Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Barrett, first, thank you for being here. I'm sure you're incredibly busy, and your testimony is quite helpful .
Quickly, as I only have three minutes, your point about strong restrictions—and I think you said real, not half measures—is one that I want to speak about.
Obviously, any sort of lockdown or restrictive measures are difficult for everybody. I don't think anyone would not acknowledge that's the case; however, I would assume death and severe illness would be far worse.
This past week, we had an emergency debate on the situation in Alberta, and some of the testimony by our Conservative health critic, our colleague here, referred to lockdowns. She said, “Lockdowns are a very bourgeois concept for a lot of legislators.” She said, “It is a luxury.” She referred to it as being “classist”.
The suggestion that was made was to just use vaccines, and then we don't have to get into this luxury lockdown situation. My community doesn't find that lockdowns are easy, but we do it to make sure we keep our communities safe and our loved ones safe. In terms of that context, is there any jurisdiction that was able to get through the pandemic with vaccines alone, given the fact that we know it takes time for the effectiveness to take hold, even when the person gets a vaccine. What is the importance of strong lockdowns in conjunction with vaccines, and why is this a public health measure and not a bourgeois concept, as has been suggested?