Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2021

The Current Transcript for March 31, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

MAN: This regime, this junta, this military has shown that it has no limits on its level of brutality and its willingness to commit mass murder against its own people. These are people that it should be defending, and it's turned on them, and it's killing them.

MATT GALLOWAY: In 30 minutes, the future of democracy, if there is one, in that country. As a third wave of COVID takes hold, though, a simple question. When can you give someone a hug? Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. And this is "The Current".

[Music: Theme]

Experts answer your questions about COVID-19 vaccines

Guests: Lisa Barrett, Gerald Evans

MATT GALLOWAY: About five-million Canadians have now received the COVID-19 vaccine, and chances are you're either one of them or, you know someone who is. That good news, though, has also brought questions and confusion. Is it now OK to give someone a hug? To visit indoors? Do you still need to wear a mask? We have two experts here with answers to some of those questions, and others. Dr. Lisa Barrett is a clinician-scientist with expertise in infectious disease and immunology at Dalhousie University in Halifax. And Dr. Gerald Evans is an infectious disease specialist at Queen's University in Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Good morning to you both.

BOTH: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans, I want to ask you first about AstraZeneca and Canada's decision to suspend use of the AstraZeneca vaccine for those under the age of 55. Is there scientific evidence to justify that move?

GERALD EVANS: Well, there's definitely some evidence to support the idea that there is a rare adverse event that's been associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. The rate of that occurring is somewhere between about one in 100,000 to maybe as high as one in a million. But the key there is that when they were looking at data from Denmark, from Germany and from some other European jurisdictions, it seemed to occur mostly in young people. And actually, more commonly in women than in men. And it produces these rare clots. It's related to something that Dr. Barrett and I [chuckling] would both be familiar with, something called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, which is basically an anticoagulant that can actually cause problems with the development of more clots. So, yeah, there's some good science, or at least I should say there's some good evidence emerging epidemiologically that there is an association which may be causal between the AstraZeneca vaccine and these clots. But I'd really emphasize that it's an extremely rare event. And right now, at least, it seems to occur mostly in young people. So I think a certain bit of caution, at least while we're waiting to collect more evidence to figure out whether we can fine-tune whatever recommendations might be made about AstraZeneca, is still in the works.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Barrett, let me ask you, and I'll use Dr. Evans' phrase, they're extremely rare, perhaps as high as one in a million. We're in the midst of a third wave. Cases are spiking. The risk, many people say, is relatively low compared to the risks of what happens if you catch COVID. And Health Canada says there have been no cases of these rare blood clots associated with this vaccine in this country. So was suspending the use of this vaccine for people under the age of 55 the right call?

LISA BARRETT: I would say absolutely, and here's why. Number one, the retrospective scope of looking backwards at whether or not Canada has seen an event is a little bit flawed. You have to, with very, very rare events, administer this vaccine, as we've noted, to tens of millions of people before you're going to see this signal. And we haven't done that yet in Canada. So with very rare events and the rates we used AstraZeneca or AstraZeneca-like vaccine in Canada, we wouldn't necessarily have seen them anyway. And we're not magic. So chances are we would actually if this is related, the investigation's ongoing. If this is related, we would see them in Canada. And then number two, I think the other thing to remember is that one, we do have other vaccines to help us to continue with vaccination that do not have this association, at least in question. And also, we've got a great big toolbox, that if we choose to use it, can help to prevent and mitigate new cases of COVID-19. This is not an all-vax AstraZeneca response or not for getting us past this third wave question. But I don't want to see vaccines being used as a reason to not do the other public health things we need to be doing in a third wave. And so that's why I think this was the right call. When there's question and safety questions, you figure it out.

MATT GALLOWAY: Can you help me just briefly understand? I mean, another million and a half doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine arrived yesterday. British Columbia has opened up vaccination appointments to people between the ages of 55 and 65. So if it's not safe for under 55, how can it be OK for people over 55, Dr. Barrett?

LISA BARRETT: Right. So, again, it's not that it's unsafe for people under 55. As you've pointed out, it is very, very rare. However, it does seem that the events that have happened in other places have been all under people who are under 55. Can you ever make that one distinction [chuckle] that there will absolutely never be one of those one in a million cases in people who are 55 and a half? Absolutely not. That's not the way medicine works, unfortunately, nor biology. However, it is a risk mitigation plan. And, you know, I feel pretty comfortable going forward with the 55-plus plan. And can you reassure people that it would never happen or there would never be any kind of blood clot or side effect? No, but the risk certainly in people who are older and at more risk of negative impact of covid, if they are to get it, is certainly very much greater in the older age group. So it's a combination of reasons to continue in people greater than 55.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans, what happens... and this is a question that we've received a lot, what happens if you've already got one dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine and you're waiting for your second dose? Should you take that second dose? Should you be looking for, I mean, we haven't really gone into the science of whether it's... it's all right to start mixing and matching different vaccines. But you can imagine people would be wondering whether that is something that they should be considering?

GERALD EVANS: Yeah, I think if you've safely gotten the first dose of AstraZeneca, remember, too, that when this event has occurred in the reports that we have out of Europe, it's occurred usually before 20 days. So if you're 20 days beyond your first dose at this point, waiting for your second dose, absolutely you can take another dose of AstraZeneca because, you know, that would suggest strongly that whatever mechanism is at action here isn't isn't a point. It isn't going to sort of occur necessarily with the second dose. And as you point out, you know, there is a study ongoing now looking at mixing and matching AstraZeneca and Pfizer in the U.K., and they're busy collecting data, looking both at, you know, flipping around first and second doses with either of them and then comparing them to a control group that just get two doses of Pfizer. So, yeah, I have no qualms at all if somebody has safely gotten their first dose of AstraZeneca, go ahead and get your second dose.

MATT GALLOWAY: I guess the last question I would just have on this is, do you worry, Dr. Evans, that this latest change... and science evolves, and we learn things day by day, perhaps, you know, even faster than that. But do you worry that this latest change could undermine confidence in a vaccine that has already had certainly bad PR, if not a troubled start more broadly?

GERALD EVANS: Yeah, there's no question that it's going to play into the hands of people who have obviously a tilt towards being against vaccines in general. But I think it also kind of messes around with people's vaccine confidence, I'd say. And in other words, you know, they may be sitting here thinking, oh, I really want to get this vaccine. I think it's important. It's going to help me. I keep hearing that message but then having that little glimmer of of doubt that that may exist. So it's unfortunate that this has happened and particularly around one vaccine. But there is a potential, a sort of a rollover effect to some other vaccines. And hopefully, you know, we're talking about this this morning, and with my colleague, Dr Barrett, we can be, you know, really instil some confidence in people that, again, this has been seen in association, which we're still looking at, whether it's causal with the AstraZeneca vaccine, but the other vaccines that we have, we have not seen this signal pop up at all.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Barrett, we are in a third wave in many parts of the country. Yesterday, the head of the Centers for Disease Control in the United States described what she said was impending doom over a potential fourth wave in that country. Is your sense that public health officials here in Canada are doing enough to get vaccines into the arms of Canadians as quickly as possible?

LISA BARRETT: Well, I think they're... I think the impending doom is a challenging thing, and certainly a culturally different situation, number one, in the U.S., I hope, than in Canada. It makes me worried for them. But I do think it is a different situation in Canada. We have a reasonable supply of vaccine. And, of course, that comes federally and then goes to the provinces to decide how and when and where they send it out. Do I think that those groups are working very hard? I do. I think the... in particular, in Ontario, things have started to pick up very quickly, many other provinces, and including the Atlantic provinces. I do think that it's not just the rate that you send vaccine out that's important. I think it's engaging and partnering, more importantly, with community to figure out how people want the vaccine to get to them, not just the speed at this point, because that plays into how many people get the vaccine. And I do worry at points that we aren't exactly being community-centred enough in some areas and making sure that we're meeting the needs of certain communities who are most at risk. And so if there's one place I think we need to do better, it's not just to look at speed and numbers to put up on a political dashboard of how many doses are out, but also how well you're reaching the people who really need this with community partnership and engagement. So I think that's the one place across the country that we need to do a little better.

MATT GALLOWAY: You mean in terms of getting vaccines to people who would be most at risk, those perhaps working on the front lines, who may not have paid sick leave or who are in communities where there is significant community spread?

LISA BARRETT: Yeah. And also, maybe communities where for different reasons, vaccines and/or traditional health care may not be a core part of their day-to-day thinking, getting information out to people and engaging people in a way that brings them in to the COVID vaccine fold at least, and to getting some access to different health care when they need it would be a significant improvement, not just for COVID vaccines, in fact, but as we go forward in general. So... and people say that that's a difficult and time-consuming thing. I would disagree. I think you can engage people pretty quickly. We just have to stop asking them, telling them what we're going to do and asking them how we can help and telling them, here's... here's the... here's the opportunity, how would you like us to help you in doing it the way you want to do it?

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans, I mentioned earlier that many of us know somebody who has had at least one shot. Perhaps we're speaking with people who have had that shot already. What changes? If you have had one dose of the vaccine, what's different? Is it safe to give somebody a hug?

GERALD EVANS: It's a great question. It's probably one of the most common ones that we're getting asked as vaccine sort of rolls out into people. So we're getting some really good data that's starting to emerge now. And I think one of the one of the factors is it has to do with whether you're fully vaccinated, whether you're partially vaccinated, and whether the person that you're interacting with is also vaccinated or perhaps unvaccinated. And there was a paper released just yesterday looking at health care workers who have received a single dose of vaccine and comparing them to people who have been fully immunized with two doses in the U.S. And there is a significant reduction in what appears to be transmission of the virus in people who are vaccine recipients. And of course, we've already talked about in... in our past interactions with you that, you know, even a first dose offers a significant protective immunity, probably in excess of 80 to 85 per cent, even with that first shot. So the whole question about who you can interact with and who you can hug has a lot to do with. Are you both vaccinated? Is one partially vaccinated, somebody unvaccinated? Or, of course, if you've got two unvaccinated people, you're really where we are sitting right now. So... and, you know, some groups like the CDC in the U.S. has decided back on March 8th, they they issued a recommendation about what people who are fully vaccinated can do when they're interacting. So it's... it's not a it's not a complex question, but it's a question that has a bit of a complex answer because it has to do with the individuals that are involved and what they're doing. And right now, I would say that I kind of line up with what the CDC has said. If you have two fully-vaccinated individuals or a group of individuals who are all fully-vaccinated, then mingling with each other without masks on and requiring physical distancing is not an unreasonable thing because we've got some pretty good data now that the vaccine also prevents transmission.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so if one person has been given one dose and you're meeting somebody who hasn't been given any doses at all, your advice to them is what?

GERALD EVANS: Well, I think you need to keep on mask and distancing, especially if you're out in public because that unvaccinated person continues to have risk both for acquisition. And, of course, if they get infected, there's a risk for severe disease, especially when we're dealing with variants. And we know that B 1.1.7, the variant that came out of the U.K., is associated with... With more virulence. It's more deadly and produces more severe disease. So in that kind of circumstance, I think one has to be a bit careful. If you're meeting outside, you know, where, you know, the transmission events are incredibly low, particularly with masks on, maybe that's an opportunity to very briefly hug because we know time of exposure is important. But certainly, when you're indoors dealing with that sort of situation, I would recommend still some caution and some use of... of measures.

MATT GALLOWAY: Indoors is top of mind for so many people. Dr. Barrett, take a listen to this question from a listener.

JUDY: Hi, my name is Judy. And one of my questions is I've had my first dose of the vaccine, and I have friends that have also had their first dose. And I wondered if we could gather together inside now?

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Barrett.

LISA BARRETT: Yeah, again, it's one of those situations where I would echo what Dr. Evans just said. This is what I would call a risk assessment plan. And we do this every day in our daily lives. We... we look at something, and we decide whether or not to do it based on several different risk factors. Indoors, tougher. People who have one dose may have some protection. However, you also have to weigh the fact of the vulnerability of the people you're meeting with. And truly, getting together versus getting together very close together, mask off for extended periods of time are two different risk strata. So at this point, [sigh] gee, it's really difficult. And I think the other the other thing we have to be careful of at this point of being too quick to get together is that we're going to put a lot of pressure on people to reveal their vaccination status as well. And we had to be careful that we don't turn this into a stigmatizing situation for people and their... their community groups. So honestly, at this stage, is it the riskiest thing if you all have one dose of vaccine to get together inside? Probably not. Do you have choices to go outside? If so, do that. And if you have to stay inside, some masks and/or limiting time of get-togethers is a reasonable mitigation of risk. You can see I'm not basing too much on one dose of vaccine, even though there may be some protection. Let's go with a little bit of prudence while we're looking at B 1.1.7 hanging around until we get to the end of this. A little more prudence, a little longer.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans, this question comes from Mike Klein, who cares for his mother in a long-term care home.

MIKE KLEIN: My 92-year-old mother and I have both been fully vaccinated. She lives in a long-term care home, and I am considered a primary caregiver. How much contact should I have with her in order to keep us and those around us who have not been vaccinated safe?

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans?

GERALD EVANS: Yeah, that's... that's almost a perfect scenario. In all honesty, I think interactions between, you know, that person and their mother are... can be quite liberal, if I might say it, using the small-l liberal word. And... and, you know, I don't think that there's substantial risk. We know that double doses in an elderly individual certainly offer virtually 100 per cent protective immunity from severe disease, both of them. Again, I go back to the data that's just emerged out of some of the studies looking at transmission. That transmission is very unlikely to occur. And even if infection occurs in a fully-vaccinated person, there's another study that's just released that shows that the viral loads in those individuals are so low that they're very unlikely to go on them and transmit it to someone else, even if that other person, not his mother, obviously, in the scenario, was not vaccinated. So I think there's a lot of leeway when both individuals like this are fully vaccinated. And I would say that I don't see based on data that we have now. And again, it's emerging, but it's emerging all in one direction, that it's unlikely that Mike is going to then go on and transmit it should he, incidentally, pick it up through some exposure out in the community.

MATT GALLOWAY: We just have a couple of minutes left. So I want to squeeze in as many questions as I can. Dr. Barrett, one of the reasons why these questions are coming up is because of Canada's decision to extend the length of time between the first and second shot for as long as four months. Was that the right call, do you think?

LISA BARRETT: So I think... I think in a context where vaccine supply is limited and you want to get first doses out to people with a more transmittable virus hanging around, I think that makes good sense. I think if you get first doses in as quickly as possible into as many arms as possible. I really hope we're not going to keep people at that extended dosing interval without a lot more data. I'm hoping that we're going to come backwards to the evidence of around three months or less. As we go forward, if we have supply. So the answer, I think it's not a bad call to get four doses into arms. But if and when we get the opportunity from a supply perspective to bring that backwards closer to manufacture and databased recommendations, I think we should. And I think Canada, if we're doing these sorts of changes, should be investing in making sure we do the work around immunity and the studies that would support any of these changes. I think that's an important part of this. It's not superfluous. People should be offered the opportunity if they have extended dosing interval to be involved in studies.

MATT GALLOWAY: So just in the last minute or so that we have, very briefly, I'll ask you both. There's a lot of concern in the country right now. And aside from where you are in Atlantic Canada, not a lot of optimism. Dr. Barrett, where do you see optimism, briefly?

LISA BARRETT: Well, Atlantic Canada. [Matt laughs] And I say that. I say that not not with a smile, honestly. I really feel for folks. I see optimism in getting vaccines out to people. I see optimism too, though, in... and this is not data or science, but I see a lot of optimism in people actually taking all these changes, assimilating them, not seeing them as hopefully just random changes, but watching the evolution and being databased themselves, accepting that this is going to change. And I think Canadians can and are doing that. And I think that's optimistic.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Evans, very briefly, where do you see optimism?

GERALD EVANS: Yeah, it's got to be up there, but it's all related to getting vaccine into people. Getting people protected, that's going to allow people this gradual, gradual emergence out of what we're seeing now. And that's what people want to do. They want to get back into some personal contact. And if you're fully vaccinated or even partially vaccinated, to some extent, that's going to be very helpful. So that the optimism.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's great to have you both here. And we'll do this again, I'm sure. Thank you both.

BOTH: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Lisa Barrett, clinician-scientist, expert in infectious disease and immunology at Dalhousie University. And Dr. Gerald Evans, infectious disease specialist at Queen's University. This is "The Current".

Calls for global action on bloodshed in Myanmar

Guests: Tom Andrews, Maung Zarni

MATT GALLOWAY: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. And you're listening to "The Current".

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: Still to come, British Columbia has bucked the trend and kept its businesses open for the most part. Until now, new COVID restrictions are in place. And the premier is singling out youth and urging them to pay better attention. But first, what can the world do about an army accused of murdering its own citizens?

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: Myanmar has been wracked by violence since a military coup in February. Now that violence has taken a new and more ominous turn. The military is carrying out air raids against civilians. Some have tried to flee across the border to Thailand, but the government there has pushed them back. And the bloodshed they are trying to escape escalated during the weekend.

[lots of bangs and chatter]

MATT GALLOWAY: Those are sounds from the streets as the military opened fire on protesters near Yangon. More than 100 people were killed, bringing the death toll since the coup started to over 500. Tom Andrews is the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. Tom Andrews, good morning.

TOM ANDREWS: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Your role as special rapporteur means that you are the fact-finder for the U.N. in Myanmar. What is happening in that country now?

TOM ANDREWS: Well, Matt, it's just getting worse and worse by the day. We had another 15 people, at least, killed yesterday. We now know that over 500 are dead. At least 30 of them are children. We expect that death toll to rise because several people yesterday were severely injured. We don't expect them to survive their injuries. So things are bad. They're getting worse.

MATT GALLOWAY: After the killing of more than 100 people by the military on the weekend, you issued a statement that ended with a plea. These are your words: "The people of Myanmar need the world's support. Words are not enough. It is past time for robust, co-ordinated action." What action do you want to see now?

TOM ANDREWS: Well, the Security Council is meeting this morning in New York, and they have Myanmar on the agenda. The ideal situation would be for them to act, to establish tough, strong, co-ordinated sanctions, cut the revenue and the... and all the weapons flowing into Myanmar right now. Cut revenue that's an access to revenue from businesses that are doing business in Myanmar and the businesses in Myanmar and their conglomerates. And then refer the case to the International Criminal Court, start immediately with investigations and prosecutions of what I think is just increasingly clear that these are crimes against humanity being committed. All those things can happen either through the actions of the UN security Council when they meet today. Short of that, countries could gather together, co-ordinate their efforts together and work as a co-ordinated whole of countries who are willing to stand up for the people of Myanmar.

MATT GALLOWAY: If you believe that crimes against humanity are being committed and this is happening in real time, in front of our eyes, why hasn't there been more significant action already from the international community?

TOM ANDREWS: Matt, I don't know. I don't know. I think that the case for strong, co-ordinated action could not be more clear, could not be more compelling. You know, we've heard words of condemnation. In fact, just the other day, the secretary general said that what is what is needed now is, in his words, a firm, unified, resolute international response. That is exactly right. But we have yet to see that firm, resolute international response.

MATT GALLOWAY: Sorry, help me understand that. You say you don't know. But I mean, this is... you've said that these are crimes against humanity. Why is it that the international community would not take more decisive action?

TOM ANDREWS: Again, I don't know. What I do know is that increasingly the international community is responding, they're taking steps. Just the other day, the U.S. stopped adhering to a trade pact established in 2013. A few days before that, they established sanctions on not just individuals in the military, but their military businesses and their conglomerates. There are steps being taken in the right direction, but they're not co-ordinated steps. They're not linked. We have over 40 different varieties of sanctions, for example. We need to co-ordinate them, connect them. Now, we've had a call from the ASEAN countries, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, with Indonesia in the lead, saying we need an emergency summit to address this crisis. I think that's a great opportunity for countries to gather together with the neighbours of Myanmar and establish this very firm, clear, co-ordinated sanctions regime. It hasn't happened yet, but we're pushing as hard as we can for this kind of action to be taken to.

MATT GALLOWAY: The UN security Council is touted as a powerful body that can take action in these types of crises. But we know from past experience that some of the key players at that table, specifically Russia and China, often will not take action. Is it possible for the Security Council to overcome these impasses?

TOM ANDREWS: Well, it is, Matt, but they have to try in order to overcome them. And I would... and I would like, and I know leaders of the civil disobedience movement and representatives of the elected leadership in Myanmar are calling for action. Now, of course, you put your finger on it. We always face the prospect of a veto from China or Russia, or both. And that has delayed or actually stopped attempts at votes in the Security Council. I think what should happen, frankly, is that there should be a very clear measure put on the floor of the Security Council, let everyone stand up and be counted one way or another. That's their job. And if anyone wants to veto or vote against it, OK, that's their right. But then we know who they are, we know why they've taken that action, and then we can then, the rest of the world who wants to stand with the people of Myanmar, can move on and do that. I think that the problem here is... is that the fact that there could be resistance has become an excuse for inaction.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so in that... in the face of that inaction and facing the prospect of a veto, how relevant is the Security Council?

TOM ANDREWS: Well, in this case, not very. They're getting briefings. They're making statements. They have yet to even condemn the coup. They've condemned the violence, but not the coup. So they are increasingly irrelevant when it comes to taking concrete, specific action that I think is necessary.

MATT GALLOWAY: That's a pretty damning statement from the UN special rapporteur.

TOM ANDREWS: Well, I'll tell you, the inaction is damning. It is extraordinarily frustrating to be communicating with people on the ground every day, hearing their frustration, their anger, their fear. I mean, this is a reign of terror going on here. We have these marauding troops now going through neighbourhoods, destroying property and then shooting randomly into people's homes. I mean, people in their homes, some sleeping. A young boy was killed literally in his father's arms. This is terror that's going on. Point blank-range killings that we've seen into the into the crowds. But now the random killings and the terrorism that's being inflicted on these neighbourhoods. This is horrible, horrible, Matt. And... and my job is to report, my job is to recommend. So I'm reporting things are horrible, they're getting worse, and my recommendation is to take action.

MATT GALLOWAY: You have a long history with countries that have undergone upheaval, countries like Cambodia and Serbia, Ukraine and Yemen. Are there parallels that you have seen in past that would offer some sort of road map to how to deal with what you are describing in Myanmar?

TOM ANDREWS: I think that from all of my experience, the key is it's focus and tenacity, starting on the ground. I think, clearly, the way this is going to ultimately be resolved for the good is in the hands of the Myanmar people, and they are showing extraordinary courage, creativity and tenacity. [chuckling] I just learned this morning that they've had to shut down the lottery. They can't run the lottery because people are boycotting it. We've had 120 of your colleagues in television and radio, state television and radio in Myanmar, have been dismissed because they've turned and joined the civil disobedience movement. It's extraordinary what's going on on the ground. But what is necessary is for those courageous people to be able to look to the international community not for a miracle but for support. And that is what they've yet to receive. And I think in these other cases, there has been, to one degree or another, engagement from the international community and support from the international community. But in all cases, it's really, really up to the people who are on the ground and fighting for their future.

MATT GALLOWAY: You mentioned that the United States has stopped trade with Myanmar. Ultimately, is resolving this crisis and stopping the bloodshed is that going to fall more broadly on the shoulders of the United States?

TOM ANDREWS: I think the United States can play a critically important role, a co-ordination role. Of course, there are those in Myanmar that would like nothing better than to see the 82nd Airborne parachuting into Myanmar to save the day. That is... that is not going to happen. But what can happen is that the U.S., with its capacity for leadership, its connectivity to nations around the world, as well as its economic capacity, is really in a very important position to... to move forward. So we're encouraging the Biden administration to... to move quickly. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, their East Asia subcommittee, last week. The administration on that day announced a new set of sanctions on businesses. And what we're hoping is that the administration will step forward now and co-ordinate, play a leadership role in co-ordinating the efforts of countries who are willing to step up and put pressure on the regime.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just finally, before I let you go, in the days following the coup, I spoke with activists and journalists in Myanmar who in some ways predicted this, said that history has shown that the military leaders will crack down and crack down hard. What are you most concerned about? Given what you have seen and what you described, not just over the weekend but in the last 24 hours, what are you most concerned about?

TOM ANDREWS: About a bloodbath, Matt. I think this could get more and more horrible as the days go on. I think that this... this military junta has demonstrated that there's... there's no limit to its brutality. These are the same... the person leading the entire country right now was in charge of the forces engaged in the mass atrocity crimes against the Rohingya ethnic minority in 2017. This very person is now running the country. So what I fear most of all is a continued assault on the people of Myanmar and an increase, perhaps even a dramatic increase in the number of people who are injured or killed.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tom Andrews, it's good to speak with you. Thank you.

TOM ANDREWS: Thank you, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tom Andrews is UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. He was in Washington, DC. While the world watches, it is the people of Myanmar who continue to suffer. Maung Zarni is a Burmese activist who now lives in the U.K. He's also one of the founders of Forces of Renewal Southeast Asia. It's a group advocating for democracy in the region. Maung Zarni, hello to you.

MAUNG ZARNI: Hello, back to you. Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you make of what you've just heard about the UN's involvement or lack thereof in the situation unfolding in Myanmar?

MAUNG ZARNI: Well, the Burmese public opinion is... is such that we are sick of hearing the word of Security Council because we have seen Security Council fail and fail again, and it is failing now. You know, this is the body that has failed in every single world crisis of any significance. And not just in Burma, but Palestine, Yemen, Syria, in this case, in case of China and Russia, are the two evil or bad guys because they have proven themselves to be very reliable protector of the Burmese genocidal regime. But China itself is a... is a genocidal criminal state, according to U.S. State Department report on Uhigurs. And so, you know, we have a situation to look at the geopolitics broadly. The Security Council that is set up to essentially maintain peace and stability around the world. It's failing because, you know, veto powers are not discharging their responsibility responsibly.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let me ask you about the situation in Myanmar. I mean, the country has been under military rule before, but what is making what you're seeing right now... what's different about this moment?

MAUNG ZARNI: Well, because the National Armed Forces has morphed into, for all intents and practical purposes, nothing but an armed terrorist group. I mean, that's not, you know, a hyperbole. You know, That came straight from the Strategic Advisory Council on Myanmar, made up of two former very reputable UN fact-finders heading the UN fact-finding mission that found Myanmar to have committed genocide against Rohingya. And also from Tom Andrews' predecessor, the South Korean Professor Young-Hee Lee. They just released this statement three days ago after the military went on a killing spree, killing over a 140 people on the day that was to commemorate the anti-fascist resistance during the Second World War. And so we have a situation where, you know, the national army was behaving no different from ISIS or Daesh or Boko Haram. And here we've we've got, you know, on TikTok, the Chinese platform, soldiers, you know, openly saying we're going to rape your daughters, or we're going to use this weapon. Look at this weapon. We're going to shoot you in the head at night. So this sense of like, you know, impunity by the troops, not even concealing their identities and saying... and Tom's right, you know, the troops are marooning. It's like, you know what... you know, this is the situation on the ground. That is what distinguishes this military regime from previous waves of other coups launched by their predecessor. We have a terrorist regime.

MATT GALLOWAY: Would you expect in the face of everything that has been documented by Tom and elsewhere, and what you've been describing, would you expect the citizens who have been out protesting the coup to back down if the threat of further military action is waved over their heads?

MAUNG ZARNI: No, I don't. I told BBC almost two months ago, in the early days of the protest, I think like we have a radically different society. If we have a radically different regime. The society that matches in its resolve not to be put back under the boot and be terrorized into submission. You know, this is going on for two... I mean, two months. It's still the, you know, basically headline news. I mean, this is unprecedented. We have a societal revolution, society-wide, nation-wide opposition against what they see as the existential threat. And, you know, on the 26th of February at the United Nations General Assembly, I mean, extraordinarily, the Burmese ambassador, you know, sitting ambassador, refusing to take the orders from the new regime, and calling the regime the existential threat. And so, you know that we have a situation where the military staged a coup, terrorise the people, but they have been denied a functioning state because 90 per cent of the state bureaucracy have been brought to a grinding halt by civil servants. And we've got a new generation that is so creative in opposing this regime in the most peaceful and disciplined way. So every single day, like, you know, the regime focus on killing people in one city, two cities and 40 other cities are protesting today as well. I mean, the regime brought in a CNN team using its Israeli the Canadian lobby based in Montreal. And so today the people are protesting. And the military cut electricity supplies and issued a statement to the security troops, don't kill too much, in effect.

MATT GALLOWAY: You've said that China needs to be persuaded that it's not in that country's national interest to back the military regime in Myanmar. Who is going to do that convincing?

MAUNG ZARNI: Well, I think that the Chinese will have to be, you know, persuaded themselves because, you know, we... the 40... I mean, you don't want to be the enemy of 45-million people right next door, where you have major economic interests such as 800-kilometre long natural gas and pipeline. The public is seething with rage at China because China is financing and arming, and enabling the the regime that is terrorizing the country. And so the public openly talk about blowing up Chinese pipeline. You know, that's a major alternative energy security route for the Chinese, that fear, conflict in the South China Sea might blockade their regular flow of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states through the Straits of Malacca. So that is one major item that China should be concerned about. There are 59 pumping stations along the 800-kilometre long twin pipeline, and you've got 54-million people that are seething with rage. And you know how much security that this Burmese regime could provide to protect the... the pipeline. And there are also other interests as well. So it's extremely unwise and unstrategic for the Chinese communist leadership to alienate 54-million to try to keep the terrorist regime on its side to protect its economic interests. I think only the Burmese people can protect the Chinese economic and other interests, not an extremely unpopular gang of terrorists in generals uniform.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just we have a couple of minutes left. The United States, and we were talking about this with... with Tom. The State Department in the U.S. put out a release yesterday saying that they condemn the widespread violations by Burma's security forces in the strongest terms. What's the role of the United States in helping to end this?

MAUNG ZARNI: Well, the U.S. role is extremely critical. And the problem is, you know, in... in human rights situation, so even in genocidal situations, you know, the great powers do not intervene on grounds of human rights, unless like human rights, protection of human rights coalesce or are in sync with their own core strategic interest and the protection of those interests. And so I think, like once the U.S. or any other powers feels that its interests are at stake, then we will see the situation where military intervention is possible.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you think that that's likely?

MAUNG ZARNI: At this point, not yet. We don't know. We have a situation where, you know, in the middle of Southeast Asia, one of the largest country is... is... is on the brink of a unprecedented level of civil war and mass violence. You know, we've got about 15 different armed ethnic organizations gearing to fight, and declaring their intention... intention to get involved and protect the people. We've got hundreds of hundreds of young protesters who realize that in the face of a terroristic regime, that non-violence is not going to get them very far. So they are undergoing military training. You don't want another Syria right in the middle of Southeast Asia. This is everyone's interest to prevent Burma from descending further into a serious civil war that will have spill-over crisis with refugee flows and whatnot.

MATT GALLOWAY: Maung Zarni, it's good to speak with you about this. And we will keep an eye on what is unfolding in Myanmar. Thank you very much.

MAUNG ZARNI: Thank you, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Maung Zarni is a Burmese activist, founder as well of the Forces of Renewal Southeast Asia, a group that advocates for democracy in that region. You're listening to "The Current" on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. On this program, we have been continuing to explore Canada's road ahead. For the past few months, I have been travelling virtually, alas, across this country, speaking with people about how the pandemic is affecting them and where they are finding hope for the future. Tomorrow on the program, we head north to the Northwest Territories, and we speak with elder Margaret Lishman about why it is important, particularly in that community, for elders to age in place.

MARGARET LISHMAN: Aging in place mean that if you're... if you're in a community, your own community, you should be there from... till you go, till you leave this world. And that you be taken care of in a really good way because I really believe that elders need to be honoured and respected. [beginning to cry] Before a residential school came into our area, the elders were kept at home till... till the goal. And every... The whole community used to take care of our elders, you know? And after residential schools, that... That practice, that way of life, stopped. Now, they usually send them to larger centres where they have units for... for elders. And because of loneliness and not familiar with the place, they don't usually last very long. And... and now, I'm really stressing and very serious about communities to have units built for their elders, even two or three units that could be built in the communities where we could help our elders be active, and we use them as teachers till the goal.

MATT GALLOWAY: You can hear more from the elder Margaret Lishman in Kakisa when "Canada's Road Ahead" takes us to the Northwest Territories. That is tomorrow on "The Current". Coming up after your regional update,.

WOMAN: For us, that means we're going from about 90 seats to 19. And we'll be laying off about 90 per cent of our staff.

MATT GALLOWAY: BC businesses are bracing for the impact of new COVID restrictions as that province sees exponential growth in cases. We'll talk about the young people who are facing some of the blame and how they're feeling about that. And that's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

And young people object to blame for sharp rise in B.C. COVID-19 cases

Guests: Justin Kulik, Caroline Colijn

MATT GALLOWAY: Hi. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to "The Current". For a while, British Columbia businesses have been the envy of the rest of Canada. They've been allowed to stay open for the most part, but no longer. A three-week circuit breaker lockdown is shutting down indoor dining and fitness classes after a steady climb in COVID cases in that province. And speaking of steady climbs, don't expect anyone to get on a ski lift anytime soon. Whistler Blackcomb Ski Resort is temporarily closed, which is tough news for the locals like Max Buhler. He runs snowboarding tours and a hostel on the mountain.

MAX BUHLER: The latest order has really come out of the blue and impacted me very severely. I've been generally catering to the 18 to 30 year old demographic from Ontario and Quebec that are out here for the season. With the mountain being closed, they're pretty much going to be leaving town in the next little while. So I'm back pretty much out of business again and waiting for the vaccines.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia's provincial health officer, said that new variants are driving the latest case counts, but the premier of BC, John Horgan, also had this message.

JOHN HORGAN: The cohort from 20 to 39 are not paying as much attention to these broadcasts, and quite frankly, are putting the rest of us in a challenging situation. I'm asking. I'm appealing to young people to curtail your social activity. The directions will be quite clear from Dr. Henry. But my appeal to you is do not blow this for the rest of us.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do not blow this for the rest of us. As you can imagine, that message isn't being received particularly well by some young people. Justin Kulik is a student at the University of British Columbia. He also ran for the NDP twice before his 20th birthday. Justin, good morning.

JUSTIN KULIK: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Don't blow it for the rest of us. [chuckling] What did you think of that coming from your premier?

JUSTIN KULIK: I was disappointed to hear it. I mean, young people are the people who are keeping the province running day-to-day. We... we are the grocery store workers, we're the retail workers, we're the delivery drivers. And to hear this rhetoric coming from the premier is, quite frankly, insulting.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tell me more about that. You wrote a tweet directly to the premier in which you said young people are on the front lines. We are struggling. How dare you. Tell me more about... about, you know, what that message means to young people in the face of, as you say, their work on the front lines?

JUSTIN KULIK: What it means is, in my mind, I feel as though the government is looking for... for somebody to blame here. And young people seem to be that... that scapegoat. And that just seems unacceptable in my eyes and in the eyes of many of my peers. So, yeah, it's just... just an unfortunate situation to have... to have public health orders not being followed and not being enforced by any age group. But to have that just blamed on a generation is unfortunate for all of us.

MATT GALLOWAY: What has your generation, do you think, given up? I mean, you take a look at this time we've all sacrificed. We've all gone through something pretty calamitous over the last year. But what have you and your friends given up over the last year?

JUSTIN KULIK: Right. Well, my generation has been particularly hit hard by job losses. In our education. Our mental health has taken a huge toll. Not... not to say that other generations haven't, but of course, the... the job losses, especially. The hit on our mental health has been particularly hard.

MATT GALLOWAY: And is your sense that that has been recognized by those who are leading the province, whether it's politically or in the public health realm?

JUSTIN KULIK: I don't think so. My kind of perspective is that the government should be trying to help 20 to 39 year olds, just just as we did for seniors. When when cases were surging among... mong an older demographic, we... we stepped in to say, OK, how can we help? What what are the circumstances that are leading to this? We're not seeing that with younger people. Instead, we're just seeing blame.

MATT GALLOWAY: We heard earlier from Max Bieler, who runs the snowboarding tours and the hostel up on Whistler Mountain. I want to play another clip from him. Take a listen.

MAX BUHLER: I live in a part of town that's got lots of young people living in it. And the reality is that they're... they really in my neighbourhood and even in my hostel, they really haven't changed their behaviour much. They're not wearing their masks very often. They're still partying. There's a house across the street from me that has a big party at least every month. You know, they tape up the windows so that the cops don't see it.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you make of that, Justin? And how do you respond to people like Max who say that they don't see 20 and 30-somethings, you know, changing their behaviour in the face of this pandemic?

JUSTIN KULIK: You see people of all age demographics not change their behaviour, and it's an unfortunate reality that we're in. If we look at these anti-mask rallies that are.... that are popping up, primarily, those are people of older demographics. If we look at people working in retail situations, those are primarily younger people who are dealing with a number of people coming in and not wearing their masks. If you ask these people working on the front lines, they'll tell you it's not the 20 and 30-year-olds who aren't wearing their masks.

MATT GALLOWAY: The nature of this pandemic is that it keeps changing. So the third wave is different. And Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer, has said that increasingly it's young people that are being hospitalized. And we're seeing this not just in British Columbia but across the country. What's wrong with asking those young people to be more vigilant?

JUSTIN KULIK: There's a difference between asking people to be more vigilant and saying don't blow it for the rest of us. I totally agree that... that everybody needs to be more vigilant. And in these times, we're seeing cases rising across all age demographics in BC. Not just young people, but every age demographic above. So.. so to hear this this blame focussed on one generation who's taking the same share of the pie, so to speak, as we have throughout the last 12 months, it doesn't make sense to hear this now.

MATT GALLOWAY: What would you like to see happen now?

JUSTIN KULIK: Now, I'd like to see an apology come from the premier. As of... as of now, myself and our second youngest candidate and in the last BC election are both calling for that. And we're we're seeing rising numbers of... growing numbers of folks in the province calling... calling for this apology. It's only right.

MATT GALLOWAY: Well, what would you say to him? I mean, you ran for his party as an NDP candidate. So what would you say directly to John Horgan?

JUSTIN KULIK: I say that this rhetoric isn't helpful. At best, it's going to lead to no change. At worst, it's going to lead to more people saying, all right, this province doesn't care about me. Why should I care about the rules anyways?

MATT GALLOWAY: Justin, it's good to speak with you. Take care of yourself.

JUSTIN KULIK: My pleasure. Great to be here.

MATT GALLOWAY: Justin Kulik is a student at the University of British Columbia, and he ran twice for the NDP before his 20th birthday. The rising case counts from British Columbia were not a surprise to my next guest. Caroline Colijn is the Canada 150 Research Chair in Mathematics for Evolution, Infection and Public Health at Simon Fraser University. Good morning to you.

CAROLINE COLIJN: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: You were one of the people who were predicting this surge of cases. How did you know that what you're seeing now was coming?

CAROLINE COLIJN: Well, we projected forward. And, of course, you can never really predict, but you can look at the data you have, and you can run it forward in time with models and say what does it look like? And what we did was looked at the transmission rate of the B 1.1.7 variant, which is higher than the transmission rate of the COVID we had before. We were kind of flat with the covid we had before. So if something had a higher transmission rate and we were sitting at R as one, we would likely see R bigger than one. [chuckling] That means we would see exponential growth of something that started out really small as it arrived in Canada and in BC. And then would grow. But, you know, with a constant doubling time, it eventually gets big and overwhelms. You know, the numbers rise faster than the regular COVID. And so that's what we projected out. And based on the numbers that we had in January, we saw a steep rise at the end of March, which is unfortunately what we're seeing. We didn't stop B 1.1.7, the variant, from arriving in Canada and from establishing. And now we're seeing faster transmission than we had with the COVID before.

MATT GALLOWAY: You heard the premier, John Horgan, shovelling the blame towards young people, saying change your behaviour and don't blow it for the rest of us. What is the role of young people in driving transmission in British Columbia?

CAROLINE COLIJN: So, you know, I guess they've seen more cases or more rises in the 20 to 39 age group. But as we heard, you know, that's an age group that goes to work and goes to work in high-contact and higher risk of exposure jobs. There is, of course, also household transmission. And there are social... you know, there are some social activities that have been going on. But I think there has always been this kind of tendency to blame the young. We did it last summer, too, when there were cases in the young. And, of course, they spill over into older age groups because of age groups aren't islands. And, you know, that could also just be where you know, where contact is happening because of work and because of household structure. And, at random, you know, where B 1.1.7 was introduced originally from people who travel, you know, for work. So... so I think there are a lot of factors. I don't think it's necessarily because people changed their behaviour. Because we know this this variant has a substantially higher transmission rate. That means it can just get to more of your contacts, more of anyones' contact. And that's, you know, that's where the modelling results came from. And that's how Dr. Bonnie Henry mentioned the variant cases. Unfortunately, I don't think we need to look at changes in behaviour in order to explain this. We could be doing exactly the same things, all the age groups, exactly the same measures, following them exactly as perfectly as we were in January and February. And this is what we would be seeing.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so in the face of those rising case counts, and the variants taking hold, this new circuit breaker was announced on Monday. It's going to run for about three weeks. What do you make? Is that going to be enough to deal with these new variants, and... and turn the heat down, if I can put it that way?

CAROLINE COLIJN: I think when we ask, you know, is something enough? We always have to think enough for what? You know, is it soon enough? Is it enough to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed today? Yep, probably that's enough right now. Whether B 1.1.7 will continue to rise despite these restrictions, I would have to guess, you know, probably or at least maybe because it is higher transmission. So the changes that we're used to making that are... that have been enough might not be enough anymore. Was it enough to, you know, stop B 1.1.7 in its tracks? No, I think in three weeks, you know, as we saw before, we had restrictions introduced in November that had a two week time frame and those really were never relaxed since November. And that's just because in three weeks, you know, we won't be vaccinating the whole population. We won't have eliminated COPVID-19, the B 1.1.7 or the regular... the regular strain, you know, down to tiny numbers so that we can manage it differently. Those things won't have changed. The weather will be warmer. And I think it's good we can focus on those outdoor gatherings. So I think it'll stop some transmission chains. That's right, there will be some circuits broken, but nothing fundamentally will change in three weeks, I don't think.

MATT GALLOWAY: There are questions being asked as to why now and why not earlier? Dr. Bonnie Henry defended the decision to wait to bring in these new restrictions. Take a listen to part of her interview with my colleague, Stephen Quinn, on CBC Vancouver's "The Early Edition".

BONNIE HENRY: You know, we got through to most of this very long winter being able to keep that in the balance where we're not overwhelming our our public health system, where we had hospitalizations going down, where we were able to understand the role that the variants were playing. But we always knew that it was a tenuous balance, and... and that this could happen.

MATT GALLOWAY: Caroline Colijn, did BC get the tenuous balance right?

CAROLINE COLIJN: You know, we've I think throughout the west, not just in BC or in Canada, but throughout so many western jurisdictions, policymakers have tried to hit a middle ground where we have, you know, we go some way towards reducing COVID, but we... we try to mitigate and we try to, you know, sort of minimize COVID deaths. But without, you know, going all out against... against the pandemic the way some jurisdictions have, like New Zealand and Taiwan and others. Anbd I think it's because of a kind of linear thinking where we think we can kind of go halfway and have half the benefit. But actually, it's more like, you know, if you... if you gave someone half of two different drug treatments, but neither of them got the dose that actually worked. So you paid for the same amount of medication, but you treated someone kind of halfway with a and halfway with b because you couldn't decide, and you had advocates for a and advocates foir b, and you thought, OK, what I'll do is I'll do half a and half b, and I'll get in between the advantages of a and b. But here, it's not like that. If you go sort of in between and you mitigate what we've ended up with across the west is this on-and-off, very widespread blunt instrument of lockdown's, which is very damaging. We haven't gotten half the benefits of completely, you know, controlling COVID very effectively. And so we don't have half of the benefits of... of a fully-open economy. And I think, you know, that that's kind of a fallacy in a way of just linear thinking and of a dichotomy between the economy and COVID.

MATT GALLOWAY: Is it understandable that that dichotomy would be played out, though? I mean, you can imagine it's been a long, hard winter. And the people who, you know, have been running those restaurants, and you hear them. Now that they're going to be shut down in British Columbia, elsewhere, they've been shut down perhaps for months. They're worried about... it's an existential issue for them as well.

CAROLINE COLIJN: Yeah, absolutely. And I think... I think that's right. And, you know, we see it time and time again. I don't think it's surprising. I think it's really tragic that... that we didn't, you know, take actions last summer to say, OK, we had 11 cases a day. Let's... let's figure out how we're going to get out of this. Or maybe again in December when we were advocating for this Canadian Shield idea where we took, you know, six weeks, and we really nailed it. And then moved forward with vaccination and rapid testing. So, you know, I see I see where the tension is coming from, but I don't... and I totally understand there's a tension between a and b, but it doesn't mean that doing halfway will actually get you a result that is half the advantages.

MATT GALLOWAY: There are also questions --

CAROLINE COLIJN: So I think it's kind of pervasive.

MATT GALLOWAY: I was going to say, there are also questions as to whether we knew enough in December or January about these variants? And this is something that Dr Henry addressed. The concern that controlling the spread of the variants may have been something that we learned more about as time passed on. Take a listen again to what she was saying with Stephen Quinn.

BONNIE HENRY: I think the other thing that's really important is in January, we didn't know the impact that these variants we're going to have. We didn't know how many were in the province already. We were setting up our surveillance. So I was very concerned because we didn't yet know. We didn't have insight into how many cases were happening. We know that a lot better now. We're screening all of them. And that is another one of the things that we've seen very recently start to increase.

MATT GALLOWAY: Did we know enough about these new variants in January for BC perhaps, and other regions, to justify bringing in stronger measures?

CAROLINE COLIJN: Well, I think we knew enough in January to justify making huge efforts across the country to stop various from arriving and establishing themselves in Canada. We knew from the U.K. very strong data that the transmission rate would be higher. We didn't know the severity would be higher at that time, I don't think. But we did know the transmission rate would be 40 to 80 per cent higher from really good data. I think it's interesting, Michael Mina has pointed out that one of the things that all these western jurisdictions have in common is really being, you know, responses led by doctors who have waited until they really know something in their own local data before acting. And I think, you know, whether we should have had severe, severe shutdowns throughout from January to March, that personally, that wouldn't have been my choice because of variance. But whether we should have taken them seriously based on data we had in the U.K., that... that's something I think we should have been considering even before we knew for sure that they were here, established here, having damages here. I think we knew enough to know that higher transmission and exponential growth of cases of a new type of COVID, almost a new pandemic, is something that we wanted to avoid. You know, we missed it a year ago with the first pandemic we did.... we didn't know, I think, enough that we should have been worried about variants, especially B 1.1.7 because of its high transmission rate.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just in the last minute that we have, BC got a lot of praise early on for its handling of the pandemic. And now, Bonnie Henry is facing a lot of criticism. People are concerned, and they have been for some time around, for example, the lack of a mask mandate in schools. And they're wondering whether we've just been talking about this weather action perhaps was taken too late, and whether this action will do what it is necessary to do. What would other jurisdictions do you think be wise to take from the experience in British Columbia?

CAROLINE COLIJN: I think BC has also done some really proactive things that are... that are fantastic and I hope will have a huge benefit here. One of them is the focus on outdoor gatherings. I think that's great. Another one that I think is incredibly important is the idea of vaccinating the high-contact, high-risk, essential workers earlier on. And we found in modelling and lots of models that show this, the CDC is recommending it as well, that preventing transmission with vaccines is a huge tool. And as we have scarce vaccines it's even more important to use that tool. So you can sort of think of it like this, if you're 60, let's say, and what's better than a vaccine in seven weeks time? One thing that's a lot better than that is the vaccine in nine weeks time, but only a quarter of the exposure in the intervening nine weeks because those vaccines have been used strategically to prevent huge numbers of, you know, prevent long transmission chains and prevent you from being exposed. So I think that's something BC has looked into. They're doing this. And I think it's incredibly important. It will be effective. It's Probably not going to be, you know, change the variant situation in the next three weeks. But I think it will be a huge tool in the fight against COVID. And I think that's something that's been... has shown strong leadership here in BC. That and the dosing strategy is something BC has taken the lead on. And I think those those are great tools. And I hope that other jurisdictions will pick them up.

MATT GALLOWAY: I'm really glad to have had the chance to speak with you about this this morning. Caroline, thank you.

CAROLINE COLIJN: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Caroline Colijn is Canada 150 Research Chair in Mathematics for Evolution, Infection and Public Health. She's at Simon Fraser University.

[Music: Folk]

MATT GALLOWAY: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio one, my name is Matt Galloway. Yesterday, we dedicated the entire show to the state of Canadian real estate. We heard from people moving into the city, out of the city. And about the pain of losing bidding wars, and of being renoviocted. We also asked to hear from you, and yes, indeed, you came through. It's almost like housing is a hot topic in this country. The Current's senior producer Karin Marley is here to dig into the mailbag. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning, Matt. Yeah, real estate and the weather, except gets a lot hotter in real estate. [both laughing].

MATT GALLOWAY: At least now, yes.

KARIN MARLEY: Yes. So our first letter comes from the South Okanogan in BC, where real estate has boomed in the last year. Even Durance says we see the unfortunate effects of people from Vancouver and other large urban centres wanting to live in smaller places, but coming with huge bucks from selling their city homes. This has increased the price of homes and rural properties enormously, pretty much cutting out local young people from the market. The other very unpleasant effect is that most such big city transplants have little, if any, idea how to live in areas cheek by jowl with wild lands and wild animals. They want the rural small city life without changing anything in the way they live or relate to the place. A better solution would be for them to look at ways to make big city life more liveable, and avoid ruining the outlying areas for people who have lived there for years without the big city stuff.

MATT GALLOWAY: Aha! We also heard from a single mom in Montreal's Rosemont neighbourhood. She'd been looking to move for a few years, finally decided to buy after the pandemic hit last year. And she wrote the rental apartment I was in with my young son had a hole in the ceiling for months from a water leak. The front and back balconies were literally disintegrating beneath my feet. The back door didn't close properly, and there were very questionable electrics. I was not financially ready to buy, but I felt I had little choice. After being outbid left, right and centre, I was finally able to buy. But the house has a great many more issues than I expected, which means I need to think about moving away sooner than I expected. I honestly worry. Will I be able to afford something else? Will I lose money on this place? I recognize my privilege and good fortune that I own a place. But the housing market is a serious stress.

KARIN MARLEY: Evie Hornback tweets just feeling my anxiety rise while listening to "The Current" interview with a house hunter in Halifax saying you have to get in because the market is just getting hotter and it won't get better. This is exactly as defeated as I feel. And another listener from Nova Scotia tweets, I'm 32 and living with my folks. Thought that I got a good job. But after student loans, car payments, insurance and all those other bills, I'm left with a little over 800 dollars a month. I think I might be able to afford someone's toolshed.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dwight Fiedler writes that he has had a hard time finding a house that he can afford to buy in rural Ontario. Prices have soared. I've saved up for a down payment, but I can't offer on a house firm/unconditional. I need the financing condition as I'm a first-time homebuyer. But nothing is even remotely affordable in one of the most affordable areas, Athens/Toledo, Ontario. Even houses that are not liveable are going for more than 300,000 dollars. I would like to own a house someday, and at mid-life before I saved up the down payment. So I'm stuck renting a hovel I can't even live in during the hottest days of summer.

KARIN MARLEY: Kevin Simoner has an eight-month-old, and says his family was priced out of BC. Kevin writes, we were sold-evicted out of our rented house in Shawnigan Lake, BC. I was working as a schoolteacher in Victoria, and my wife was working for the provincial government as a councillor until taking maternity leave. We realized even with our seemingly respectable middle-class jobs, we could not afford a place that provided adequate space for us and our new baby in Victoria. I am currently pursuing job prospects in Nova Scotia, encouraged by the thought of a more affordable housing market. We were unable to qualify for a mortgage because my wife's income was not considered on our joint income earnings because she's on mat leave. Your episode this morning on my first full day of quarantine in Halifax was very timely. I appreciated that you acknowledged and addressed some of the challenges we are currently facing.

MATT GALLOWAY: This is one of the issues of our times. And clearly, you thought that what we did yesterday resonated with those times. Thank you for all of your letters. We read everything that you send us. And some of those letters actually end up on the air. Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MATT GALLOWAY: Karin Marley, senior producer of "The Current". The email address to reach us is: thecurrent, all one word, at cbc.ca And that is "The Current" for this Wednesday. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's "q". Conversation with the great Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta, whose newest project nominated for nine Canadian Screen Awards this week. It is "Funny Boy", film adaptation of the great novel by the Canadian author Shyam Selvadurai. You can stream the film on CBC Gem, and you'll hear all about it coming up in just a few moments. Back to your stories about real estate. Maybe you're thinking of moving to the suburbs. Maybe you already live there. This song by The Arcade Fire is for you. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to "The Current". We'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Music: "The Suburbs" by The Arcade Fire]

March 31, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode