The entire benefit of delaying restrictions is to allow people to do things that would otherwise be restricted because they increase infections. The decision not to impose restrictions by @jkenney and @CMOH_Alberta is *guaranteed* to increase infections.

Why would our government do that? When they do impose restrictions, it will take longer to lift them, the higher the number of infections we go in with. So it can't be for the economy. Restaurants and bars *lose* with longer restrictions. So then, why?

Presumably the political calculus is that the govt will be able to explain to people that it *had* to take the restrictions because things got so demonstrably bad. In effect, if you are able to look at the trend, and *predict* that things will be bad, you are not a UCP voter.

If you are the sort of person who is only convinced that there is a problem when the ICUs are packed full of people whose sickness was predictable 4 weeks earlier, you are @jkenney's target audience.

The problem is that if restrictions are put into place, and infections fall, then how will the govt prove that the restrictions were necessary? The answer, I think, is that voters will ultimately reward politicians who deliver good results, because they can look elsewhere.

In the Maritimes, NZ and Australia, while enjoying a quite normal life, they are wondering why we are putting up with the seesaw policy of allowing just enough infections to achieve political consensus for restrictions.

We appear to have government based on myopia.