![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This morning being the first day of the "stay at home" regime in Ontario, I noted that that at 6:45 this morning the radio was reporting worse than usual congestion in the 401.
This is representative of why and how thus government's response to rising cases is missing its target. The highways are not full of people at 6:45 in the morning gallivanting about or indeed going anywhere entirely voluntarily; they are full of people going to work early because they have to.
All of which implies that workplaces, or at least many workplaces, have not been much affected by the rules -- which indeed mainly restrict some retail workplaces' hours and make little difference to any other places of work. Certainly the highways were not emptied of commuters now working from home or working more sparsely.
Although it's hard to tell, as public numbers are not as detailed as one would like, and there's some doubt as to whether even the government has clear information due to the weakness of their tracking and testing - it looks as though a major driver of Covid transmission is workplace exposure. Certainly the distribution of cases suggests that. Rates are highest in the areas more likely to house the poor who are likely to have worse and more crowded work conditions; this is only exacerbated by the relative density of their living conditions.
So a state of emergency and a stay at home "order" (more like a suggestion) already looks as though it will have little impact. Regulations strictly constraining risky conditions in all workplaces with vigilant enforcement, and not on an emergency basis (two to four weeks) but on an extended basis (the next six months or so) would be more to the point than what we have.
This is representative of why and how thus government's response to rising cases is missing its target. The highways are not full of people at 6:45 in the morning gallivanting about or indeed going anywhere entirely voluntarily; they are full of people going to work early because they have to.
All of which implies that workplaces, or at least many workplaces, have not been much affected by the rules -- which indeed mainly restrict some retail workplaces' hours and make little difference to any other places of work. Certainly the highways were not emptied of commuters now working from home or working more sparsely.
Although it's hard to tell, as public numbers are not as detailed as one would like, and there's some doubt as to whether even the government has clear information due to the weakness of their tracking and testing - it looks as though a major driver of Covid transmission is workplace exposure. Certainly the distribution of cases suggests that. Rates are highest in the areas more likely to house the poor who are likely to have worse and more crowded work conditions; this is only exacerbated by the relative density of their living conditions.
So a state of emergency and a stay at home "order" (more like a suggestion) already looks as though it will have little impact. Regulations strictly constraining risky conditions in all workplaces with vigilant enforcement, and not on an emergency basis (two to four weeks) but on an extended basis (the next six months or so) would be more to the point than what we have.
