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 2020

The Current Transcript for April 22, 2020

Host: Matt Gallaway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

[fclip] " onerror="continue" />

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We didn't receive an alert of any type. We've had COVID-19 alerts. We've had Amber alerts. But there was no alert to warn people to be careful.

MATT GALLOWAY: In the wake of a shooting spree in Nova Scotia that has left at least 22 people dead over several hours. There are hard questions being asked about why people weren't warned more explicitly to stay indoors. The premier says an investigation will take place. In a moment, we'll look deeper into the RCMP response and that decision to warn people through social media. And later, our national affairs panel looks at the federal reaction to a national tragedy in the midst of a global pandemic. One of the most perplexing elements of this pandemic is the number of people who have COVID-19, but are showing no symptoms in 30 minutes. How these silent spreaders of the coronavirus prevent us from knowing how widespread this virus actually is. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

[Protestors chanting] Power to the Earth. Power to the Earth.

MG: It is Earth Day. And in the heart of this outbreak, how many people believe our response now could shape how we address climate change in the future? Plus, what is a 'covidiot'? Or a 'quarantini'? The new language of these strange and difficult times. But we start back in Nova Scotia and questions about why the alarm wasn't raised sooner. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Nova Scotia shooting

Guests: Debbie Atkinson, Christian Leuprecht

VOICE 1: Go ahead.

VOICE 2: So there's a structure fire. There's a person down there with a gun. They're still looking for him. The patient we have got shot by him. She was down there observing the fire, check out the fire. So there could be other patients around the fire that could be gone already, but [unintelligible] going on down there.

MG: That is new audio obtained by CBC; first responders on the scanner trying to piece together the horror and chaos, late Saturday night. We now know of at least 22 dead after a rampage that lasted more than 12 hours. Debbie Atkinson has questions about how residents in and around where the shooting took place were warned about what's going on. Debbie Atkinson is in Wentworth, Nova Scotia. Debbie, good morning.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Good morning.

MG: It's been a very difficult few days for people in your community. How are you doing?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: How we're coping. A lot of friends are calling each other and making sure everybody's coping. But everybody is pretty angry that we weren't warned. We got a phone call just around 10 o'clock that the suspect was in mass town and that he was driving a police car and my friend said call everybody you know. And that's how we got the morning system out in Wentworth. But he had already passed through Wentworth.

MG: Call everybody. You know, that's what you were told.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Yes, because there is so many people in our area, right in the Wentworth Valley that walk every day and they just wanted to one to let as many people to know as possible, not to be out walking, not to be driving.

MG: What did you do after you got that call? And I mean, that's an alarming thing to learn and a very difficult thing to try and process in the moment. What did you do in that moment?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: I started calling everybody that I had seen on a regular basis walking, friends. And I just said, just call anybody you can think of. If they get two calls, that's okay. And then I got hold of another guy and he had gotten the same message. So he was doing the exact same thing as I was.

MG: It's like a telephone tree.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Exactly.

MG: One of the people that was killed in the shooting was a friend of yours, Lillian Hyslop.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Yes, she was.

MG: I'm sorry. I'm sorry for your loss.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Thank you. I had actually, I knew that rillion walked every day. She was an avid walker just like us. And so I called up. I hit her mother in laws phone number, Carol Hayslop. So I called up Carol and I said, Carol, tell Lillian to stay home. There's somebody driving around impersonating a police officer, I said, so ask Lillian to stay home.

MG: And what was the response you got?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: She thanked me and said she would call her right away. And she called up Lillian's husband, Mike, who said that she was already out walking. So I believe that he went looking for her. And the police stopped him just around the corner from where he lived and asked what she was wearing.

MG: The emotions that people were feeling your community have to be so overwhelming and there's shock and there's grief. But you said you're angry as well. Tell me about that anger.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Well, the thing is, is that we had friends in Economy, just outside of Portapique. So we already had our boots on to go walking at 8:30 in the morning and we happened to see a Facebook post that Economy area was locked down. So we called up our friends down there to make sure that they were okay. And they didn't know a whole lot more than we did, just that there was some fires and maybe some shots fired in Portapique. When the police got there. If they would have realised how serious the situation was, that they did not have a suspect in custody. In the middle of the night, if this warning, the alert, would've when it would've woken everybody up and everybody would have been aware that there was a crisis going on in Nova Scotia and then they could have followed it after that on Facebook or like they said, if anybody had Twitter accounts. But just even from telephoning people and finding out what was going on, it should have been on the news as ongoing events were happening.

MG: The RCMP says that it used Twitter because that is a way that it has connected with people in the past through this COVID-19 outbreak and other matters as well. Are you on Twitter?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: We certainly are not. And actually, we've talked about that in the neighbourhood, and I don't know of anybody in our neighbourhood that's on Twitter. There might be some people in the city that are on Twitter, but. We don't have the best even Internet coverage in a lot of the rural communities, so at least with an Amber Alert, everybody is made aware of it. People could still be in bed and and a police car could pull up to your- this guy could have pulled up to your house on Hunter Road. You know, it was just after 8:00 in the morning by the time we got the alert. He had already passed and done his rampage through Wentworth.

MG: Do you think that if that, whether it's an emergency alert, an Amber Alert, something that would be more widespread than Twitter, if that were to be used or had it been used, do you think that that lives could've been saved?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: I'm sure a lot of lives could have been saved. Unfortunately, this guy had an agenda. Some people would have died. But I think that more people would've been prepared, more people would have stayed at home. Like in Lillian's case, I'm sure that she would not have been walking on the road at that time.

MG: And had you not received that phone call. I mean, you wonder what you would have been doing.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Well, we should have been out walking well in advance of that already. It was just that it was so windy that day and we had walked outside and said, well, let's just wait until it warms up a little bit. And then we turned on the computer and happened to see what was going on down in the Economy, Portapique area.

MG: How are you remembering Lillian in these days?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Lillian, was a, she was just like us, she moved in to Wentworth Valley to retire, to enjoy her retirement. She was in great shape. She walked every day. She volunteered in the community. Whenever you would meet her, you know, when you were doing a walk, it was always, oh, hi, Debbie. Hi, [unintelliglbe]. She always had a smile on her face. She's gonna be missed in the community.

MATT GALLOWAY: You talked of it at the beginning. How people are calling each other and just checking in on each other. I mean, we saw that in that moment where people were looking out for each other and saying, stay indoors and call everybody that you know. What are those calls now ,that you're getting, what do they mean to you in terms of that supports that you're getting in this moment?

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Everybody is just saying over and over, why weren't we notified? And everybody seems to have the same feelings. You know, it was almost like living through John Grisham murder novel and the guy had the perfect plot, you know, in a RCMP car. Everybody would think they were facing an RCMP car. And I really think when the police didn't have the suspect in custody, as had been the rampage that was going on in Portapique that we should have known. You know, we got an Amber Alert for COVID19. And I know when a bell went off I didn't know what it was and I ran to the phone to check. And if it was in the middle of the night, at least we would have been made aware that there was a situation going on that we should be careful.

MATT GALLOWAY: You've had a really difficult couple of days. I appreciate you talking to us this morning and take care of yourself.

DEBBIE ATKINSON: Thank you very much.

MG: Thanks, Debbie. Debbie Atkinson is in Wentworth, Nova Scotia. And as she mentioned, there are many questions about whether police did enough to warn the public of this gunman. For her part, here is RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.

SOUNDCLIP

In any incidents such as this, we always have to look back at what we did. Nobody can lose their life in vain. We have to ensure that whatever happened there, if there is always going to be a better way to do things. And so if we can take this and move forward and find a better way to to advise the public, but I have to say, in these incidents, they are so dynamic and they are so quick. And it was just over 12 hours that all of this took place and it was 15 different crime scenes. So you can imagine the dynamic nature of this.

MG: Details are still coming in about exactly what happened over those 12 or so hours. Christian Leuprecht is a professor at Royal Military College and the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. He's the author of a 2017 report detailing problems with the structure and governance of the RCMP. Christian Leuprecht, morning to you.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of it? Debbie Atkinson said she's heartbroken and filled with grief, but also and she says that this is a sentiment that's reflected in her friends and neighbours as well. Angry about how this unfolded and why they weren't warned more explicitly that this was unfolding.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: So I think the interesting question is to ask what happened between the first tweet at 10:30 and the next tweet at 7:00 a.m. And my guess is the RCMP simply didn't have a lot of information. They had a call about a possible gun incident. They would have been short-staffed on the ground at Saturday night. They might have had two people out in the Enfield detachment in separate cars. Those people respond. They're finding multiple crime scenes. One of them perhaps gets shot at. Both of them end up getting shot. The local district commander would be called in. The local incident, commander would be called in. They would need to gather resources likely from up the road in Truro. And they still have no information on what exactly is happening. They have a bunch of fires. They have several people who have been shot and they don't know where he is. And it appears that really until 7:00 a.m., there's not a lot of information. What's also curious is that the emergency response team, if you look at the footage, doesn't seem to be on the road until about sunrise. So that means we had at least seven and a half, possibly more hours between the initial call and the emergency response team coming out. And so I think they were short on the ground. It's not unusual for these detachments to be short staffed. These are small counties. There's not a lot of officers active there. And so they didn't have a whole lot of information to convey. And the people that they had on hand were simply tied up trying to effectively gather, do reconnaissance and figure out what is going on so they could provide proper advice to the public on what to do.

MG: But is Twitter the best way to communicate, even if you don't have all the answers, to Debbie's point, there was something going on. They didn't have anyone in custody. Is Twitter the best way to communicate that to to a rural population?

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: So that's a good question, because if you think about the inspector who would be the detachment commander would need to communicate up to Halifax. They would need to get the criminal operations officer who we've seen on television, Chief Superintendent David Leather out of bed. They would need to try to figure out what is going on, how to alert the public. So I think the standard modus was, well, we'll go on Twitter, as the RCMP often does, to inform people about incidents. But then the silence for hours after that suggests they simply didn't have domain awareness of what might be going on. And so the question is, why did they not have that domain awareness? And we know, for instance, from the situation in Monkton. Amongst and shootings in 2014 that there were critical mistakes made by incident command at the time. And so one of the questions that the RCMP will want to know is, was incident command handled the way it should have been? And are there possible improvements there or is there critical mistakes that were possibly made in the process, both in responding and in gathering the necessary consents to communicate, both with the sworn members as well as with the public.

MG: To the commissioner's point, I mean, this is a very dynamic situation, one of the elements of that complicates things, presumably, is the fact that the shooter was driving a car that looked an awful lot like an RCMP vehicle and, we're now learning, was actually wearing an RCMP uniform. What would that do in terms of, as I say, complicating the RCMP response?

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: Yes, we don't seem to get information on that. If you follow the Nova Scotia RCMP Twitter feed until sort of mid-morning, until about 9:00 a.m., it seems that the RCMP is probably not sure exactly what happened, but it would mean the initial response, the local population would likely be confused. I mean, clearly he was trying to - it seems from the reports that we have from some of the witnesses that he was trying to go up to people's houses and knock on their door. But if they didn't respond, then he would leave again, even though he could have blown open the lock, for instance, with one of his firearms. So it seems he was deliberately trying to prey on people with the uniform and try to get a reaction out of them. This might also explain why on the initial response and as one member was shot and killed, because perhaps there might have been confused by the uniform, even though they didn't necessarily recognise the individual.

MG: How would a civilian get a hold of an RCMP uniform?

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: Oh, it's relatively easy. Go down to your local military surplus store and just pick up your uniform. Now, members are supposed to destroy these when they leave the force, but there's no inventory system that I know of that actually ensures that people destroy their uniform. And so I think one of things they'll be looking at is should people be handing in their uniform, for instance, instead of relying on members themselves to destroy it. But yeah, I mean, if you look online, you go to your military surplus store, you'll be able to pick up your local uniform.

MG: I think people would probably be fairly alarmed by that. If they don't know that you could you [unintelligible] down to the surplus store, that it's that easy to get a hold of an RCMP and actually not a replica, but an actual RCMP uniform.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: Yes. And it seems that this individual, of course, specialised in trying to acquire authentic RCMP gear, everything from cars to Zodiac to- So he would have gone out of his way to likely get a uniform that was the real thing. And clearly had intended then to instrumentalize that uniform for the sake of impersonating a police officer and getting a reaction out of people and possibly, as you point out, having causing considerable confusion in the process for the RCMP themselves, trying to ascertain that their uniform is being impersonated in the course of a pursuit and it allowed them to probably do a lot more harm, given that some of the individuals on the road were likely duped by him donning the uniform as well.

MG: What is this tragedy tell you about the level of policing rural Canadians receive.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: That there are a significant number of RCMP members who die in rural communities. In 2017, the RCMP in Nova Scotia lost a member in [unintelligible]. These are challenging areas to police. In addition, we all know that the RCMP has institutional culture problems that then bring on recruitment problems, which mean that often attachments are left short staffed, especially on weekends. We know from our 2019 auditor general's report that the RCMP has had challenges with the rollout of the carbines, the C8s or the long, long guns that they would need to have in their vehicles. They've had challenges with the rollout in terms of the body armour for members. And so one of the things that the investigation will be looking at is, was the local member trained and equipped the way they should have been? We know in 2017, a New Brunswick provincial court found the RCMP guilty under, liable, under the Canada Labour Code, with the guards there shooting, shooting in Monkton. We know there's problems with regards to the maintenance of those rifles, with regards to recertification on the carbines. And even if you have the carbine, the member might have not signed them out because it's ultimately up to the member to decide whether they're going to say no to carbine for that evening when they go out on their shift or not. It requires extra paperwork. Some of the members say, you know, it's probably not gonna be necessary on a Saturday night. The worst and a half as a domestic dispute that I might have to deal with. So all of those I think will be part of the investigation. That's why Chief Superintendent said that this is going to be a very long investigation, trying to establish all those details and the timeline of what transpired.

MG: Christian, good to speak with you about this. There are a lot of questions still to be asked and questions coming from those who were directly affected by that. Debbie Atkinson. Thank you.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT: My pleasure.

MG: Christian Leuprecht, a professor at Royal Military College and the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. We did invite the commissioner of the RCMP, Brendi Lucki, to join us on the program. She was not available this morning. The CBC News is coming up. And then we'll be talking about tracking down silence spreaders, people who have COVID-19 but no symptoms. It's a real mystery. And not knowing how many of those sailors spreaders are out there leaves us vulnerable to not actually knowing how widespread COVID-19 actually is in our communities. We will talk more about that coming up. This is The Current. My name is Matt Galloway. To take us to the news, Anna Hebbs lives in Ottawa. She hails from Antigonish. And yesterday, in tribute to her home province, she played some fiddle and posted it up to the ultimate online Nova Scotia kitchen party. Have a listen. [sc] [Music] [/sc]

Back To Top »

Silent spreaders

Guests: Dr. William Schaffner, Dr. Isaac Bogoch

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, hashtag Corona's speak, a guide to the slang of this pandemic. But first, no fever, no coughing. And yet a big threat to public health.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Back in February, Craig Lee was on a cruise and it was there on that cruise that the retired teacher contracted the coronavirus.

SOUNDCLIP

I was on a 30 days quarantined in Japan. I arrived back in Canada on the 5th and I've been here for two weeks and I'm just fine. Never had any symptoms. My temperature was normal, my oxygen and my blood was fine. I exercised. I slept well, good appetite. And I've had no symptoms at all.

MG: None whatsoever. Craig Lee might have never known that he was infected. If it weren't for the fact that the cruise passengers all underwent testing. New evidence is suggesting that there may be more people than we realise who are asymptomatic, the so-called silent spreaders of the coronavirus. You'll recall perhaps that story of the captain of that U.S. Navy aircraft carrier. He was fired after urging more be done about the COVID-19 outbreak on his ship. Tests of nearly all the sailors on that vessel have now been done, and the results are fascinating. 60 percent of those who tested positive had thus far shown no symptoms whatsoever. A clue, perhaps, as to just how stealthily the virus can move. Dr. William Schaffner is a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, longtime advisor to the U.S. Centres for Disease Control. Doctor, good morning.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Good morning, Matt. Good to be with you.

MG: Great to have you. This is, as I say, a fascinating topic. What exactly do we mean by silence spread or silent transmission of something like coronavirus?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Well, exactly. As you were saying, not everyone who acquires the coronavirus gets sick. And they can be carriers, if you will, of the coronavirus, even though they have no symptoms whatsoever and can nonetheless be capable of spreading it to others who may then themselves become sick. So they are indeed silent spreaders in the community. It's a very clever way. This virus has developed for getting around and be so contagious.

MG: One of the reasons why people are talking about this, as I mentioned, is this story of the U.S. aircraft carrier where they tested all the sailors. 60 percent of them were with the virus were asymptomatic. Did that figure surprise you that 60 percent of the people who had COVID-19 would have no symptoms whatsoever?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: It's struck me as astounding. As a matter of fact, we anticipated that some, of course, would be without symptoms, but 60 percent. Now, let's pause for a moment, because this is a young, very healthy population and perhaps that's larger than it would be among people who have grey hair. But nonetheless, it's striking and it speaks to what may be happening in our community, in those young people who seem to be unaffected or relatively so by the coronavirus, they could actually be the disseminators throughout the community.

MG: Just to be clear, the fact that they are young and healthy and fit, that means that the virus would affect them in a different way.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Well, it's been a striking feature of the coronavirus that children and younger adults are much less affected. They're much less likely to become sick than older persons. And we thought for some reason the virus just ignored them or never was able to establish an infection. But what we're learning is that the infection does take place, but their immune system is sufficiently strong that it kind of keeps the virus in check and they don't get sick. But while they have the virus, they can give it to others.

MG: The aircraft carrier is one of those stories, again 60 percent asymptomatic there. Iceland has found something like 50 percent of those who are infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic. Now, Dr. Anthony Fauci in the United States says that between 25 and 50 percent of cases could be asymptomatic. Do we have any idea how many people could be silently carrying this virus?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Not yet. We have small indications with a little study here and there. But as we develop these antibody studies, those are studies of proteins in blood that can tell us whether we've been infected in the past. Those studies are going to be rolling out over the next couple of months and across the country. And that will give us a better idea of who's been infected but who's never had symptoms.

MG: We will see the modelling that comes out and you'll hear on a daily basis whether it's in individual states or cities or provinces here in Canada or right across the country. The number of cases this is, we have 500 cases today, we have a thousand cases today. Do we have based on that, do we have any idea how many cases of COVID-19 there are just across around the world.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: We know how many people are getting sick. That's been well established. Seriously sick enough to be admitted to the hospital. Those people are being counted well, and that's what we usually see in the figures. But people who have minimum symptoms or no symptoms, we don't know. You know, Matt, this is the reason that wearing masks is so important to protect ourselves, as well as to make sure that we who may have the infection and not know it, don't give it to someone else. And that's the very basis of the recommendation that everyone who goes out should be masked now.

MG: What do we know about how somebody who is asymptomatic, who has COVIE-19 but no symptoms? How do they spread the virus?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: They spread it through breathing because this is a virus that gets backed up in your throat and down into your bronchial tubes. And as you exhale, microscopically, the virus is in the air that we exhale. And if you're standing within three to six feet of me, inhaling, you may inhale some of what I've exhaled along with the virus. And thus I who was infected can inadvertently infect you,.

MG: Even if you're not coughing, even if you're not sneezing, just by breathing.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Just by breathing. Coughing and sneezing, those are symptoms obviously will project the virus an even longer distance and may bring up more virus. But even breathing is sufficient for the virus to get from me to you.

MG: And that's why you believe- we hear this idea that you wear a mask not to protect yourself, but to protect somebody else so that you don't unintentionally spread the virus to somebody else and then it continues to grow. That's why you believe the wearing of masks is so important.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Exactly. The mask protects principally. It restricts what's going out. It does a better job of doing that than what's coming in.

MG: If something good you said that this is a clever development. You have some degree of respect for this virus and the way that it's it's being able to be spread around by people who have no idea that they don't even have it.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: I have profound respect for this virus. As you can see, it's up ended the world's economy, not to mention all the people it's made morbidly ill.

MG: We now are trying to figure out a way out of the situation that we're in. There are governments around the world that are trying to game that out, trying to figure out how you take the steps to begin loosening the restrictions that we're all under. Does this, that we're talking about now, the numbers of people who may be asymptomatic, does that set us back in the fight?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: It's a great yellow caution light that we not open things up too quickly. And whilst we're doing that, you have to maintain the social distancing concept, the spatial separation between people as well as the masking and the good hand hygiene. If we open up a restaurant, we're going to have fewer people in the restaurant. That's the spatial. And our waitstaff may indeed be wearing masks.

MG: Tell me more about this. How do you see the great reopening unfolding?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: We have 50 states and the governors are in charge as well as the mayors of major cities. And it will be done in a very heterogeneous way. Just watching the television, you know that there are some governors that are champing at the bit and they want to get going and do it very rapidly. Others are being more cautious, fortunately. And I think we need to do this in a careful, staged fashion.

MG: And if you don't mean take a look at states like Georgia, which are essentially going to reopen for business in the next couple of days, you see the beaches already open in Florida. What does that do if people may not even know that they're infected?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Well, that provides the opportunity for more spread of the virus and the development of what we're calling a second wave, an increase in cases as a consequence of that, if we're not careful when we do that. And we're all nervous about Florida and Georgia.

MG: The kind of testing that is required is on an enormous scale, if you need to be able to figure out who has this virus and isn't showing symptoms. You could do that on an aircraft carrier because you have a contained population in some ways. Can you do that testing across the United States, across Canada, around the world in a way that's actually going to give you a portrait of how many people are truly infected?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: I think we can do that in an increasing fashion and we need to do that in an increasing fashion. As we all know in the United States, at least we've been stumbling along and haven't done that very effectively. Fortunately, we're making progress. In my own state of Tennessee. Our capacity for testing has advanced such that we are now open for testing anyone, and even if you don't have symptoms, can now come in and have a test.

MG: And is that what you need, you need to be able to essentially test everyone?

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: As many people as we like. I don't think we'll have to test all 330 million people in the U.S., but we do need to get a better idea of where this virus is and how penetrance it has become in the diverse populations in the U.S.

MG: Doctor, this is fascinating. It's great to talk to you about. Thank you.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Dr. William Schaffner is a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, longtime adviser to the Centres for Disease Control. He was in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Isaac Bogoch is an infectious diseases physician and scientist at the University of Toronto. He has been pushing for more testing in Ontario in particular. Doctor, good morning to you.

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Good morning.

MG: How concerned are you by these undetected cases of the so-called silent spreaders of COVID-19?

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: You know, I want to clarify a couple of quick points here. So, first of all, I am concerned. I think that it's extremely important to have an appreciation of people who have this infection, who are truly asymptomatic. But I want to just remind people of a few points. There's people who are asymptomatic, which is what you're describing here, which means you truly have zero symptoms. We know that there's something called pre-symptomatic, which means there are people who get this infection. They're starting to spread the virus for two or three days and then two or three days later, they develop symptoms of infection. So while they don't have symptoms, they're still transmitting the virus, but then they ultimately get symptoms. So that they could spread the virus to, you know, close contacts. And then there's another word, I think that is getting lost in the mix. And this is called a subclinical. These are people that have some symptoms. They're not truly, by definition, asymptomatic. They have some symptoms, but their symptoms aren't severe enough that they'll seek out medical attention. They're below the threshold of the health care system. Right. And I think it's extremely important to distinguish these three categories. But certainly we know that we don't know. We don't know what the proportion of truly asymptomatic people are. And, you know, the other question is, you know, what is the risk of an asymptomatic person spreading or transmitting this infection to others? We don't know what that is. But of course, even if even if they're less efficient at transmitting the infection to other people, even if it's less likely for an individual with no symptoms to transmit the infection from one person to another. If there's a sizable group of these individuals in the community, yes, that that of course could be one component that's driving this epidemic.

MG: How do you go about targeting those people in those different categories then? I mean, just to have a better sense to your point of the numbers, but also to help reduce the spread.

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Yes, I mean, really, I think there's there's gonna be several- it's gonna be a multi-pronged approach. And I completely agree that, you know, diagnostic testing is one extremely important tool. Now, of course, that in and of itself isn't going to answer all of the problems, but it's certainly going to help address it. And, you know, it's easy to say, okay, just test everybody. But of course, A, we don't have the resources to do that. And B, it's not entirely practical because we know that it's sort of like a strobe light effect. And whenever you test that, just one flash of the light in time and you really have to have a good sense of what's happening throughout time. So there might be strategies that we can do to conduct surveillance and perhaps even conduct surveillance in high risk areas, places like, for example, long term care facilities where we know that this virus can be extremely devastating and sort of prioritise those high risk areas for screening people that might not have symptoms first. I think the other thing we can do is, you know, really adhere to physical distancing measures as as much as possible. And, you know, that doesn't mean living under the exact same conditions we're living under now. I think it's still compatible with, you know, the slow opening up of of our society, when it's time to do so, you know, when it's appropriate to do so, but still maintain some physical distancing measures just to reduce the probability of transmission between people in the community setting. But like I think we should be clearer, if you're standing in line, you know, two meters apart at a pharmacy and and, you know, there's someone who's infected who two meters away from you and you still you keep your two meter distance and you practise good hand hygiene. So the likelihood of someone getting infected is, of course, nothing in medicine in life is 100 or 0 percent. It's really, really low. The real risk, the real risk is at home. That's the real risk. That's where you have, if you have someone who's pre symptomatic or asymptomatic, you've got a bunch of people living under one roof. I mean, that's a there's a lot of emerging data showing that the greatest risk is at home. And those are people who are most likely to get this infection. And I mean, it sounds counterintuitive and people might laugh, but, you know, you want to find the most high impact place to wear a mask. It's at home and it's all the time. And of course, no one's gonna be doing that.

MG: That's for the interest.

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Well, I mean, those are the people that are in the closest contact, sharing the most surfaces and in physical contact with each other. I mean, that's the most high yield place. That's it. And I'm saying it a little bit tongue in cheek because it's not really practical. But, if someone is confirmed to be infected, if someone has a confirmed infection, I would strongly recommend that that person wear a mask even while at home.

MG: Let me ask you a bit more about testing. And just in part because people are trying- it seems to be there are different strategies and different goals across the country in terms of how we want to test how many people we want to test. Glen Weyl is an economist, contributed to a new report at Harvard University called The Roadmap to Pandemic Resilience. It's about how to get out of this. Have a listen to what he says about the amount of testing that we need.

SOUNDCLIP

So it's both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. It appears that much of the transmission, if not most, occurs during the pre-symptomatic phase. And that means that we need to be catching people before they're showing symptoms. This means that we must be using testing. We cannot rely on people just coming in with symptoms. And that's going to require us to test something like one to 10 percent of the population every day. So in the United States, that's five to 20 million tests a day. In Canada, it's probably like 300,000 to 3 million tests a day, I guess.

MG: Isaac Bogoch, is that even possible?

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Probably not. Just being practical, it probably isn't. I mean, maybe we could- you know, first of all, I think we should take a step back and ask, is that accurate? And, you know, there's parts of those statements that I agree with and parts of that those statements I disagree with. You know, we definitely know there is a significant amount of transmission in the pre-symptomatic phase. We actually don't have a good understanding just yet about to what extent asymptomatic, truly asymptomatic, people are transmitting the virus. And I mean, to me, this is something that clearly needs to be addressed. This is an extremely important point. And it would help to know what the proportion of people are that are asymptomatic and understand the degree to which asymptomatic people can be transmitted. The other point, too, is yes, of course we need to expand diagnostic testing. Of course we do. But those kind of, just putting it bluntly, those sort of sound like back of the envelope calculation that might not be reflective of what the true number of diagnostic tests might be necessary in Canada and in the United States.

MG: Do you need to focus that testing to your point on the most vulnerable? And we're seeing what's happening right now, not just in Long-Term Care Homes, also in homeless shelters and refugee shelters. Is that where the testing really needs to be done?

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Absolutely. Absolutely. We can go where the money is, right. This is these are areas that are disproportionately affected by by COVID-19. These are places that are certainly contributing to a significant number of deaths and a number of cases. And if we were going to start somewhere, which we definitely should in our expansion of diagnostic testing and surveillance, go where the money is and that's where it is. I would focussed there for sure.

MG: Are we starting to speed up in terms of the results and how quickly we can get results? There is Spartan bioscience in Ottawa has this test that you take a throat swab and you can get results in an hour. Is that getting us closer to being able to do more tests?

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Yes, certainly steps in the right direction. Those are arrows pointing in the right direction. But also, I think that's more going to be more helpful for more remote communities and maybe some places that are just have a heavy burden of infection. And you're looking for additional tools to help to help with that. But I really think these big labs that can process a ton of tests day by day are going to be doing the heavy lifting here. And, you know, of course, we've heard about the saga in Ontario, but, you know, they they've gone through that backlog of tests. They've started to expand. They went from about 2600 tests per day. Now they're doing close to 10,000 tests per day. So clearly there's a growing capacity to do this in Ontario. We know that there's decent capacity elsewhere in Canada. Probably needs to expand, especially as we enter that next phase where, you know, the curve is flattened, the curve goes down and we're starting to open up the- starting to lift these public health restrictions. We're going to need rapid access, like rapid turnaround time and expanded access to diagnostic testing, because in that part of the game, in that part of the pandemic, you really need to rapidly identify positive cases and their close contact and place them in a 14 day period of isolation to prevent further transmission in the community. So diagnostic testing becomes an, it remains an extremely important pillar even in the next phases of the epidemic in Canada.

MG: Just in the last few seconds that we have, if we don't know how many people are pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic or subclinical, as you say. What does that do in terms of getting to that next phase of being able to open things up?

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Just slows everything down. You were going to see ongoing community transmission and it'll just slow down this process. So it'll be extremely helpful to identify these individuals and ensure that there is a 14 day period of isolation along with their close contacts so that we can, you know, keep heading in the right direction towards slowly opening up our communities again.

MG: Doctor, great to speak with you, as always. Thank you.

DR. ISAAC BOGOCH: Have a great day.

MG: Thank you. Dr. Isaac Bogoch is an infectious diseases specialist in Toronto. We have time just before the 90 second break to bring you a little bit of music. There is a video that's making the rounds online from Choeur Virtuel de l'Acadie. It is an online choir of Akkadian singers started to connect people in isolation. Before we get to that next phase that Isaac Bogoch was talking about. Whenever that is. Hopefully sooner rather than later. There are about 185 singers who joined the first performance. It is a beautiful thing. You have to see it. This is the choir singing classic. This is Partons la Mer est Belle.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Partons la Mer est Belle]

Back To Top »

Covidiots? Quarantinis? Linguist explains how COVID-19 has infected our language

Guest: Tony Thorne

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. It is being described as a tragedy upon tragedy. The shooting rampage in Nova Scotia is the deadliest in Canada's history. And it comes on top of a public health crisis, presenting new challenges for how a nation should mourn. Our national affairs panel is here to speak about all of that. Chris Hall is the CBC national affairs editor and host of The House on CBC Radio One. Susan Delacourt is national columnist for The Toronto Star. They're both in Ottawa. And Bill Black is a freelance columnist with the Halifax Chronicle Herald and he is in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Good morning to you all.

CHRIS HALL: Good morning.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Morning.

BILL BLACK: Good morning, Bill. Let's start with you. What are you hearing from people in your province as the reality of this Canadian tragedy sinks in?

BILL BLACK: Well, the problem is that the reality- we still don't have a clear picture. You know, every day we're getting new details. And somehow before you can decide exactly how you're going to react to this, you kind of want to know what the whole picture is. I mean, you know, it's awful and solemn, but I find people still trying to grapple well what really did happen in totality. So I think people are kind of suspending their reaction a little bit. I mean, everybody's upset and concerned that there's things that you kind of want to think through, and it's almost too early for that.

MG: One of the things we're hearing and we heard it this morning from a resident in Wentworth has a real sense of anger that is developing about why people weren't notified in a more direct way that the RCMP communicated through Twitter, but not through an Amber Alert, not through a national emergency system that would, you know, wake people up in the middle of the night from a buzzing phone. What do you make of that?

BILL BLACK: It's completely understandable. And I my sense of the RCMP response is they're not trying to defend what they did. The odd thing is, a week earlier, they had I don't know whether there were a test drive in the system or what, but they had done they used the Amber thing to remind us to like social distance and stuff like that, which we hear every day anyway, which is fine. But in a way, to my mind, that was an unfortunate use of the system because it was designed for this kind of situation rather than the other good work they're doing on telling us what to do about COVID. Anyway, I understand why people are upset and I think that will continue to be the case.

MG: Susan Delacourt, what's going through your mind as new details emerge, it seems, like hour by hour on the story?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I'm thinking about how it's just so, the timing of it and where it happened, it is sort of mind boggling. You know, we expect to see mass shootings in the United States, not in Canada. We expect to see them in urban areas, not in peaceful, rural, friendly Nova Scotia. And we certainly don't expect to see it in a time when people are told to stay safe at home. You know, the layers and layers upon which this is unexpected and tragic taking place when people are already feeling under threat, it truly is mind boggling. You know, if if this was happening in normal times, all of Canada would come to a halt and all of Canada's already in a halt.

MG: Chris, if you take a look at - this is a nation that has seen tragedy in past. This is at a scale, I think, that most people are not at all familiar with and to Susan's point, would never expect. What stands out about what's happening now?

CHRIS HALL: I think it's the randomness of this. I mean, I know there were some planned, he knew some of the people who were ultimately killed. But the distance he travelled, the fires that were set. People he apparently had no contact with. The sheer numbers of people who died. And perhaps you don't even have the full total yet. All of that is different, I think, than what we've used to seeing. I mean, Ecole Polytechnique is the thing that comes most readily to mind because young women were targeted and that was horrific. But the other kinds of mass shootings we've had haven't had the same feel to them of so much distance travelled so many people killed in so many different ways. And I think for me, that's what stands out the most, the way he dressed as a police officer, the use of the cruiser, a look alike cruiser, all these things, I think are a new level of horror that this country hasn't seen.

MG: One of the things that we've heard, Bill, from people in your province is how difficult this is, to Susan's point, at this time, that in normal times people would be able to get together and you could give somebody a hug, you could have a vigil where a community would come together and kind of grieve and mourn en mass. And that that in in some degree would help each other. This is being made even more difficult by these physical distancing measures. How are people coping with that in Nova Scotia?

BILL BLACK: Well, they do it as best they can with social media, you know, various kinds and including Zoom calls and stuff like that, but it's it's just not the same. It's not the same of being in the same room as somebody, and you're picking up various signals from their body language and stuff like that. And I think that is a really tough thing. If I can add something into what was being discussed a minute ago, one thing that's strange about this one and I know of no situation anywhere in the world like this in mass shooting departments, it's something that went on for that long and something where the person dressed up very credibly as a police officer. I just don't, I don't know of any story like that, which is part of the puzzle for people to react to.

MG: When I was speaking yesterday with the premier, we talked a little bit about trust and how in a small community you see, any community, you see somebody who looks to be dressed like a police officer knock on your door or the lights go out of the car, you pull over, you open the door. Do you worry about that trust being eroded in your province?

BILL BLACK: Oh, yes, we do. And, you know, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of little communities like Portapique, you know, where you have a few dozen houses and then you have a stretch of road and then you have a few dozen houses. And all along the shoreline and many places inland, you have communities like that. I mean, we're just outside of Lunenburg. We never lock the doors here. I mean why would you? And that just tore the whole sense- just- I don't know. It if shattered it. But it sure weakened it for a while.

MG: This is a national tragedy, Susan. And often when there will be a national tragedy, we would see the prime minister travelled to the affected communities and and console those in person. That's not likely to happen this time.

SUSAN DELACOURT: No, and that's probably a good thing. I think, you know, there was some discussion around this in the Humboldt tragedy when the old the poor hockey players were killed. And we saw the prime ministers show up for that funeral, but not go to the podium to linger around the back. Canadians, I think citizens in general have a dual sort of feeling about what the role of a politician is, in one way you want them to be the comforter in chiefs. But speaking more to the nation, and you certainly don't want them getting in the way on the ground. So in many ways, there's not much of a blessing in this whole situation. But the idea that the prime minister has to do this like all of us, virtually, is probably a good thing, I think. Politicians and authorities are enough in people's faces at the moment that I think this is the time for so many people there to grieve by themselves without the hovering presence of politics.

MG: Chris, what's the role of a politician in a moment like this?

CHRIS HALL: As Susan suggested, it's partly to provide comfort, to express what many people across this country, everyone across this country, would be feeling. But I think the other part of it is to to put the focus where it belongs. And that's on the people whose lives were taken. They were all contributed to their communities. In some cases, they were nurses and police officers. This is the tragedy of all of this, is that most of these people that seem to have an encounter were trying to do their job, trying to help others or responding to a call for help. And I think that's where the focus needs to be. Clearly, Matt, there's going to be a reckoning of some sort when this passes about why the system, this alert system wasn't used, whether the police were adequately informing the public, all of those things will come. But right now, I think the job of politicians, as much as they can, is to try to focus on the people whose lives were taken.

MG: And the premier's been asked about that already. I mean, we spoke about it yesterday on this program, but in his media conference yesterday, he was asked about that directly as well.

CHRIS HALL: Yes, it's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? We need you to request the premier said before we could put up an alert to police, didn't provide that. The RCMP has, as Bill has said, they're not denying or in any way trying to battle this image. It it is worth asking at some point why this hadn't happened, not not to point fingers of blame, but after every one of these incidents matters in my career as a journalist, there have been lessons learned and this will be no exception.

MG: The prime minister also - I'll ask you about this first, Chris - has vowed to move forward with new gun control legislation in the wake of this. Tell me a little bit about that and how he has to be cautious about bringing an issue like that forward in this time.

CHRIS HALL: Yeah, well, first of all, we don't know what kinds of firearms were used in this particular case where they were obtained or how they were obtained. The legislation, which apparently has been really written since late January, and if we hadn't had the pandemic, we'd be debating it right now is to ban the sale, ownership and acquiring of military assault style rifles. Then also, as once that prohibition is put in to find some way to compensate those people who already have them. And to your point about the timing, there's always a danger of looking opportunistic when something like this happens. We are in the middle of a pandemic and the house, to the extent that it is sitting, is to deal only with matters of COVID-19. So I don't think we'll see this bill introduced before May 25th when we're supposed to begin to return to normal at Parliament Hill. But it is obviously going to get a lot of attention, especially if we learn, or as we wait to find out what kinds of firearms were used in this particular case.

MG: Susan, again, we don't know what kind of firearms were used to Chris's point in this case, but is moving forward on something like gun control a difficult thing for the prime minister and his government to do?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, historically, it's been very difficult for liberals, even in Nova Scotia, where they in the 1990s, lost a bunch of seats were for doing this. My ears perked up when the prime minister came out on Monday and said that he asked the media to avoid using the name of the perpetrator in all of this. Somebody else who did that was New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern after the Christchurch shootings that that killed so many. And she also attracted some controversy for doing that. The prime minister is very close to New Zealand prime minister. The other thing she did, with rapid speed and gun control advocates talk about this a lot, was that she right after that within six months, had tougher gun control legislation, too. So, yes, you don't want to appear opportunistic. It is true, as Chris says, too. There was legislation in the works, but I would not be surprised to see the prime minister. I asked whether he had actually talked to the New Zealand prime minister in the wake of this. He hasn't yet, apparently. But it is not the first time he has relied on her for advice. And I think you might see that something like this is going to happen, again, when we're in more normal times. So we think we have to preface everything with that these days.

MG: I want to talk about the more normal times in a moment. Bill Black, what do you think people in Nova Scotia want to see from the federal government right now about this?

BILL BLACK: Well, first of all, I want to agree with the thought that it doesn't make sense for the prime minister to come for a visit. You can't gather a crowd. You can't hug people. I mean, you just can't do the things you would do if you were here in person. So what he could do or, you know, one of his ministers, what he could do is find ways to interact on social media, maybe via video calls or a so, with families of the people who were affected. I don't think from a government policy point of view that there's anything that the federal government can do. It may turn out that the weapons the fellow was using are ones that would not be banned under the proposed legislation. And if so, it's almost be better to have some distance between the event and that legislation being tabled, because otherwise people will pop and sit up and say, well, look, that wouldn't have helped in Nova Scotia. So while you're doing this.

MG: People want to be able to to mourn and grieve together. And that will happen once we are back to normal times. Chris, yesterday in his daily briefing, the prime minister said there are early signs that we're slowing the spread of the virus, but the social distancing measures have to remain in place. You have a sense as to when we might see federal direction as to when some of those measures could be lifted.

CHRIS HALL: Well, you know, it's an interesting question, Matt, because the federal government doesn't really control most industries and businesses in this country. It's up to the provinces are regulated by them. And obviously, as we've talked about before, the rate at which infections are spreading varies across the country. So we're expecting Saskatchewan. This week, Scott Moder lay out a plan for returning to more normal activity in his province. Doug Ford and Ontario has talked about the same thing, a plan. But I can tell you the federal government's role here is not to dictate, but it's to make sure that everybody's on the same page when it comes to how you begin to reopen the economy, how you begin to ensure that when you get back to business that you don't spark another case, another surge in cases. So it means proper testing, obviously, to make sure that enough testing kits in the country, to identify those businesses where you can maintain physical distance and which might have the most economic kick off if they're allowed to open first. So I think they'll be discussing this. There's another call between the prime minister and the various provincial and territorial premiers this week that will be the main topic of conversation about how you do it, what's the way you do it, and how quickly do we do.

MG: How do you do that, though? Individually, I mean, obviously the premiers will be the ones that make the determination. I spoke with John Horgan, premier of British Columbia, last week, and he said, for example, when it came to the border and the border between Canada and the United States, he would take his direction not from Ottawa, but from Washington State. Their closest neighbour. How do you, if everybody's on their own timetable, ensure that this is a coordinated effort to start to open things back up?

CHRIS HALL: Yes, that's a difficult thing. Right. So that's on this conference call. They've been talking mostly on Thursday evening. So it's we'll see if that holds this week. But I think you just agree on principles as opposed to specific. So where do we re-open? How quickly how many employees might be involved in returning to work? How do you ensure that they are tested when they do return to work? There is a national cohesion to this. We all have to do is look to south of the border and see the United States, where some states are preparing to open with no restrictions. And that's not on here. In terms of anyone I've been talking to and certainly to the premiers, they want to get people back to work, but they want to do it in the most responsible way they can.

MG: Susan, how does the federal government balance all of those different elements?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I've been very struck by how often and how much coordination is going on between, you know, the the the federal government and the provinces and the territories during this whole thing in a way that, as Chris points out, contrasts with the United States, certainly. But so much so that every premiers or every provincial conference sounds the same every day. You know, they're all touching on the same issues that they're pushing the same thing. Apparently, when they do talk on those Thursday night calls, they're offering to help each other. I think Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is doing a lot of that coordination from the federal level. But they are talking a lot. And apparently last week the call was that, as Chris was pointing out, that they are going to do this together. They're not all going to run off madly in all directions that that this will be a coordinated effort. Everything the United States is doing. We're not.

MG: Well, how developed, do you think? I mean, compared to the United States, Georgia and Florida, states that seem to be opening things up despite scientific guidance coming in and their opposition to that. How developed do you think those plans are, Susan? People are starting to get a little [unintelliglbe] now and they're wondering they keep asking the question, when is this going to be over? Is there light at the end of the tunnel? How how close do you think we are?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think it varies from province to province. I've been struck by how some provinces have actually- Like Ford in Ontario has Rob Phillips in charge of that. Jason Kenney, they have come out and talked about, you know, ministerial committees or task for--.

MG: A team put together.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Right. We do have not seen that federally. Now, if it's happening informally, maybe Chrystia Freeland is doing this. Again, as Chris points out, it's a lot of the logistics of this is up to the provinces itself. But the Prime Minister seems to be being the voice of slow down, slow down many more weeks. We can't talk about that yet.

MG: This has different meanings to different people. And again, there's the economy. There's people who just want to get back to their daily life, their school. Bill, in Nova Scotia Again right now and these couple of days, this is about people being able to get together and mourn and grieve. What message do you think. Nova Scotians might want to send to Canadians in other parts of the country who are watching what you're going through and their hearts are broken and they want to be alongside people in your community?

BILL BLACK: Well, they do. And those of us who are far from Portapique and Medfield and [unintelliglbe] and so on, feel the same way towards them. We sense the feeling of support and love from the rest of the country. There's no question of that. And it is welcomed. Nova Scotia seems to have a special history with tragedy. And I'm thinking about, of course, the 1917 explosion, the Swissair disaster. All the people who were recovered from the Titanic are buried here. More planes landed here than in [unintelliglbe] during the 9/11 thing. So we're sort of used to this kind of thing. We will get through it. It won't be a totally new experience for us as a community, but we certainly sense not just from Canada. I'm getting e-mails from people all over the place outside of Canada saying we're thinking of you. And what are you okay? You know. Tell us what's going on. So...

MG: We'll speak again, I'm sure, in days and weeks ahead, in the meantime, it's great to speak with you all this morning. Thank you.

CHRIS HALL: Thanks.

BILL BLACK: Certainly it's Canada's attention, maybe the world's from the COVID thing for a few minutes.

MG: Chris Hall is the national affairs editor and host of the House. Susan Delacourt, national columnist for The Toronto Star. Thank you. Bill Black, freelance columnist with the Halifax Chronicle Herald.

[Music]

Back To Top »

National affairs panel

Guests: Chris Hall, Susan Delacourt, Bill Black

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One, I Matt Galloway time for a pop quiz. I'll say a word if you know the meaning of it. Feel free to shout it out. You might alarm that cat or the dog or people who are around you in your isolation right now. All right. This is an easy one. We start with Covidiot. How about Coronacut? You might have seen those. I might be getting one on the weekend. Last one's a little bit more difficult. Coronials. Think Millennials. You can hope that word doesn't stick. These are all new slang words that have come out of this COVID-19 pandemic. It would appear that this crisis is changing the way we speak. Tony Thorne is a language consultant at King's College. London has been documenting all of this. Tony, hello.

TONY THORNE: Hi. Hello.

MG: You have coined the term Coronaspeak. What is Corona's speak?

TONY THORNE: Well, Coronaspeak is a kind of catchall hashtag that I've come up with for all the new language which has been generated since - wasn't that long ago, you know, a couple of months - since the beginning of the pandemic.

CHRIS HALL: Why is it there are so many new slang words during this pandemic. Is it just because people have time on their hands to work things up?

TONY THORNE: Well, That's certainly part of it. But whenever you have a big social upheaval, think of the recession, think of in the U.K. Brexit, think of war time for example. Whenever you have a major social upheaval, then the process of generating new language goes into acceleration, goes into overdrive. More and more new language is needed and invented in these new, completely new situations.

MG: How many words have we created so far?

TONY THORNE: Well, it's difficult to answer in one way because I'm trying to collect I've collected more than a thousand new terms — both technical, medical language and language being generated by people under lockdown. But you've got to be careful because journalists tend to invent a lot of language and then claim that this is circulating. So I've got around a thousand that I'm quite sure are authentic examples of new language.

MG: Couple of different parts to that. Let's start with the things that, the terms that people seem to be inventing. What are some of your favourites?

TONY THORNE: Oh, well, It's hard to have a favourite, but if I'm really honest, I guess, my two favourites, are 'quarantini', and 'locktail hour'. Because this is at the end of the day when we feel we're entitled to have a cocktail. And I think a lot of people are feeling that at roughly the same time at the moment. There's a lot of silly words. 'Covidiot', 'morona' — somebody behaving stupidly. 'Coronallusional', when your thinking starts getting disordered and you get confused. The Australians are very good at slang. So we've got 'Iso' for self-isolation. But also in Australia they talk about an ''isobar. That's where your 'quarantini' is stocked. 'Isodesk' is the workplace you've improvised to look good on video, in confinement. And 'drivetation', I like I think it may be Canadian. It's having a holiday in your motor home, in your own driveway.

MG: You just get in the motorhome and stay there and look out the window?

TONY THORNE: Yes, yes. And drink cocktails.

MG: You drink too many cocktails or have too much of the sourdough bread that you are making in quarantine, and you could put on what? The Covid-15 or the Covid-19.

TONY THORNE: Covid-19, yes, that's an American term for the 19 pounds of extra body weight that you're supposed to accrue. I've got a feeling it could be even more than that in my case.

MG: Are there any that you don't particularly like but they are circulating?

TONY THORNE: Well well, first of all, I guess Zoom-bombing is a bad thing. This is when people hijack and interrupt video conferencing. It doesn't have to be on the Zoom platform. But this is troll. And 'Corona trolls', you know, people who take advantage of all the internet traffic in order to create bad content. So these are some of the negative aspects, I suppose.

MG: You also mentioned, unfamiliar perhaps to people who aren't frontline workers, medical terminology that we're all using right now. Tell me a little bit about some of that.

TONY THORNE: Well, of course, We've had to come to terms with a whole lot of language, which normal people wouldn't have had to use. Things like ventilation, intubation, PPE — which at least in the UK I think there as well, personal protective equipment — suddenly becomes a huge issue, and it's on the tip of our tongue. So the new coronaspeak, I would say, is coming from two directions. It's the official government and medical language of confinement and lockdown. And then ordinary people, if you like, are sort of fighting back. They're filling the gaps in the official narrative, with their own inventions, describing their own private environments.

MG: Just in the last minute or so that we have. How does something like this shape the English language in the long term?

TONY THORNE: Well, it's of course, at the moment we're all in a state of semi-paralysis, we don't know how long this is going to go on. But previously, the language of wartime, some of it disappears, some of it subsides when the war's over. The language of the recession, of finance and economics, some of it we don't use anymore once we think we're out of recession. But I think that this is such a big social upheaval and we're all concerned — for once everybody's involved. I think some of this language: the idea of medicalizing the way we speak, for example, the idea of talking about our personal space, is going to stay with us. Some of the language will stay with us.

MG: Tony, you deserve a quarantini whenever cocktail hour arrives, it's good to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Tony Thorne is a language consultant at King's College in London. Do you have a favourite corona slang word that's being used? You can let us know on the website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the contact link. The CBC News is next. And then a conversation with Jason Rosenthal. He has a new memoir out. It's called My Wife Said You May Want to Marry Me. You'll hear from him next. I Matt Galloway. This is an extended edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

What a Modern Love essay by his late wife taught Jason Rosenthal about grief — and love, Vivek Shraya

Guests: Jason Rosenthal, Vivek Shraya

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to an extended edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, Vivek Shraya, she's a musician, poet, playwright and visual artist, and she's got a lot to say about art after this pandemic that's on its way. But first, the story of a man in an unusual blessing from his late wife.

[Music: Theme]

MG: It was an essay in The New York Times and it was read by millions of people.

SOUNDCLIP

I have been trying to write this for a while. I have been married to the most extraordinary man for 26 years. I want more time with Jason. I want more time with my children. I want more time sipping martinis at the Greenmail Jazz Club on Thursday nights. But that is not going to happen. I probably have only a few days left being a person on this planet. So why am I doing this? I am wrapping this up on Valentine's Day and the most genuine, non vows oriented gift I can hope for is that the right person reads this, finds Jason, and another love story begins.

MG: You might remember reading that that piece was called You May Want to Marry My Husband. It was written three years ago by Amy Krouse Rosenthal, 10 days after it was published in The New York Times. She died from ovarian cancer. Jason Rosenthal is the husband that Amy wrote about in his new memoir is called My Wife Said You May Want to Marry Me. Jason Rosenthal, good morning.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Good morning.

MG: One of our producers read part of that essay. What is it like to hear the words that Amy wrote again?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Well, it's always a little bit surprising that people are so familiar with it, but it's also comforting at the same time.

MG: For people who might not have read that initial piece — I remember reading it and sending it to people as many people as I could find — but for people who may not have read it, what was Amy saying in that piece?

JASON ROSENTHAL: In some respects, it was a creative play on a personal ad for me, of course, because Amy was such a gifted writer combining humour as well as some very, very, very intense issues there and that's in that piece. But ultimately, I guess it was really a love letter to me.

MG: What do you remember about what was going on in your life and in your house when she was writing that piece?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes, so I mean, that was the last piece of writing that she really wanted to finish before she knew that- obviously her diagnosis was terminal. So we were in home hospice and I was sitting up at the dining room table, which was my makeshift office at the time. And there she was across the room from me in, the living room, just trying desperately to literally, physically complete this one last piece of writing. And of course, I read it, but I had no idea what to expect if it was going to be published, and I was extremely shocked at the outpouring when it did.

MG: Did you know what she was writing?

JASON ROSENTHAL: I did not know. No, I did not know until it was finished.

MG: And so she says, read this and, you talk about this in the book, what goes through your mind?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes, I mean, at first, you live with a writer for a long time and there's certainly acceptances and rejections — even for an accomplished writer like Amy. And I have to admit a little bit of ignorance about the Modern Love column. I wasn't an avid reader of the Modern Love Column.

MG: That's why it was published in The New York Times, in that Modern Love Column.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes. Yes. Yes. And so that was the destination that she wanted it to land. And I read it and I thought, wow, this is strikingly beautiful and so well-written. Good luck with it. I just encouraged her. But like I said, I had no idea what would ultimately happen.

MG: She paints a really glowing picture of your life together in that column. And again, you talk about this in the book. But when you were reading that, did you think, 'Wow, this is us. This is really something'?

JASON ROSENTHAL: I thought it was an accurate description of our relationship together. I'm, you know, maybe a little humble. I don't know if all of those things I recognized in myself that she wrote about me. But they were indeed all true, and true from her perspective. But you're right. I mean, I do write a lot about our relationship in the book. And people say to me, "Really is that just a fairy tale, or is that you're relationship?" And it was just who we were.

MG: Did you talk to her? I mean, it's such a difficult time and time is so short in those moments, but did you talk to her about why it was so important that she finish that piece? That that was the last piece that she wrote?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Well, I mean, not specifically. You know, there were additional nuggets that she left behind that I didn't even know that she wrote. But not specifically. No. It was all quite a bit of a surprise.

MG: It goes out into the world through this column — it's shared all around the world through social media and beyond. What sort of response did you get?

JASON ROSENTHAL: It was overwhelming, I'll put it to that way. At first, I was really absorbed into the depths of grief and couldn't process everything that was going on. And that was for quite a long time. It wasn't until much later that I went back into these bins that I had been collecting, literally, of physical letters, trinkets, pieces of art and other things that people were sending us and dove into those and really read all of them.

MG: And what did people send you?

JASON ROSENTHAL: People sent me beautiful, handwritten long letters. They would send me pieces of art. Like I said, you know, a dream catcher, for example. We received many pieces of medical advice. You know, a little woo-woo. But. So there's medical advice and just beautiful, beautiful ways to connect with me and with us at that time.

MG: And marriage proposals as well.

JASON ROSENTHAL: There were quite a few— I mean, not specifically, you know, a lot of marriage proposals, but a lot, a lot of letters and correspondence from women, yes.

MG: Why do you think that what she wrote connected with people in that way. I mean, part of it is the fairytale that you hinted at and the way that she describes your relationship. But there's something else about the openness and honesty and what, in the position that she was in, she was articulating that touched people. Why do you think it had that impact?

JASON ROSENTHAL: I think it's a combination of the beauty of our relationship, of the selflessness of the human race, and trying to comfort me, a total stranger at a time where I was obviously suffering a deep loss. And also, I think in general, as I've learned since then — I wasn't really able to process this right away, but — people, everyone, has an issue relating to loss that they wanted to sort of share and felt like they could connect with me because this was so public.

MG: That ends up being in some ways, not your life's work, but a big part of your life after Amy dies; that you become in some ways an expert on grief. Tell me a little bit about that and how that unfolded. Were you comfortable in that role?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes, so I mean, it started because I gave a TED talk in April 2018 about my journey, really, in being with Amy and being with her at the end of her life, and a little bit about how I've gotten on since then. And it was really, as a result of the response, the incredible response from that and how people again connected with me, that convinced me that this was something that I really could do and that people really wanted and resonated with.

MG: What were people looking for, do you think?

JASON ROSENTHAL: I think they were looking for a way to connect with someone what they were going through in their own lives, because every one of us has a story of loss.

MG: And so when you would go and speak with people, what would people tell you?

JASON ROSENTHAL: People shared stories with me about their own situation, whether that was, you know, going through a divorce or losing a job or, you know, exactly the same thing that I went through. And they just wanted to connect with me. Opening up. They were so grateful to have a place to share those stories.

MG: I asked whether you were comfortable in that role, and you talk about this in the book. You're a lawyer, now you're a writer, and you also become a grief counsellor. Is that something that was easy for you, that transition?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Turns out it was, yes. Who knew? Right? Yes, absolutely. I feel like it's a meaningful step in my life. It gives me great meaning to connect with people in this way.

MG: Why did you want to write this book, this memoir?

JASON ROSENTHAL: I think it ties into what I was just talking about. I wanted to share my story. Give to the world some of what I've been through so that someone going through a similar situation knew that there was someone else out there who had experienced it, but also that it's okay to discuss it and to talk about it and give them some hope.

MG: That requires a real vulnerability to be able to do that.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Yes, no, I know. I was really a someone who didn't talk much about myself before this, so it is very different for me. And it was for sure a challenge to be that vulnerable, that's a good word.

MG: How do you get to that point? There's a bit of a smile in your voice as you talk about, you know, not speaking perhaps openly about, if not feelings, then yourself, before you got to this place. How do you get to that point where you're able and willing to be - The book is a really raw book - to be as open and raw as as you are.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes. Well, again, I mean, I think that it comes back to wanting to connect with so many people literally around the world who seem to want to talk about issues that are difficult. And if I can be that voice and if I could help one or two people and it's been many more than that, then this was all worth it.

MG: Amy in the piece that she wrote. But beyond that as well, encouraged you to go out and meet someone after her death. Why do you think she was insistent about that?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes, I spent a lot of time thinking about that, but I think that at some level she knew it would be so hard because our relationship was so beautiful and so connected. And I'm not sure even now, as I think about it, that I could possibly do that without her express blessing and it really permitted me to move forward in my life.

MG: And have you been able to? I mean, I don't want to get too personal, but this is a very personal book. I mean, in some ways it comes out of that letter that she wrote, You May Want to Marry My Husband. Have you been able to move forward in that way?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Oh, yeah. I mean, you know. Yes. I'm seeing someone and we're connected and I talk a very little bit about in the book, mostly because I wanted to give permission to guys in my similar situation, to know that it's okay. You know, many people won't get the expressed blessing that I got. But I'd like to pay it forward.

MG: What do you mean permission?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Permission to move on in life. You know, for me, I'm a relatively young man and I know a lot of people who are experiencing loss feel the same way. But it's hard. It's hard to even conceive of the fact that you might have another chapter.

MG: This book comes out at a very bizarre time, obviously, in the world, and one of the ways that people are interpreting what we're all going through right now is that - there's an essay that was widely shared and we've talked about it on this program - that we're all grieving something; that we're grieving the loss of something, whether it's our normal routines, the ability to do the things that we were able to do, something even more immediate when friends or family members may have died because of the coronavirus. What are you thinking about in this time of kind of national international grieving?

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes, I mean at first I was devastated by the fact that my own book was going to be impacted by this, but I quickly shifted because I really believed that some of the messages in my book can help people right now. You know, those of us who have been through significant loss have this perspective of time. And I know it feels like what we're going through right now with this global pandemic will last forever. But, I'm here to say it will not. And think about a loss in your life. Did you feel the same way that you did a week, a month or even for the first year or two after your loss? The answer, I think, will be no. Time as it is a unique thing. And I sort of come from the lens, also, of trying really hard to live in the moment; where Amy called Plan B. And and one way to do that is to just think about one thing everyday that you might be grateful for. For me, I have my adult children in quarantine with me, so I really feel grateful about that. I think that really helps shift the perspective of it.

MG: Plan B.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Yes.

MG: Jason, it's a beautiful book. It's great to talk to you. Thank you.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Thank you so much for your time.

MG: Take care of yourself.

JASON ROSENTHAL: Bye bye.

MG: Jason Rosenthal's new book is called My Wife Said You May Want to Marry Me. We reached Jason in Chicago.

[Music]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. Extended edition of the program, which means we welcome back once again, Tom Power, the host of Q. Hello, Tom.

TOM POWER: Matt, how much time you spend in on your phone every day, you think?

MG: I have one of those to get the app that at the end of the week it tells you how much time you've spent on the phone. And I have disabled that app.

TP: So probably a wise move.

MG: Your phone use has gone up by 300 percent. I don't want to know.

TP: I know I somehow spend 26 hours in a day, which I didn't even think was possible. But I have seen people that, you know, say they're using their phone up to like, you know, 12, 14 hours a day right now and others are stuck inside. And it's an awful lot. You know, and I can't blame anybody for it. But what does it do to you? What does a duty to spend all that time online, especially to be looking at Instagram photos where you start to think wild things like, wow, their pandemic looks better than mine or oh, well, they're homemade bread that they made during their looks better than mine. You know, that kind of jealousy, that kind of sadness, that kind of anxiety is kind of part and parcel with our use of the Internet right now. So I got to talk to maybe, maybe like my favourite guest, one of my favourite guys we have on the show a fair bit. Vivek Shraya, an incredible artist, novelist, musician, poet, playwright. Her latest book is called The Sub Tweet. And it's about Internet culture. It's about making art in the 21st century and it's about how social media makes us feel, especially right now. Take a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

TP: How are you? Welcome back to the show.

VIVEK SHRAYA: I'm I'm OK. You like you know, I don't want to depress the listeners too much, but I, you know, it's been not the best, you know, just really trying to push along. I feel a lot of envy of like people on Instagram that are discovering like bread recipes and crocheting. As you mentioned, because I'm finding that I don't necessarily have a lot of energy to to sink into those things. But yes, I don't know that that's sort of where I am to be, to be completely honest, since we're friends.

TP: I hear you. You know, I've done a little bit of that stuff and I and I put that online and, you know, and I'm very proud of it and stuff like that. But then it doesn't reveal that, you know, 23 hours out of the day you're trying to figure out how, what you're gonna do. That isn't really, that doesn't really look good in an Instagram story. You know what I mean?

VIVEK SHRAYA: It's true. It's true. It's true. It's funny. I've sort of felt the same way about you. Like I've been seeing this book tour you're doing. This is this kind of virtual book tour. And I was like, well, Vivek, she's got it going on. She's- everything's humming away. It is funny.

VIVEK SHRAYA: It is. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, this is a nice transition into the novel. But like, that's sort of partly what the novel explores is just the way in which social media acts as a kind of false lens at times to reveal like our highlight reels, but doesn't always reflect what's really going on on the interior and the way that like when we build friendships with each other or relationships with each other, we often make assumptions about each other based on what we're seeing through these false lenses and how that can affect a friendship or hurt a friendship.

TP: This is also a book about being an artist in the 21st century. Do you have any experience of going through this quarantine will change the role of an artist in our society.

VIVEK SHRAYA: I mean, without sounding cliche, like I think artists, you know, have a long history of making art through quote unquote difficult times. I mean, I'm certainly curious what kinds of art will come out of this time. But to be honest and again, not to be a Debbie Downer, I find myself thinking a lot and fretting a lot actually about like the art industries more broadly, like, you know, what kinds of choices are publishers going to make, for instance, around books that they sign in the future because of this sort of financial and economic impacts that, you know, arts industries are going to are going to take our- You know, publishers and arts industry is going to be, or arts institutions more inclined, are they going to be more inclined to make, quote unquote, safer choices that they know are going to draw income, a certain kind of revenue and interest as opposed to, you know, making more, quote unquote, groundbreaking or experimental or emerging choices? So that's sort of where, like I think, you know, the art will always be there. I have absolute faith in artists. I'm nervous about what the impact is going to be on whose art gets to be shared.

t: What do you think the impact of social media has been on artists? How has the expectations of an artist to give so much of themselves and social media - not that everyone does, but so many do - how do you think that's changed, I mean, you're an artist yourself, how do you think that's changed artists in the 21st century?

VIVEK SHRAYA: I mean, I really, and again, God, I just sound so old fashioned. But like, you know, I grew up in the 90s and like, I miss the mystery. You know, like, I don't want to know what my heroes think sometimes, which sounds so bad. But it's like, think about like all of our problematic faves. And it's like if social media existed, maybe we could still appreciate their art. But like social media and a lot of ways has exposed, you know, like, for instance, to get to be more specific, like Madonna recently did, like a COVID video where she was like naked in a bathtub and she was like, you know, doing her fake British accent. It was like, COVID is the great equaliser. Everyone is equal no matter what. And I was like, you are literally naked in a like a beautifully lit hot tub in rose milk with rose petals. And you're talking about how COVID is an equaliser. Like this is bananas. But like, you know, she was one of my faves in the 90s. And I'm like, I just I wish I wish I could raise that memory and just like go back and listen to rap like, you know, but you just can't. And so, you know, I think that- and again, I don't think it's all bad. I think that what's been amazing actually is watching like marginalized out artists like I think about South Asian artists like [unintelligible] and Rupi Kaur, like the way that like in a lot of ways their career has their careers have been mobilized. They've mobilized social media to reach like millions of people that they would not have necessarily had access to through, quote unquote, traditional channels, because traditional channels don't tend to have- haven't historically supported marginalized artists. So I think that, like, younger generations have found ways to be so creative using social media. And I mean, even right now, I was supposed to go on this book tour and it got cancelled. And so I've sort of moved into doing this virtual tour for this past weekend. I wouldn't be able to do that and reach people and tell my story and sing for people, if it weren't for social media. So it's not all bad. But I will say personally, it does feel like a pressure at times to be like, you know, make sure you have content, new content, new content. The language of content as an artist to me is like very problematic. Like, I don't think of what I do as being generating content. I make art. That's what I do. And maybe that times snobby or hierarch called. But it's, I just, I want there to be a difference between like an art practise and something that you spend years or however long working on. And it's not even about the time, but like making something as art as opposed to like content, which to me there's something about that word that just feels frivolous, like something we're just throwing up.

TP: Or cynical.

VIVEK SHRAYA: Cynical. Yes. Exactly.

TP: If I could get you to put on your professor, teacher, educator had just for a second.

VIVEK SHRAYA: Sure. I'll put on whatever hat you want.

TP: Okay, thank you very much. I imagine there's someone out there listening right now who's writing their first short story or their first song. You know, they decided to try and be creative while they've been stuck inside. They've hit that wall. They're about to give up and they say, oh, maybe, you know, maybe this is meant for people who have like an innate talent. And I just don't have it. Now, what's your advice to that person right now? Why should they keep pushing?

VIVEK SHRAYA: Again, not the advice you're probably looking for, but I really I really want encourage people to not keep pushing. You know, like I think that there's, like, such a there's a sort of impetus to, like, pretend like we're, you know, business as usual, but we're not business as usual. We're in a pandemic, you know. And so, on one hand, I really believe in artistic rigour and discipline. And in any other situation, I would say, dedicate at least 50 minutes a day to your craft. And it's really about making the bad art to make the good art. And you kind of have to commit to it. And, you know, stay focussed. But I just want to create space in this particular moment to say that, like, if you need to step away from the art and the practise, I think it's fine. Like if you need to, like binge watch the Tiger King today instead of working on the next great Canadian novel. I think that that's okay. So, yes. Again, sorry, Tom. I know that that's maybe not the hopeful stuff you're looking for, but that's kind of how I feel.

TP: Vivek, thanks so much for your time.

VIVEK SHRAYA: Thanks so much for having me, Tom. I really, really appreciate every time we get to to chat. And thanks for staying on air so that, you know, we can still have these connections. As much as I would love to see your face in person.

MG: Tom Power in conversation with Vivek Shreya. Coming up next on The Current. It's Wednesday. In case you forgot. It's also Earth Day. We'll talk about Earth Day in the midst of a pandemic and what we might learn, from what we're going through now, that would help us address climate change when we get out of this. I'm Matt Galloway. This is an extended edition of The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

Earth day, Anika Kozlowski

Guests: Mark Jaccard, Anika Kozlowski

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current on the 50th anniversary of the very first Earth Day.

SOUNDCLIP

PROTESTORS: All we are saying is give Earth a chance. All we are saying is give Earth a chance.

VOICE: By one measurement, birthday failed, it did not unite. It did attract a broad cross-section of Americans sponsors wanted, not quite. As demonstrators were predominantly young, predominantly white, predominantly anti-Nixon. Often its protests appeared frivolous as protesters curiously carefree. Yet the gravity of the message of Earth Day still came through, act or die.

MG: 50 years ago, that is Earth Day coverage from Walter Cronkite, here in Canada, that day was marked by just a handful of communities. And as Walter Cronkite said, there may have been a hint of frivolity and carelessness. Here's Nigel Seal, the first president of Earth Day Canada.

SOUNDCLIP

NIGEL SEALE: So I had this brilliant idea that I would sacrifice my 1950 Austin. And we put a sign in front of it that said infernal combustion engine. And we would have a car bash. So the idea was, as we put a few sledgehammers out there, people would put money in a bucket and get a couple of few swings at this car. So things were going along really well. The bucket was filling nicely. And all of a sudden along came the University of Victoria rugby team. Then one of them had a brilliant idea that maybe they should see if they could flip the car onto its roof. So the gas started pouring onto the sidewalk. And then some brilliant individual decided to throw a match on it. And it went up in smoke like a huge plume of smoke. I'd say a couple hundred feet high. And in some newspaper the next day, the title above it was: Fiery Pollution Demonstration.

MG: Hmm. Memories from the World's First Earth Day in Victoria, B.C. Longtime environmentalist Paul George remembers what he did on that day.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL GEORGE: I was teaching my first year of teaching and the students came to me and they lined up a day to clean up all the garbage on the 22nd of April in 1970. And they got out at noon and they got actually even an hour extra to do more cleanup. And they had bags and bags of garbage. Hard to get him back in the class and get him settle down by having a chemistry club class and then feud out over the fields and all of a sudden saw these two pickup trucks with all the bags of garbage that the kids picked up and kids said, well, that's where they get their garbage and they burn stuff back there. And so we watched them light these bags of fire and huge columns of smoke. So I gave a little lecture about how changing one pollution into another pollution wasn't the solution.

MG: A lot has changed in 50 years. Paul George went on to be the co-founder of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, and the approach to Earth Day has evolved as well. There have been campaigns to turn our lights out for an hour. There's glitzy marketing. Looking back, though, both Nigel Seale and Paul George say they are underwhelmed with Earth Day.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL GEORGE: Well, what pains me to say about the last 50 years of Earth Day and its actual outcome is that Earth Day and its effects have done nothing, nothing.

NIGEL SEALE: I think has gone up and down. I don't know. I'm I'm quite disappointed now that we aren't talking more about moving from this crisis of the virus to the real crisis, which is global warming, which we have to curb or we are going to make it's going to make this thing look like peanuts what we're going through now.

MG: Yikes. Here we are on an Earth Day unlike any other in the world, overtaken by a pandemic. Most industry and travel has stopped. And as a result, pollution and smog have eased in major cities. Wildlife, as we were talking about yesterday, is coming back to us. Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University, also a member of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He's got a new book out called The Citizen's Guide to Climate Success. Mark, good morning.

MARK JACCARD: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Happy Earth Day.

MARK JACCARD: Thank you. You, too.

MG: When you hear longtime environmentalists say that Earth Day has accomplished nothing. What goes through your mind?

MG: Well, it's a tough it's a tough thing to think about something like Earth Day is is both something that can inspire people, but it's also somewhat amorphous. And so I tend to immediately want to focus in on different kinds of pollutants. And, you know, the first Earth Day was in 1970 and certainly initially in industrialized countries, much of it even in the United States before Europe, we focussed in on urban air pollution. We focussed on, then, on acid rain and even other things, lea,. That was coming out of our tailpipes, and other toxins. And we made some good progress. And so if you were to look at sort of all the different kinds of pollutant threats, we did quite well. And some of that Earth Day was part of the whole inspiration for that. But that was also very much the pollutants that are more immediate, that are not global in nature, so that, you know, your own jurisdiction, your own government can deal with it. And of course, though, greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas have continued to rise. And so I think both of the people you were talking to were also thinking about the fact that humanity has done very poorly on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change since the initial Earth Day.

MG: As I said, we are now celebrating an Earth Day in a moment unlike any other in recent memory. And with this pandemic, you'll see these images of, you know, a drone above Los Angeles. And yes, there's no traffic. There's also blue skies and there's no smog. You see the same in Beijing. You see the same in Mumbai. Do you expect that we will see the effects of the pandemic in terms of an easing of pollution once we're done, once we're out of this thing?

MARK JACCARD: Not at all.

MG: To be blunt.

MARK JACCARD: And I don't mean to be flippant about it, but it's interesting for me who, you know, worked all my life and saying what causes greenhouse gas emissions? And I think at the top of the show you were talking about what might we learn? And I was thinking, what might we miss learn? And one of the things we would miss learned would be that when we shut down our economy and we see that we're burning less fossil fuel, burning less oil, burning less coal, that this would mean that when we reignite our economy - and we will - that somehow the clean air and the lower greenhouse gas emissions would stay with us while we still keep burning more fossil fuels. And that's not what would happen. So we've actually had other periods, maybe not as dramatic as this, but the recession just over a decade ago when also emissions went down because the economy went down. So I think what you miss-learned you could misslearn is to say that closing down an economy temporarily has some long term effect on the pollution reduction targets that you have. So the thing you should learn is that the policies that really have an effect and their carbon pricings, which Canada is now becoming a world leader, and their regulations like our coal plant phase-out policy and a policy we're trying to put in to phase out gasoline use in transportation. Those things have to be sustained, especially because another effect is that the price of fossil fuels falls, which makes them cheaper to use.

MG: Catherine Abreu is the executive director of the Climate Action Network in Canada. She's been thinking about what happens when we're out of this. Have a listen to how she hopes we move forward when the pandemic is over.

SOUNDCLIP

CATHERINE ABREU: As we consider our rebuilding efforts. Emerging from this pandemic crisis, we must keep in mind that the environment and the economy are not two different sides of the same coin. They are, in fact, inextricable from each other. And really, it is our decisions to make, whether we build back from this better or if we try to double down on a status quo that is clearly not working for people or the planet.

MG: So, Mark, that's interesting because there is great pressure and it's happening here in Canada. It's happening around the world for people to, you know, plug the economy back in, get people back to work quickly after all of this. How should that unfold if we don't want to separate the economy from the environment and to try to figure out maybe there is something that we could learn, maybe that what we're in right now and it's about adaptive and being adaptable, but also just seeing cleaner air than we want that to be continuing on in future.

MARK JACCARD: Possibly. And I have great respect for Catherine. By the way, she's done really important things in terms of strategy for how we do better, especially on climate change that I'm referring to. But in her comment there, she said as we rebuild. And I just want to point out that there are different kinds of times when the economy goes down for various reasons, it could be a war or a recession, a deliberate shutdown with a pandemic. But I think we have to be careful to say that we're now about to rebuild our economy. What we've done is we have all this these things. We have factories, we have vehicles, we have electricity generating plants and we have buildings. And we don't we're not going to be rebuilding them. We are going to be firing them up again. And so this is a very short term phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, that's what's going to happen. And yet the transition of an economy away from reliance on burning coal and burning gasoline in our vehicles requires a transition of our equipment and our factories. And that can only be a longer term prospect. It's incremental. It's when you go to renew a car, we need you to buy an electric car. And so we're not really rebuilding after this shutdown. And that's in my view. And it most sort of macro economists, it's a misinterpretation of what we're going to do. But what it does mean and where, you know, where she's correct is we need to make sure that fossil fuel interests don't convince our governments to roll back the policies that we have that are increasing in stringency so that that gradual change of our economy away from polluting continues to happen.

MG: And you're already seeing that you're seeing the fossil fuel industry saying that the government should delay our, to your point, rollback some of the climate positive policies.

MARK JACCARD: Absolutely. And that that is what that's where the battle needs to be. That's where the battle is being fought right now. I know that just sort of from, you know, policy advisory circles that I'm involved in. And that's what's really critical right now, is it's the fossil fuel industry. I hate to say it because there's some really good people in there, but they're into their self-interests are to delay, to slow down any kind of progress we might make on transitioning our economy. And so that's where the battle is right now. We actually in Canada have had a federal government that is putting in some decent policies. We've had some provincial governments doing that and the fossil fuel industry. I've seen it now. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers saying slow down on the carbon price, slow down on the clean fuel standard on methane regulations. And we must absolutely not be doing that.

MG: Are there things- one of the things that people have noticed is that in this moment that we're in right now, industry and individuals have been able to adapt very quickly, that we have shown creativity, we've shown flexibility in dealing with a crisis that is presented in front of us. Does that offer any inspiration or hope in terms of dealing with this other existential crisis, which is climate change?

MARK JACCARD: Yes, I think it does in the sense that people will talk about, again, those who are entrenched interests who want to stay with our fossil fuel dependent status quo. We'll talk about how disruptive and horrible it would be to, you know, to make a dramatic change, you know, to drive an electric vehicle and have to recharge it and worry a little more. And it's really call out that actually when humans finally sort of hit this tipping point and they will with climate, because it's not going away. It's not like a political scandal that goes away one day and maybe even not like a pandemic that you solve one day. Climate is coming at you. And so it will keep coming at us. And at some point we've been way too slow to act. When we do act, I think it's really obvious that we will move quite fast. And that fast movement will involve some disruption for people and it will be small compared to what we're doing right now. And yet, you know, before it was like, oh, you can't do that. So maybe we'll be able to use this pandemic to say, come on, you know, you can make change. But but but it's hard to draw that line because, you know, this is such an abrupt change. And we think of it as so temporary. And that's that's the the challenge then.

MG: How do you define would climate success is your book is called The Citizen's Guide to Climate Success. What is success?

MARK JACCARD: Yeah, so thanks for asking about that. I've worked in this area for so long and and I've noticed that the average person still thinks of this as a hugely challenging problem. Am I to use less plastic? Am I supposed to not eat meat? Should I not fly? What kind of politicians do I vote for? And so that's what motivated me to write this book. And what I was really trying to show people is that climate change is caused primarily by the car you drive in, how you heat your house and how, what, who government allows to make your electricity. And so it's a very simple path. We the growth in emissions globally is going to be more than 50 percent in our electricity generation with coal and natural gas and in transportation. We have to stop using gasoline. We have to move to electric cars as fast as possible. And we have to elect climate sincere politicians who put in pricing, as I mentioned, and regulations. And so for the citizen, this sort of simple path for a citizen is to say, how do you identify climate sincere politicians, get them elected, support them. That's number one. And number two, what do I do in my personal life? I have to move away from gasoline and diesel vehicles and I can do that now. I have options and I have to heat my home differently. And that's it.

MG: That sounds very simple, but it's not.

MARK JACCARD: It is simple is.

MG: Is it?

MARK JACCARD: It is very simple. Read my book.

MG: No, but I mean, the reason I ask that is because what you said is that the scale of this can be overwhelming to people and people will think we're in a pandemic. We'll get out of this at some point in time and there'll be a vaccine and I'll be able to go back and live the life that I was living, you know, last fall. Climate change to a lot of people seems like some sort of massive, intractable problem. And maybe that's why they don't feel as though it's as simple as you say.

MARK JACCARD: Yes. And that's why I explain that there's been a lot of things that have happened as humanity has been delaying all this time or as, you know, not going fast enough. There's been people who have been agenda hitching. They've been saying, oh, we have to stop economic growth to succeed. Everyone has to be stop eating meat to succeed or stop flying in aeroplanes. And none of this is true. We have Naomi Klein. We have to completely change capitalism. That's not true. If you look at the jurisdictions in the world that are moving fast and are having success, whether it's Sweden or California or now China in transportation. They didn't have to do these huge amounts of things. So what I do in the book is a show where emissions have gone down rapidly. And guess what? People didn't change their lives. They finally got politicians who kind of did what our federal government has been doing for the last five years. And then they transitioned their system. Ontario closed its coal plants in 10 years, which was 25 percent of electricity. Before that, people said that was impossible. But I ask people, how much did your life change while we dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario? And that was the biggest act in Canada. And it was it was done without people changing anything in their personal lives. Electricity got a tiny bit more expensive.

MG: I the last minute or so that we have, what gives you hope?

MARK JACCARD: Well, I mean, I do sadly believe that humans have trouble with, you know, urgent challenges of a global nature and and especially ones that are- and if they're any less immediate and as I said, the transition for our energy system to decarbonise it is a it is a many year and decade transition. So you have to keep pecking away at it, whereas a pandemic is something you can react to very quickly. But there are elements of our action on climate, you know, in the periods in which we have sort of these windows where we're focussed on it and where our attention isn't diverted elsewhere. Increasingly, we're figuring out how to move quickly. And so there are jurisdictions that are doing that. When when Sweden says it's going to be - Norway, even net zero in 2050, I can see they're going to do it before that. So I am optimistic that we can hit tipping points. But you need to make them happen in in leader jurisdictions. Candidate needs to be a leader jurisdictionally, might be headed down that path. And so that kind of possibility does make me optimistic.

MG: Mark, it's great to talk to you. And thank you.

MARK JACCARD: It's been a pleasure. Thanks, Matt.

MG: Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University. His new book, The Citizen's Guide to Climate Success.

[Music].

MG: It's the Current on CBC Radio 1, I Matt Galloway joined by the very fashionable Tom Power, host of Q-.

TP: It's a dangerous question, isn't it, Matt?

MG: What question is that?

TP: To a radio host during a pandemic? How's your fashion sense, Matt?

MG: We're all just wearing the same thing every day, aren't we?

TP: I think of ourselves like the Jetsons where we're all gonna be issued like a big grey jumpsuit with a stripe over it, you know.

MG: Hoodies.

TP: Yes.

MG: Live in hoodies.

TP: We could just live in hoodies. I want to talk a little bit about fashion and fashion. Retailers are closed. Sales are way down. This has ripple effects all around the world. But, you know, in addition to talking about, you know, folks who work in retail, folks who maybe be a part of these fashion brands, I want to talk today about the people who make the clothing. I want to talk about garment worker. Anika Kozlowski's an assistant professor with a Phd in sustainable fashion. And she's been looking at how the industry is being affected and how it's impacting the people who are making our clothes. It's pretty dire. Here's our conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

TP: Hi, Anika.

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: Hi, Tom.

TP: You're in the middle of a semester at Ryerson. You're teaching virtually. How's it going?

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: You know what? A lot better than expected. No complaints, really. The transition was pretty smooth. Not ideal, but we're all getting through it.

TP: So, Professor, give me the headlines here. How are garment workers being impacted by COVID-19?

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: Well, the crisis has definitely brought new attention to workers rights as unemployment has spiked and the health of low-wage workers is definitely being put at risk. So just to give a little bit of extra how this is all happening, right. As you just mentioned, all of we've had all this retail shut down and quarantining in the western world and global north. So we have experienced a lot of clothing sales plummeted and mostly because we're not shopping and buying when we're locked up at home. So as a response, brands have kind of been shoring up their business to save money. So they're doing this by cancelling orders or demanding retroactive price reductions coming out of their supplier factories, which does appear as good business sense. But what they're actually doing is they're refusing to play for clothing that has already been made for them. So they owe these factories millions of dollars. Most people don't realise that factory is kind of upfront the costs for all of the materials and labours. So they pay for everything. Once it's made and once it shipped, only then does a brand receive an invoice. So brands don't typically pay for their orders until like 30 to 90 days after a shipment. So right now what that means is by cancelling all of their orders on what's already been paid, garment workers aren't getting paid.

TP: How is this trickling down to the actual garment workers themselves?

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: Well, they're misusing these contractual clauses called force majeure to get out of paying for these orders. And that's really causing this humanitarian crisis that we're seeing. It's a moral issue when we have an estimated 60 million garment workers worldwide who work in all of these factories supplying these fashion retailers. They're not only furloughed or out of jobs, but they're being cheated out of money that they already were earned. So what we're experiencing is or what they are experiencing is wage theft. And then on top of it, because of COVID-19 everywhere, a lot of these factories have been closed due to quarantine and workers are being laid off without these paycheques and they don't have any ability to pay these workers.

TP: So what companies what brands do we know aren't paying?

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: Well, pretty much every brand uses factories like this. And this is the kind of typical setup that we have. And we see in the global fashion supply chain. So the Workers Rights Consortium, in partnership with the Centre for Global workers' Rights at Penn State University, what they've created is this COVID019 tracker to monitor which fashion companies are paying suppliers for in production and completed owners and which ones have refused to do so. So brands that aren't paying right now are Topshop, Urban Outfitters, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney, Guess, River Island, Gap, Esos. And then there's brands who have chosen to pay up and do the right thing so that actually Target, H&M, Zara, B.F., which owns like North Face and Timberland and Vans and PVH, which is Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger and Nike, Adidas and Uniqlo.

TP: What should fashion brands be thinking about right now. I mean, as these stories start to come out, they should really be thinking about paying these workers. These workers don't have savings that we we have savings. They don't have insurance. These factories don't have no money in the bank saved for a rainy day,, in case of these sort of circumstances. And the governments in these places don't have the ability to pay for stimulus packages or have, you know, welfare systems in place. So brands really need to take responsibility and honour the existing contracts that they've signed, because this is now garments that are just going to sit there and we don't know what's going to happen with them.

TP: I mean, obviously, our thoughts are with the garment workers and like if they're not getting paid and these companies are being shut down. What does that mean for the fashion industry when we're backup?

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: That's a really great question. I think that's what everyone is kind of trying to figure out right now. How do we move forward? Because, you know, what do we do with all of this stock? First of all, it's sitting there. And then what do we do moving forward? I think it's a really good time to re-evaluate how these contracts are even put in place in the first place, because it's very unequal. The risk is unequal. The factories and the garment workers, they take all the risk and they put up all the costs upfront. So kind of real evaluating those systems and considering shopping maybe more with smaller brands, the ones who don't do these types of things in these situations.

TP: I mean, are we going to see a situation, you think, when this is all over? I mean, if this is ever all over that we'll just have like a half or a quarter of the fashion brands we started with.

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: I think we'll definitely lose some fashion brands and we kind of need to lose some fashion brands because there's a lot of them that are just kind of scraping by and they're very exploitative. And it is sort of- I mean, it's not great for everybody in the grand scheme of things, but I think moving forward, taking sustainability for the fact that these types of incidences are going to keep happening, we need to build resiliency into our economic system. So we really need to evaluate what it means to be fair, honest and accountable when we have a business.

TP: You know, I again, all of our thoughts are with garment workers right now. I think about this a lot, especially as you told me. The story is, you know, we spend so much time talking about concerts that are happening on balconies and, you know, live streams of this and that. But, you know, to hear the story these garment workers and just kind of working people all over the world is so heartbreaking at a time like this.

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: Oh, for sure. But there's definitely things that we can do. So there's been a journalist, Elizabeth Cline and a few other people have been working together and they've kind of created this pay up campaign. So it's really nice because you can go to this Web site that they've created called GarmentWorkerCOVIDRelief.Org so you can learn more about it. You can support the campaign by signing the Change.org petition, which is asking all of the brands to pay up, specifically targeting Gap's C&A, Primark and Wal-Mart. And if you have the means to do so, you can also donate. So we as individuals actually have a voice and we can use social media to tag these specific brands that have cancelled orders and using the hashtag Pay Up or Pay Up Fashion. It may not seem like we have much power, but we actually really, really do. And if you don't think you do, always remind yourself of the quote: if you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito. Buzzing around, you know, this is why H&M has actually decided to pay up. It's because of this social pressure and this individual activism on social media platforms.

TP: Anika, thank you so much for talking to us today about this.

ANIKA KOZLOWSKI: My pleasure. Tom.

MG: Tom Power in conversation with Annika Kozlowski. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. We're back in six minutes. Don't go anywhere.

Back To Top »

Indulgences

Guests: Emily, Amanda, Jessica Spector, Marc Lewis

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to an extended edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Coming up, the Canadian designer John Fluevog, his latest shoe is inspired by B.C.'s provincial health officer Dr Bonnie Henry. The story behind the footwear coming up. But first, how isolation has changed the way we indulge.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

ZANE: This is the fourth day of quarantine.

HEATH: It sure is. Today in honour of being in honour, that's just terrible. But we are in quarantine. So in order to pass the time, you know, Zane and Heath, we are going to be out here, we are going to be making some quarantinis. Since the bars are closed.

ZANE: We got to bring the bar.

HEATH: To us.

ZANE: So Heath and I decided ...

MG: That was just day for a couple of YouTubers, Zane and Heath indulging in quarantinis on their show Unfiltered. Quarantine's being the slang word for martinis under quarantine or just about any drink you're drinking under quarantine. Cocktails are not a novel way to remedy the blues. And so it will not come as a surprise to many people that during this pandemic, many people around the world are turning to alcohol to keep their spirits up. Emily and Amanda have experience with this. They're both in Toronto. We've agreed not to use their last name in an effort to keep their privacy. Good morning to you both.

EMILY: Good morning.

MG: Emily, we'll start with you. How does your day look? Day to day compared to perhaps from the, as we call it, the before time.

EMILY: Yes. So I think like many others, I've moved to working from home. So I'm in a one bedroom apartment here. Both myself and my partner work from home. And in terms of kind of the impact of that, I've just been finding it's a little bit difficult to draw that divide when you turn the computer off and when your time to relax kind of is able to really start. So I'm I've been having a little bit more afterwork beers than I usually would in the middle of the week for sure.

MG: And this after work, I mean, is the line between when work and after work is delineated, is that line kind of sliding earlier in the day?

EMILY: So, so far, so far it hasn't been. But I've definitely been noticing that with some of my friends. And, you know, at first it just kind of seemed like a nice thing. Like you finish work, close laptop in the fridge is right there. But I've been noticing that temptation is definitely been growing for others. Couple of early morning beers snaps here and there, a couple of 9:00 a.m. LCBO runs that I've been hearing about. So there's definitely a side of concern that comes along with that.

MG: What about you? What about you, Amanda? What's changed in your life now that we are in this this strange, unprecedented period where a lot people are working from home? But also, as we heard, you know, going into the bars, the things that people used to do perhaps are over and done with for the moment?

AMANDA: Yes, I'm working from home as well. But I have two small children who are two and five. So that makes him a lot more difficult. Both my husband and I have back to back meetings all day long. We have to homeschool my son who's in S.K. and keep my daughter entertained and avoid them from coming into our meetings and yelling at the phone. So it's every day is very stressful and trying to manage multiple things at once and then also feeding them breakfast, lunch and dinner. So I have not been drinking at all since January. And then when the quarantine started, I you know, I had to find a way to kind of try to relax after the kids bedtime after dinner, try to keep my mind off, spiralling down the rabbit hole of what's going to happen, like what kind of scars my kids are going to have up to this and how long is this going to last, etc..

MG: So you'd stopped drinking in January?

AMANDA: Yes, I had.

MG: And what was behind that decision?

AMANDA: I just, you know, just the usual New Year's resolution. I was excersicing a lot more. I had stopped drinking just to try to be healthier this year. But that all stopped,when the quarantine started.

MG: Was it a difficult decision for you, as you say, when the quarantine started to put that that efforts to be healthier, that that decision on hold?

AMANDA: Well, especially the first few days were very stressful. You know, we didn't know what was going to happen in the long term and how we were going to be able to work with the kids at home and all of that. So I was finding myself getting more and more stressed out, more anxious. So my husband and I started, you know, just to have a small glass of wine every once in a while to chill. But now it's like we have to have wine. And actually this weekend we had to go to the LCBO because we had not run out of wine. And that was just unacceptable.

MG: Emily, you say something about somebody having an early morning. What do you call it, a beer snack?

EMILY: A beer snap. I was referring to Snapchat.

MG: Yes. Okay. So tell me bit about with that.

EMILY: Yes, so I mean, I am 26, so I think I'm of the odd group of people who are still not using Tik-Tok, but and [unintelliglbe]. You get obsessed, though, with Snapchat. So it is concerning to wake up then and from a few friends like I I'm getting that kind of work from home office desk situation and you see that there's already a beer craft on the desk or, you know, maybe even a bottle of whisky kind of tucked into the background there. And so it just kind of makes you think like habits are things that we form over time. And sometimes they can be formed in less nefarious ways and habit involving alcohol can have pretty severe kind of impacts down the line.

MG: Have you talked to them about that?

EMILY: I did. I did reach out to one person in particular, only one person whom I felt close enough with to have that kind of conversation. And just to say, you know, buddy, like I'm I'm here for you. And I'm noticing that this might be earlier than I'm used to seeing you with a with a beer. And he was really good about the situation and responded saying, you know, it's no big deal. It's kind of like more for jokes, for humour, to get other people feeling a sense of relief early in the morning. And he said that he's doing quite well. But I mean, I don't know to what extent that's the case. And I also don't know for other people what extent that's the case for them.

MG: When you talk to people, Emily, it can be beer. We saw in Ontario there was concerns that, you know, people were able to buy from the legalized cannabis stores and then some of those stores were closed down and they can only buy online. People were worried about pot and whether they would get that or not, that people, if you're talking to people, that people are turning to a substance, whether it's alcohol, whether it's cannabis or what have you. Because they need to remove themselves from the situation that they're in, that they need to, as they say, might take the edge off the anxiety that they might be feeling right now.

EMILY: Yeah, I think it's a little bit of that, but then also a little bit of- Almost this kind of serendipitous, well, now I can wake up and and smoke a pipe on my lunch or have a beer on my lunch room. Maybe I couldn't have done that sitting at my desk.

MG: Because you're stuck at home or what have you.

EMILY: Exactly. So part of it's to relieve that stress. But I think part of it is just that the novelty of the situation where it's a possibility now, where it probably wasn't for most people before.

There is a YouTube show, it's called mum Truth. Have a listen to this segment. It's called Reasons Mommy Drinks.

SOUNDCLIP

Mommy is trying to Make Money and teach you how to go to school full time and make sure you don't die. And also possibly keep the house a tiny bit clean so we don't get condemned in the process of COVID-19.

MG: Amanda, when you hear that, what goes through your mind?

AMANDA: Yes, I can relate to that. It's just right now I feel like I am playing multiple roles at once. I'm an employee. I'm a mum, I'm a teacher. I'm cleaning lady. I'm a cook. So absolutely, I can relate to that. And it's one of the reasons, well, I've been drinking more and more.

MG: Do you worry about the message that it sends? One of the things we know is that there is an increase in alcohol consumption, particularly among younger women, that alcohol companies will deliberately target those women. And there are real public health is concerned about that increase and the effects that it could have. Do you worry about the message that little clip would send?

AMANDA: Well, I think it's not ill intended. I think it's just for jokes, as Emily was saying about her friend as well. But yes, and obviously alcohol is a drug and there can be serious consequences if we don't limit our intake. So I think it shouldn't be normalised that, you know, they drinking or drinking because we're in quarantine. It shouldn't be normalised and seen as a joke or something that is just normal that he can become a real problem.

MG: You talked about what happened when you ran out of wine and you had to go to the LCBO and the you know, the stores, the government run stores selling alcohol, their line-ups outside. And it can be a bit of a stressful situation trying to get in. You said that it would be unacceptable to have no wine.

AMANDA: Yes. Yes. Because well, as I said, we've been, we need something to try to relax more at night. And we ran out of wine last week and we were like, so now what are we going to do?

MG: Do you worry what happens when this is done? When when the pandemic is over, especially somebody who said they were going to stop drinking at the beginning of the year?

AMANDA: Yes. I really hope this doesn't last long, because I don't want to form a habit that I'm not going to be able to break or anything like that. So far, it's only been a few weeks. And, you know, I don't see it as a big problem, but if these last months or a year, who knows what's going to happen to the majority of people who have started drinking every day?

MG: What about for you, Emily?

EMILY: Yes. I'm definitely worried about those habits. I also, like I have a history of alcoholism in my family, so I need to be cautious around that. And I also think about people who have that history or maybe have a history of alcoholism themselves and are feeling a higher temptation. So I think, I agree with Amanda that there's kind of a cushioning area where it's okay and it seems like everything is just a coping mechanism and that it will pass. But but there is a certain point where you have to kind of think like if this is how I'm coping with stress. What will future stress look like? And what other coping mechanisms could I be practicing during this time? I mean, we have so much time on our hands. I know deep down that I should go and meditate at the end of the day to kind of try to turn off or to do something that's in a long term way more and more sustainable and more healthy. But I just don't have the energy to right now. It's heavy right now.

MG: It's a lot.

EMILY: Yes, yes.

MG: It's good to speak with you both. I really appreciate it.

AMANDA: Thank you.

EMILY: Thank you.

MG: Emily and Amanda are both in Toronto. A couple of other people have been listening into this conversation. Jessica Spector teaches drink culture at Yale University. Mark Lewis is a neuroscientist currently based in the Netherlands. Hello to you both.

JESSICA SPECTOR: Hi.

MARC LEWIS: Hello.

MG: Jessica, what do you make of what you've just heard?

JESSICA SPECTOR: A bunch of things. I mean, you know, I think a lot of us are are dealing with the same things. You know, I'm a mum and a teacher and I own a home. Also, you know, zooming with my students and also have my family home with me. I think what this crisis has put into stark relief for a lot of people is an issue that may be people are dealing with any way around alcohol, food, marijuana. More talked about out in the open to Canada than in the U.S. But anything that we overindulge in and know is not great for us but we want to partake of anyway.

MG: Does the situation that we're in now kind of exacerbates that?

JESSICA SPECTOR: Yes, it heightens it cause we're- I think in these situations, we're doing something all the time because other avenues are closed off to us. We think they are and they are.

MG: I want to bring I want to come back to that in a moment and just talk a little bit about maybe what we've learned from from other events in the past. Marc, just first blush, your impressions of what you heard from Emily and Amanda.

MARC LEWIS: I think that, you know, everyone's talking about that kind of narrowing in the environment, especially the social environment. People are stuck at their home and at home and they're stuck taking care of their kids. And about extra stresses and responsibilities. And the first thing is, yes, alcohol is a great stress reliever. So, yes, people are drinking more. You don't need a prescription, it works pretty well. And so this is obviously that it increases the danger of becoming addicted or using it in a unhealthy way. That's one thing. And the other thing that occurs to me is that the more I study the brain in addiction, the more I am interested in the social environment, how that impacts on the tendency to become addicted and difficulties in stopping. And and COVID, the lockdown and self-quarantine measures that are going on everywhere in the world are really exemplified the narrowing of the social environment that happens in addiction anyway. But when people start using drugs, using alcohol excessively and so for these other addictive activities, this social world starts to minimise, starts to narrow in on them. And the less of the social role they have available the fewer resources and fewer rewards they have outside of their substance of choice. So that's a real problem. And this kind of exemplifies the problem.

MG: Is there a difference, Marc, between how we drink during good times and how we drink during bad times?

MARC LEWIS: I mean, the simple answer is more and with fewer restraints, fewer constraints. So, yes, I mean, I think, you know, drinking in the morning, as Amanda was talking about, is that's when you start to realise that yyou're now acting outside of the norms that you've held on to for some period of time [unintelligible]. And then talks about the norm starts breakdown and then you don't really have a rules set to guide your behaviour. And, you know, that in itself is a challenge and that exacerbates the stress. And one of the main issues with addiction is that it is itself a stressor and it also tends to relieve stress. And so you've got that kind of feedback loop right at the heart of the matter.

MG: Jessica, if you take a look at other crises in past. Think of 9/11. Think of the recession. What do we know about how people indulged then?

JESSICA SPECTOR: Well, two things. To pick up on what was just said, which I agree with a lot of it, change itself is stressful for most people. I want to say for most people about a lot of this because a lot of some people are outliers. Change is stressful, moving job change, death, divorce, child care situations. And the stress response that most people have is anxiety, you know, raise heart rate blood pressure and alcohol is a depressant which brings that down. So it's kind of a natural thing that people turn to in times of stress. To answer your question about crises, you have to look at what kind of crisis it was. So in war time, oring 9/11, you mentioned specifically, that's one kind of crisis. A recession is a different kind of crisis. So if your heart rate is up and your blood pressure is up and you're feeling anxious, you might turn to one source of comfort. If your not feeling amped up like that, you might turn to another source of comfort. So, for instance, if you look at birth rate after the various flu pandemics we've had, they've gone down. If you look at birth rate post-war famously, and after 9/11, they've gone up. So people turn to sex after certain kinds of crises and they don't - libido goes down and they don't have babies after other crises. So it's not that simple to say, oh, people drink more in a crisis.

MG: Marc, what's the line? Because you could imagine there are a lot of people who are listening, thinking, come on, I'm stuck in my house. This is terrible. And what's wrong with having a glass wine or a beer or two or whatever it is you want to take it just to help, maybe to ease your nerves, maybe to make you feel like you felt when you went out to the bar and you actually saw people rather than being stuck in your house. What's the line between that and when things can be concerning and when people need to worry about addiction or habits developing?

MARC LEWIS: I don't think there's a sharp line of any kind. And I often tell people, you know, this in itself is not a problem. Taking substances in order to make yourself feel better in itself, per say, is not the problem. The problem is when your social environment starts to shrink around you because you prefer or have access to this source of reinforcement of reward, stress reduction or whatever it is, antidepressant. And that's where you go and you start dropping social connections as a result. That's all you've got left after some period of time. That's when things become problematic in normal life. So during the COVID crisis, I think, you know, there's going to be a natural relaxation of the constraints that we're under. As things start to improve, you know, at the virus level, that the infection level and when they when things start to open up again, I think the tendency and the urge, the wish to drink more and to take other substances is going to diminish accordingly. So try not to get too freaked out about it. You know, try to control yourself, not be an idiot and don't talk yourself to death. Binge drinking, we know, is particularly harmful. But to have, to drink a lot more than usual is not only understandable, but that in itself is not going to be the end of you and recognise that this is, it's a sign of the times and it's probably temporary.

MG: Jessica, what about the social aspect of this? I mean, there is a social aspect to going out and eating and drinking. Now people are having these Zoom quarantines and you'll have cocktail nights where you have a bunch of friends and there on the screen rather than face to face. How how is that working?

JESSICA SPECTOR: Yes, I would say to one thing I study is bar culture on the social aspects of drink and. I would say that some of the focus on, you know, how alcohol purchases have gone up. You've got a question that a little bit I mean, the restaurant industry in Canada, I was looking at some Canadian figures, $90 billion industry, which a 100 billion dollar industry in the U.S. that's gone down to almost zero now. So you have to realise that some of the fact figures you're seeing about surges in alcohol purchases at liquor stores and stuff is coming from people not buying in restaurants. Right. So it's not as it's not as high as you as it looks. People buying in liquor stores are not spending in restaurants. Right. And when people aren't able to go to a bar and have a drink, that third space, you know, that that space that's not work and it's not home. They're they're not all just sitting at home and drinking. I have an active, like cocktail social life with friends online. And it's not as terrible as it sounds because I'm not actually a low drinking.

MG: There are some sort of social connection, even if it's virtual.

JESSICA SPECTOR: It's social and people need other people. We're social animals. And the doctor is right that, you know, what's worrisome is when you choose to be alone and do it. That's worrisome. But if you're craving other people, then you don't cut yourself some slack. This is a terrible time, this is tough. Right. And if if when things open back up, you want to go out with your friends. Give yourself a break. This is it. This is a terrible time.

MG: Marc, what do you think? Just. We have a couple of seconds left. Emily says she feels like she should instead of crack open the beer at the end of the night, meditate instead. Should people be doing something like that that perhaps...?

MARC LEWIS: You can meditate in the morning and drink at night. I mean, both both are obviously advantages in different ways. And I like what the last speaker said that yes, indeed, drinking with other people online, having little parties alone is a great way to keep the social world open so that you're not going to fall too deeply into drinking alone and to feel that it's the only source of refuge.

MG: Just be cautious with all of it. It's great to talk to you both about this. Take care of yourselves. Thank you.

MARC LEWIS: You, too.

JESSICA SPECTOR: Thank you.

MG: Jessica Spector Teachers Drink Culture at Yale University. Marc Lewis is a neuroscientist and the author of The Biology of Desire and Memoirs of an Addicted Brain. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. There are a lot of people in addiction circles who are very concerned about what's going on right now when it comes to people being at home, perhaps consuming more. You share that concern. Marc's point as somebody who has studied this personally and professionally is light enough that it's not all as bad as perhaps we might lead to be led to believe. You can let us know through the web site. cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the contact link. Email us at thecurrent@cbc.ca Or tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. It is time to say goodbye to our listeners in Newfoundland and Labrador. For everyone else, The Current is back in about 90 seconds and one of the stories we'll bring you is the story of footwear. John Fluevog makes shoes. He is a designer based in Vancouver. His latest set of shoes is celebrating a public health hero. Dr. Bonnie Henry, the chief public health officer for British Columbia. Talk about the shoes and the story behind them coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. This is an extended edition of The Current. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

John FLuevog

Guest: John Fluevog

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One, I'm Matt Galloway, Tom Power is the host of Q. He's back with us. Hello, Tom.

TP: Matt How are you, my friend?

MG: Everything is okay.

TP: Yes everything's pretty good this way. How about you.

MG: It's Wednesday.

TP: Yes.

MG: I have to write down on a piece of paper what day it is because it's important to remind myself. And time kind of flattens itself out these days.

TP: It certainly does. Hey, I have no idea what day it is, barely idea what month it is. And I'm beginning to forget what my name is. You know, I just find myself calling myself a, you know, Peter Armstrong all the year.

MG: Tom Power, you're the host of Q.

TP: See, I thought I was doing the business reports on CBC News.

MG: Not so much.

TP: I'm glad I'm getting the straight. Now, are you a shoe guy, Matt, you're one for shoes?

MG: I love shoes.

TP: Is that true?

MG: Yes, I do. I function over fashion, but sometimes you want to look good. And the belief is that people look at your feet first to figure out, you know, what kind of person you are. I think that maybe that's a bit shallow, but it's nice to have a good pair of shoes. Yourself?

TP: People tend to look at what Jean jacket I'm wearing to find out what mood I'm in. How many pairs of shoes do you have?

MG: Too many, I'm sure. No, not a lot. Just the ones I like.

TP: I'm learning so many surprising things about you.

MG: I have a pair of nice leather boots on right now.

TP: Oh, my God. Well, I'll tell you why I'm asking anyone in the shoes knows the name John Fluevog. Yes. Vancouver designer, funky, unique shoes. His latest creation is in honour of a bit of a B.C. celebrity at the moment. It's called the Bonnie Henry.

MG: Named after the medical officer of health in British Columbia.

TP: I believe so, yes. She's lauded for her calm and clear communication around the pandemic and also for her taste in shoes. So I called up John Fluevog to find out why he designed a pair of shoes for Bonnie Henry and how she responded. Take a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

TP: John, how are you?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Lovely. Thank you very much.

TP: Thanks a lot for being here. You're holding up okay.

JOHN FLUEVOG: I am. Thank you very much. I think I'm, I'm still here. I'm talking. And obviously big changes going on. But it's actually, it's a change. Reagan's are so different from what it was. And I think it's actually interesting in some ways.

TP: It certainly is that. And what's been interesting is that just to see, you know, people who we had no idea really who they were a couple of months ago become these sort of really important people in our lives. You know, I think about Teresa Tam. You know, I think about Anthony Fauci in the U.S. and I think about Bonnie Henry in in B.C. She's b.c.'s medical health officer. What do you like about her?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, she said some wonderful things, like she said, be kind. Like who says that? She is like, okay, be kind, be calm, be safe. Like, oh, those are things that we need to hear because it's a time of fear. I think fundamentally we're fearful because it's changed so much. And we as humans don't like fear. And it's as if she kind of nails down what our human needs are. It's like, oh, just, you know, be kind. It's a wonderful thing to say. And I know that's great. It's not like, oh, do this, do that. It's telling us to care for each other and be calm and be part of the community. And I think in times like this, I find it very reassuring. It's great.

TP: When did you find out she was a fan of your shoes?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, it kind of evolved. I didn't know beforehand. And I'm not a huge TV watcher, but it came from my community. So came from my staff. It came from an online Fluevog community. They're actually not even part of my website. And it came from them. And all these pictures started coming to oh, look at her. Look, oh, look how many shoes she's got. And then it just sort of evolved from there. So I don't know that it was actually even my idea to do it. It was sort of like the community and my staff. And I'd like John, do something for her. We need you. We need to honour her in a sense. To me, it's more like honouring all of the health care workers. I know she stands out, but it's everybody who's behind the scenes working. It's just our little way as a company that we could do something. And it's been quite staggering. I have to say, how it is just sort of snowballed and people are, I don't know. It goes on. [Unintelliglbe] that's coming up at the Web site. But there's been so much activity, it's kind of driving my staff and [unintellible] a little crazy, like going, what?

TP: What do they look like?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, they're red and pink. They're girls shoes. They're kind of round toed. Heels, I suppose, on the higher side, but they have a rubber soul on them. So they're practical. They've actually got musical notes on the bottom that sort of invoke a bit of minstrel. I think it says hey minstrel. Come dance with me, something like that on the bottom. I should note.

TP: Maybe.

JOHN FLUEVOG: Your love makes me sing. I think actually what it says. And you know, they got interlacing on then. They're like cutesy. They're like, a lot of shoes I do is a certain segment of the kind of shoes I do and they're poppy and cutesy. She's the kind of person that is part of my customer base. They're intelligent. They're usually at the top of their field in terms of they're professionals, they're doctors and they're lawyers and they're they're kind of slightly nerdy at the same time. And their shoes are a way of them expressing themselves in a kind of understated but yet not way. And she's kind of typical part of my customer base. It's quite lovely. I knew I went from making punk rock shoes and to intelligentsia. I don't know hw that happened but there you go.

TP: Tell me about the decision to donate the proceeds to the food banks.

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, we knew that we had to do it, had to have a charity component. And it was her idea to do to do the food bank.

TP: Who's Bonnie Henry's?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Yes. It was. We went through a couple of different goals here or there, but we settled on the food bank. And I think it's great because there was going to be a lot more people that might be needing the food banks as time goes on. Thirty percent of that people use a food bank are actually children. And I'm a big fan of that.

TP: How did she react when she found out that she was going to have the shoe designed after her?

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, apparently, I haven't spoken to her. It was my marketing manager, Steven, did that. And apparently she's just like thrilled, like she thinks it's so cool. So it's a win win win, right. So win for her. She, her and healthcare workers, they get the praise. We get to give money to something that is very worthy. And from my point of view, I mean, my staff are over the moon about it. So it's just great for my company. It just has to bandage everyone together. Honestly, I had no idea it was sort of like how big deal it's become. You know, I guess it's just like it has all the right elements, right? It's a feel good story. It's a pretty cute chew and it's cherry and it's like, oh, hey, this is something, you know, [unintelliglbe] weird bad news out there. It's like, oh, this is great.

TP: I think it's also a way that, you know, we're all trying to figure out how to express our appreciation for younger workers at this time. You know, we're leaning outside of windows and hitting drums, but this is this is a way that a pretty interesting way to do it, John. Thanks so much for your time.

JOHN FLUEVOG: Well, thank you so much.

MG: That's Tom Power in conversation with the shoe designer John Fluevog.

[Music]

MG: That's it for another extended edition of The Current to take us out this morning. Anna Hebbs who lives in Ottawa is from Antigonish, Nova Scotia. And yesterday, his tributes to her home province poured in from across this country. She played her fiddle and posted it to the Ultimate Online Nova Scotia Kitchen Party. Anna Hebbs takes us away. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Take care yourself. We'll talk again tomorrow.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Wednesday April 22, 2020 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This