganized and the politicians regain control of the narrative. I don't think it's a coincidence that we are seeing exposés in the international media of politicians that didn't follow their own advice. Months ago they'd have been expected to resign, but now they are defended. They're just like everyone else, wanting to get on with their lives. Soon, I think we'll start seeing things that go against the medical advice given out weeks ago. We can't afford to follow it. And hopefully people will forget what that advice was... and as long as new cases don't start to surge in any significant way, they will.

This is the way it should be.

Christchurch mosque shooting, Twitter, and unhealthy dialogue from all sides

I occasionally but not often veer onto someone's Twitter page in the same way that someone may accidentally take a wrong turn down a backcountry lane.

What exactly is the value of the Twitter platform? Even without "fake news" it does not seem to support healthy dialogue in any way, shape, or form. It might be a great way for a musician to announce a new album, an author to announce a new book, or a comedian to hone their efficiency, but what else?

Nuance is impossible on Twitter without dribbling it out in drips to subvert the format. I have no idea what most people hope to achieve other than vanity. I would not be surprised if the polarization on that platform contributes to violence and that many people leave it feeling angry and distressed without having learned anything of value or changed their perspective about any issue other than about the state of human nature, negatively.

What reminded me of this is the recent shoot-up of a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. A terrible situation, no doubt - and there is no excusing it.

But the very next morning while listening to the radio, I heard a host and his guest saying that if you're one of those people who question the rate of immigration in your country then you are contributing to such shoot-ups because you "let it take root" ("it" being the seed that gestates as a concern about the state of their country and ends up as a bullet implanted in plural sternums).

I assume the seedling is fed with some kind of anti-depressant or other recommended mind-altering medication along the way as it often turns out to be, but that is beside the point.

I have also heard Donald Trump blamed in relation to the type of rhetoric that seems to energize much of his political base.

But there's a big piece of the root cause missing, and its absence suggests that we've learned nothing about the "why" of things like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

I should preface this by saying that I see immigration as necessary. We need to maintain the skills we need in this country, and we need to sustain what we have built. Diversity in immigration would be appreciated - we do not want to import the biases of another culture wholesale into our own - but we have to go where the skills that we need are found and where people are willing to leave their homes to come to our own.

But when people have legitimate concerns about the direction that their country is going - the very thing we hope to expose to air and discuss in a healthy democracy - it's not right to try and shut them down with polarized political rhetoric, zings, histrionics, or other things that attempt to make them look stupid, dumb, racist, homophobic, or some other form of safe-to-ignore lifeform.

Dismissing someone concerned about the rate of immigration and therefore the changing nature of the culture and country that they grew up with and have so much affection for is as much a contributor to this type of violence as anything else, but it's not treated that way.

We are told by different sides that people don't kill people - guns kill people. Or that guns don't kill people - people kill people. As usual, the answer is in the middle and both are contributing factors to gun violence; but if you fall on the "guns kill people" side then why also try to shut down the genuine concerns and feeling of people about a country that we all have an interest in building? Do you really value diversity like you say you do? It seems not.

People do not wake up in the morning wanting to shoot up a mosque after having a great night out the night before. More than almost anything else, I wonder about the genuine trajectory that led to this point, and I wonder how much attempts to silence, belittle, and minimize a point of view played a part in this. I wonder if we'll ever find out. I wonder if that finding would be politically useful enough for us to find out.

The very people who tell us that it takes a village to raise a child, that we live in a global village, and that no man is an island, should know this better than anyone else.

Glad for a lack of "meaningful" Canada Pension Plan reform

Although, like most people, I don't understand why we need another federal election in Canada, I am glad that the Minister of Finance didn't give in to certain demands from the NDP -- their only realistic source of saving grace in this cycle -- such as an overly-unrealistic increase in Canada Pension Plan benefits.

I'm not opposed to restructuring the Canada Pension Plan, but I am opposed to increasing payouts from the plan in a way that pays out to a person that isn't commensurate with the amount that that person paid in.

In other words, if they want to say that you have to contribute an extra X dollars to the plan every year and that, as a result, you'll receive Y more dollars in benefit when you are retired, then I am OK with that. But I'm not OK with saying that you've paid in X dollars all your life and were told you'd be getting Y dollars when you retire, but now that you're close to retirement and haven't put enough money aside, we're going to give you more than Y dollars without requiring you to make any significant additional contribution to the CPP, seeing as you don't have many working years left. The missing part of this story, of course, is that people like me would be footing the bill for it.

As I understand it, if you're an immigrant to this country who arrives in mid-life, you are allowed to participate in the pension plan to the extent that you've contributed. You wouldn't, for example, receive the same pension upon retirement as someone who had been contributing for their entire working life.

Why should it be any different for a non-immigrant?