Public needs more information

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/03/2020 (1637 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A confounding aspect of the virus that has thrust the world into tumult is that it’s beyond the detection of human senses. We can’t see when it’s near, we can’t feel when it attaches to our skin, we can’t smell or taste when we breathe it in.

We want to avoid it, but we don’t know where it is. That makes us eager for any clues to the whereabouts of this invisible killer.

People in the Waterloo region of Ontario got a break this week when their health officials said they will begin announcing the locations where people who have tested positive for the novel coronavirus may have caught it. By listing the places on a website, the officials hope to alert other people who were at the same locations to self-monitor for symptoms.

It’s a sensible idea that could be adopted in Manitoba. National health officials said this week that almost half of Canada’s COVID-19 are now caused by a spread in the community, not by travellers. In Manitoba, confirmed community contagion has been slow to arrive but we’ve been warned it has emerged and, unless health officials change their ways, we won’t know where in our community the virus is spreading.

Many of us are anxious to know whether we crossed paths with virus carriers in our workplace, book club, church, in a restaurant or in our children’s schools.

As an example of how it should be done, Nova Scotia’s chief medical officer of health announced Thursday that someone contracted the novel coronavirus at a St. Patrick’s Day party attended by 50 people, and he named the community centre where the party was held.

Health officials in Manitoba could be similarly helpful. They know the names, home addresses and locations of people who have tested positive for the virus. They won’t disclose that information, with one exception: early on, officials identified a specific airline flight that led to at least two coronavirus infections in Manitoba.

Several callers to the Free Press and commenters on news stories have suggested Manitoba health officials should stop being so secretive. They argue that we could social distance more effectively if we knew who is carrying the virus, where they live, and where they’ve been in the past three weeks.

They cite countries such as South Korea that have their contagion largely under control, partly because officials publicize lots of information every day. In that country, a national mobile phone alert warns nearby residents when a new case is detected and includes detailed information about the last few places visited by the patient.

Manitoba journalists have asked for more information, but officials have declined, citing the privacy of patients. In normal times, their refusal is understandable for legal and ethical reasons. But everyone will agree these are not normal times.

Although legal safeguards about patient information are outlined in Manitoba’s Personal Health Privacy Act, most rights and liberties of Manitobans were suspended on March 20 when the province declared a state of emergency.

As far as ethical objections to publicizing information about virus carriers, there’s a strong argument that the greater good of Manitoba trumps the desire of the patients to stay anonymous. Extreme measures are needed to minimize Manitoba infections and the resulting economic woes that threaten to be alarmingly deep.

Personally, I believe Manitoba officials can help by releasing information about the locations involving community contagion. But I don’t agree with those who argue health officials should publicize personal information to identify the carriers.

I fear that if it became policy to publicize the identities and home addresses of carriers, it would discourage some people from getting tested when they first experience symptoms because they fear — wrongly, I hope — that public disclosure would lead to shaming.

I believe there is little chance of shaming when it comes to COVID-19. Reasonable people don’t think less of people who test positive, realizing it’s not their fault, they did nothing wrong.

To illustrate how shaming is unlikely in the case of coronavirus carriers, here is a quick quiz: do you have any less esteem for Tom Hanks, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau or Prince Charles?

People who test positive can rise high above possible stigma — and warrant considerable respect in the eyes of others — if they choose one courageous action: self-disclose.

After they test positive, they can keep others from being infected by personally notifying people who were in their orbit in the past three weeks, including households of friends and neighbours. They can also self-disclose on social media, listing times and places they visited. It can read like this: “I’ve tested positive for the novel coronavirus. On March 19, I was at the 7 p.m. screening of the movie Emma in theatre 3 at Scotiabank Theatre.

We all want to stop this virus in its tracks, but we can’t track it unless we get better information from health officials and the people who test positive.

carl.degurse@freepress.mb.ca

Carl DeGurse is a member of the Free Press editorial board.