It’s time for a little more honesty from our COVID-19 guardians.

First up, let me say, I’m not entirely unappreciative of the efforts of Yukon officials to help keep the virus from our doors.

The Yukon, generally speaking, has likely done the best job in Canada of minimizing the effects of the pandemic, particularly with our proximity to – and affinity with – British Columbia.

That said, let me say – and I’m totally confident I’m speaking for many other people – that I’ve had more than enough of unclear communications and outright condescension from those same officials.

And I’m directing those comments directly at you, Premier Sandy Silver and Dr. Brendan Hanley.

I’m finding it particularly grating to listen to those two pontificating at the COVID-19 briefings week after week after week as if they’re reading a bedtime story to recalcitrant children who need to be put down for a nap.

Their entire approach reeks of parentalism – that’s my gender-free version of paternalism – and it’s demeaning and disrespectful to the intelligence of Yukoners.

Whether it’s the eternal optimism of Silver – who has never found a turd he couldn’t try to polish – or the soft-spoken cloying patronizing approach of Hanley, it’s annoying and unseemly.

For several weeks I’ve been asking – along with many other people – the two talking heads about when we could expect to see COVID restrictions start to ease a bit.

I’ve also been asking about the concerns I hear nearly daily about the benefits of accepting the vaccines when there seems to be little reward for it.

If you are inoculated, can you stop wearing a mask? No.

Can you travel? No.

Can you gather to meet similarly-inoculated friends or family? No.

Can you be confident you won’t spread the virus? No.

So, really, what’s the point of accepting the vaccine? Humans are very much a risk-reward species.

If we take a risk, such as accepting an unproven vaccine, we expect a reward.

So where is it?

Nowhere in sight.

According to the dynamic duo, it all lies in the future – can you say delayed gratification?

That’s all well and good, but after nearly a year of sacrifice and abstention from many normal activities, my argument is that it’s time to – cautiously, of course – provide some of those rewards.

We’ve been told for months the vaccines are “THE WAY” out of this mess.

How many people are still confident of that now, with the vaccine shortages and unproven history of the products and possible debilitating side effects?

It doesn’t sound as if our leadership has much confidence in them either. They keep talking vaguely of herd immunity – which has not been defined – as the new benchmark for returning to some semblance of normalcy.

Talk about the cliché of “moving the goal-posts.”

Now, through some direct questioning of the government people, we have discovered that apparently there are some benchmarks and criteria that Hanley has gathered as to when the restrictions can be loosened.

The difficulty is that:

(1) he hasn’t said what they are, and;

(2) he and his people seem to be disinclined to share the plan – if there is one – with the public.

Apparently, that’s not important – and after all, the doctor knows best.

Hanley and Silver also say – as if reading from some previously-unknown gospel – that Yukoners should be happy-happy to sacrifice all for the so-called greater good.

Which is fine, but you had better pay some attention to social psychology when you start to play that particular game.

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them – and many other people who espouse the same philosophy – that ethos simply doesn’t resonate with a good chunk of the population, either logically or emotionally.

Does that make them bad people? I would say not, but that’s a point to be debated another time.

What is needed is a strategy to deal with that world-view, and that seems to be lacking – other than to try to shame people into adopting it.

Good luck with that divisive approach.

When you’re creating and implementing public policy, you need to be aware of these social-psychological facets, and incorporate them into your strategy.

When the pandemic first broke out, I was both amused and appalled with statements from epidemiologists that the threshold for beating back the virus was 75-per-cent compliance with health measures.

Anyone with a social science background, which is what I have, would scoff at the notion of realistically achieving that, no matter how dire the situation.

I’ve had numerous discussions on this issue with people in the medical field over this past year.

Most will acknowledge informally there should have been more input from those better versed with social science backgrounds rather than just the “hard sciences.”

To sum up, it’s time for Hanley and Silver to put down the fairy tale scripts they’ve been reading from in their COVID briefings and talk to Yukoners as if we are all adults.

If you have a plan for easing restrictions leading to a resumption of somewhat normal activities, present it for discussion and debate.

Otherwise, I – and many others – will be wondering what the agenda actually is.

Do you plan on keeping the Safe Six Plus One in effect even if one case of COVID remains in Canada, North America or the world?

That might be a reduction ad absurdum, but without clear communication from you, it’s a question that needs to be asked.

It’s time to stop talking down, and start talking to, Yukon residents.

We want – and deserve – real answers, real facts, and real plans.

Not sophistry, not word play, and nor do I want to hear – with apologies to The Big Bang Theory – you singing “Soft Kitty” to the Yukon.

It’s time to get real – and do it now.