It was a while before coronavirus was regarded as a matter of serious concern in North America. However, people finally resigned themselves to the inevitability of the virus, which left them with no option but to take prevention measures.
Washing hands frequently became the clarion call as people began to stock up on hand sanitizers and soap. The objective in all this is to slow down the spread of the virus by resorting to social distancing. People began to wonder how they could contribute to “flattening the curve” and keep the virus from overwhelming the medical system. The rate of infection was alarming, and experts predicted that the capacity of the global healthcare network would not be able to handle it unless the spread was controlled.
Provincial governments also began taking the requisite steps after the number of confirmed cases rose in early March. Schools were shut down, and children were told to remain at home. Soon after, many parents were ordered to work from home. The hit to the economy forced a large number of businesses to close their operations, which led to the sacking of many. Since legal firms are viewed as “essential businesses,” they were given permission to function. Social gatherings have to be limited to just two people. Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister, has preached over and over again that people should stay at home.
An opposing view
However, only time will tell whether this is the right approach to deal with the virus. An editorial written by Dr. David Katz of Yale University for the New York Times states that governments would benefit from taking a more “surgical” approach to controlling the infection. He talks about herd immunity strategy and how it could prove to be effective. He argues that demographics that are not vulnerable to the virus should still be able to participate in the community. Directing attention to the especially vulnerable people would help to optimize the required medical services and tests.