Dusk to Dawn: Tracking Canadian Attitudes Through the COVID-19 Pandemic

Last Updated: October 6, 2020

We are in the middle of the night.

That is the message Canadians are sending as a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic takes shape across our country.

This and other new findings are published in a new survey released by Canada 2020, Dusk to Dawn: Tracking Canadian Attitudes Towards the COVID-19 Pandemic.  

Seven months ago, as the first cases of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were reported and Canadians went into lockdown, the vast majority of the population were experiencing a health pandemic for the first time in their lives.

Now, after a hard and isolating spring, and a summer attempting a tense normalcy, case numbers are sharply on the rise in Canada’s four largest provinces, and current public health measures have been unable to stop the virus from finding a home in each province and territory.

That is why, as a second wave hits, and seven months of anxiety, frustration and confusion crest along with it, Canada 2020 and our research partners at Data Sciences wanted to gauge how Canadians are feeling: where they think we are in the pandemic, what their priorities are both now and into the future, and how they feel we can best find our way through the night.

The survey, as a snapshot in time, is revealing in its uncertainty: it tells us that Canadians are anxious, that they are unsure about the future, and that our leaders will bear a tremendous responsibility – more than they have already shouldered – in uniting a fractured public through the worst of this crisis. 

To better understand how these attitudes may evolve and change both in response to the virus and the action of our governments, Canada 2020 will be updating this survey three more times throughout the remainder of the year.

Our goal is to track these attitudes over time – both validating how Canadians are feeling as we move through a second wave, but also mapping their priorities, opinions and feedback onto better policy responses.

Alex Paterson
Executive Director
Canada 2020

Summary of Findings

Current Canadian sentiment is marked by a significant level of anxiety about the future and about the pandemic. While half the country is cautiously optimistic about the future or believes that we are through the worst of the pandemic, the other half still fear the worst is yet to come. As a reflection of this tension, most Canadians are, at best, lukewarm on the idea of wide sweeping reforms or are unsure of exactly what kind of solutions they want from government right now. 

Right now, Canada wants Canadians to come first and for our national interests and values to be put at the forefront of recovery efforts. Broad support for seemingly contradictory policy objectives, and broad uncertainty point to a need for leadership at this moment in Canadian history. Canadians are looking for the way forward, and are not sure themselves what the future will or should hold.

As we move further towards recovery though, there will be greater need for leaders to demonstrate capacity for innovation to maintain the country’s confidence, and to develop novel solutions to challenges that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. There is a general feeling that we must move forward and cannot go back; it will be up to leaders to identify the best of ourselves that we can and should take with us into the future.

Methodology

The online survey engaged a sample of 1,585 Canadians from September 9th to 13th, 2020. The sample was balanced by gender, age group and regions in Canada. Our results are weighted by age, gender and region to be highly representative of the Canadian population. The margin of error for the data presented below would be ±2%, 19 times of 20 for a probabilistic sample of the same size.

Key Results

Where are we in the night?

Opinions may differ on where we are in the pandemic crisis. Nearer to the start or the end? To measure these differences of opinions we gave respondents a landscape picture divided into different slices, each representing a certain period of time from dusk to dawn. Canadians were then asked the following question:

“Please look at the picture, which is meant to represent the COVID-19 pandemic. Dusk is the beginning of the pandemic, midnight is the worst part of the crisis and dawn is recovery from the crisis. In your opinion, where is Canada right now?”

Few Canadians feel that we are in recovery mode already – only 11% chose early or full dawn. Consistent with this, 11% also agreed or strongly agreed that the Covid-19 pandemic was being blown out of proportion. 1 in 9 Canadians think things are fine, the rest do not.

Otherwise, most Canadians (53%) feel that we are still in the darkest parts of the night. While a little over a third (36%) felt that we had turned a corner or entered the early dawn of this pandemic. As the cases begin to rise again, one wonders if the optimists will perhaps reconsider. 

Part of the divide between those who feel we are facing the worst of the crisis now versus those who believe we are well on the road to recovery may be economic. Canadians who described themselves as financially stable were 20% more likely to have said that we are ‘past midnight’ than Canadians who say they are struggling financially.

Living within the pandemic

We also tested more specific sentiments about COVID-19 that add colour to our results presented above.  

When we asked Canadians whether or not the pandemic was being blown out of proportion, 42% strongly disagreed and 20% disagreed. Only 11% strongly agreed or agreed. 

Moreover, 37% agreed or strongly agreed that they are still afraid they would contract COVID-19 (and 26% somewhat agreed). 

Very few seem to believe that social distancing measures are causing more damages to the economy compared to the damages that the virus would do (30% strongly disagreed that that is the case, and 24% disagreed; only 6% strongly agreed and 6% agreed). 

45% strongly agree that wearing a mask in public indoors spaces is necessary to slow down COVID-19, and 25% agreed that that was the case. 

In sum, our results show a population continuing to grapple a high degree of anxiety around the spread of COVID-19. Canadians are taking it – and the public health measures used to contain it – very seriously.

What is the best way through the woods?

We then asked respondents a series of questions meant to measure where they think leaders should put their focus now. From their responses, it was clear that there are two sentiments Canadians can widely agree on: It’s time to put Canada First and we need to take care of Canadians.

However, Canadians are split on what “taking care of Canadians” looks like practically speaking. Given that nearly half the country believes that we are through the worst of the crisis, it is not surprising that 24% would agree or strongly agree that it’s time to return to normal to protect the economy, and 31% would say that we need to focus on an economic recovery. However, others strongly disagree or disagree that now is the time to focus on the economy, and the vast majority find themselves in the middle on this issue.

The issues of uncertainty

We asked a series of questions to understand whether Canadians want wide-sweeping changes, austerity, or something in between. Our results mostly indicate that Canadians either are not sure what they want from the government right now. 

On questions regarding big changes to Canadian society, most Canadians have mixed feelings:

  • Q: “The government should use this moment in time to introduce big changes to Canadian society by introducing new programs and services”
    • 25% agree or strongly agree, 60% in the middle, 13% disagree or strongly disagree
  • Q: “Governments should not take on big reforms that were not in their campaign platforms.”
    • 18% agree or strongly agree, 70% in the middle, 12% disagree or strongly disagree

It is not surprising that in uncertain times, people are unsure of what they want, or at least not totally aware of what they want.

What novel initiatives should leaders put forward?

We asked respondents about their support for a number of issues, as well as potential and existing government initiatives. Results were quite mixed. 

On the one hand, Canadians understand that current spending levels seem unsustainable. An overwhelming majority are concerned about the deficit (42% Very concerned, 39% somewhat concerned). They also overwhelmingly agree that after this pandemic is over, we will need leaders to be uncompromising to get Canadian finances in order (50% agree or strongly agree, 24% somewhat agree).

On the other hand, when presented with new options for spending programs Canadians were supportive of every initiative they were asked about. They also agreed that we need to implement extensive social programs to make sure that Canadians across the country are safe and provided for (51% agree or strongly agree, 27% somewhat agree). Supporting local producers and manufacturers with a new “Shop Canadian” label, police reforms, a new deal on jobs, and caregiver support were the most popular.

When it came to working with other countries, or a Canada first policy results were similarly ambiguous: about three quarters of Canadians support both of these contradictory viewpoints.

Taken together with the above, these contradictory findings suggest Canadians aren’t sure what they want exactly. But they would be happiest to keep money close to home, support their community and to not have to pick up the cheque for the pandemic if at all possible. Long held attitudes towards international multilateralism may also be newly vulnerable to a more populist and nationalistic message.

Unity and togetherness are our best bet

Across our findings, Canadians are communicating a desire for unity and togetherness both throughout and in response to this crisis.

54% of respondents reported seeing more mutual support within their communities than before the pandemic.

Along the same lines, 56% of respondents believe that there is some good that is coming out of the pandemic that will make the world a better place.

This slice of compassion and sense of community underpins a few policy priorities – particularly in the realm of social policy – with an overwhelming 78% of respondents believing that our government will need to implement extensive social programs to make sure Canadians across the country are safe and supported.

Indeed, when asked what in their opinion is Canada’s greatest strength right now, respondents reported – unprompted – variants on the theme of togetherness: unity, working together, being strong together, community, compassion for each other, and solidarity.

Those attributes, bolstered and supported by strong leadership and coordination by our officials, points the way forward as we face a second wave of this crisis.

Download the Data Set

Questions? Feedback? Get in touch at info[at]canada2020.ca.

@Risk: An Entire Life At Risk

2020Network - Horizontal - Black

On the premiere episode of @Risk, host Jodi Butts speaks with Col. Chris Hadfield, the first Canadian commander of the International Space Station, New York Times bestselling author and YouTube sensation. Mr. Hadfield has spent his entire life being careful with risk, visualizing defeat and then figuring out how to prevent it.

Hear why risk is all of our business, why we should always be ready for things to go wrong, and other lessons relatable to our more earthy daily lives.

Open to Debate: Can democracy survive in the United States of America?

2020Network - Horizontal - Black

Democracy is in decline in the United States of America. While President Trump is hastening that decline, he is neither the initial nor the sole cause of it. Indeed, prior to Trump’s election, the Economist, in its Democracy Index, downgraded the USA from “Full Democracy” to “Flawed Democracy,” citing the concerns that would help give rise to the 45th president.

Stretching back to the 18th century, the United States has routinely faced democratic crises, but this time may be different. The country now faces the confluence and overlapping of several types of threat, leaving us to ask: Can democracy survive in the United States of America?

On this episode of Open to Debate, David Moscrop talks with Dr. Robert C. Lieberman, Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University and co-author, along with Dr. Suzanne Mettler, of Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy.

Risk is all of our business, not just the stuff of Starship Captains and International Space Station Commanders

Col. Chris Hadfield, the first Canadian to walk in space.

“Return to Tomorrow” is neither the best nor best-known episode of the original Star Trek series. Episode 20 in Season 2 is remarkable in a few ways however. It’s where the track of Spock saying “pure energy” comes from that ends up in Information Society’s 1984 synth-pop hit “What’s on Your Mind.” Remarkably as well both Kirk and Spock die in this episode. (SPOILER: only to be revived!) Most interesting to me, it’s the episode that addresses risk most directly.

The Starship Enterprise’s mission is well known (say it with me and Kirk): “Its five year mission, To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life, And new civilizations, To boldly go where no man has gone before.” That mission is front and centre in “Return to Tomorrow”, which explores the meaning and value of life and the appropriate level of risk worth taking to achieve your mission. Kirk, Spock and Lt Commander Ann Mulhall are asked to surrender their bodies to an advanced and powerful species.

We find the Enterprise in space past any point where any human being has previously been. They have encountered what appears to be a dead planet but soon receive an invitation from a being of pure energy named Sargon to transport down to the planet. Kirk notifies the Federation that he has accepted the invitation, electing to “risk the potential dangers”, noting the message won’t reach the Federation for another three weeks. They’re flying without a net so to speak. While Kirk would like his First Officer and Science Officer, Spock, to join him, he says he “can’t risk both of us off the ship.” Sargon has unique means of persuasion available to him so Spock ends up being unable to refuse joining the Captain. When the landing party assembles in the transport room, Scotty expresses reservations, worried the party may dematerialize in solid rock. Spock confirms the landing coordinates are for a chamber, brushing the concern aside. To Spock, Scotty’s concerns were illogical. Dr. McCoy is hesitant but reluctantly joins. Sargon prevents the security guards from being beamed down, leaving only Kirk, Spock, Bones and Lt. Cmdr. Ann Mulhall transported to the planet. That seems like a bad sign, no?

There on the planet, the landing party finds luminous spheres containing the lives of three powerful telepathic beings: Sargon, Henoch and Thalassa. They seek to borrow the bodies of Kirk, Spock and Mulhall so that they may temporarily use them to build humanoid robots to permanently house their beings. Their bodies and their planet was destroyed when, in Sargon’s words, their species “dared to think of ourselves as gods.” In other words, to mistakenly believe they could live their lives beyond the reach of risk.

On the Enterprise, the team debates their choice. Lt. Cmdr. Mulhall wants to proceed in the name of “science”. Dr. McCoy is uneasy, describing their power relationship as between “giants” and “insects”. Kirk insists the decision be made on consensus, even though he could easily order it. He instead tries to persuade the others to accept renting their bodies to this powerful and unknown species in a very Willaim T Kirkesque speech. He begins by saying human progress depends on individual people taking risks. He then acknowledges that McCoy’s threat assessment is sound, but points out that the possibilities for good — the potential for knowledge and advancement — are at least as great. With voice raised, Captain Kirk declares: ‘Risk: Risk is our business. That’s what this starship is all about. That’s why we’re aboard her.”

The experiment proceeds. Henoch attempts to hijack the exercise by trying to keep Spock’s body forever. With advanced powers and dedication to honouring his word, Sargon saves the day. He kills Henoch and embraces Thalassa one last time while they still inhabit Kirk’s and Mulhall’s bodies. They then abandon their plans to become robot overlords, electing to return to and remain in their pure energy forms.

Commander Chris Hadfield grew up watching Star Trek and has gone on to spend his entire life @ risk or as he more precisely says on the inaugural episode of the @ risk podcast “being careful with risk.” After speaking with Commander Hadfield, it is abundantly clear that risk is a choice and often a team sport. Commander Hadfield has faced many difficult choices and worked exceptionally hard to be in the position of having to make them. He has worked with many colleagues who he has called friend and has tragically lost some of them along the way.

Commander Hadfield implores us to be clear eyed about the risks you accept, like Spock, as that usually makes you safer and practice helps with that. Like Kirk extolls, Commander Hadfield shares risk is best understood in the context of purpose; otherwise we are just daredevils or paralyzed “little chihuahuas,” pursuing or avoiding risk for the sake of it. It’s also equally important to appreciate and enjoy the journey while in pursuit of your goals, as not all of your goals may be reached. Sometimes there’s risk without any reward except for the joy gained from the effort and Commander Hadfield consistently invests close attention to being present at all times.

We are not gods and risk is what in part makes us human. Risk is therefore unavoidably all of our business, not just the stuff of Starship Captains and International Space Station Commanders. Enjoy my conversation with the extraordinary Col. Chris Hadfield and draw on its many risk lessons relatable to our more earthy daily lives. Listen to the inaugural episode of the @ risk podcast here: playpodca.st/risk

Jodi Butts, host of @Risk

Do you really value something if you’re not thinking about how you could lose it?

Welcome to @Risk. Truth be told, you have always been living at risk found at the intersection of magnitude and probability but you’re probably just much more aware of it now.

I want to thank you for listening to the special COVID-19 series podcast that I had the pleasure of producing on the 2020 Network, starting at the outset of the pandemic (C19cast). And I truly mean thank you and to all of my guests as the podcast helped me make sense of what was so rapidly unfolding around us, in terms of our evolving understanding of the virus; our clinical response to preparing for it and managing it; the economic consequences; and the human costs.

The pandemic is not over, likely far from it, and so of course its impacts continue to be felt in our homes, our learning and work environments, around the world. So as I set to resume podcasting in September, we could continue to discuss pandemic trajectory and effects and the Canadian road to recovery. And we will but COVID-19 won’t be the lens through which we examine important issues of the day this time — that nasty bug may still make me physically distance from my friends but it’s had enough air time. During the C19cast, we on multiple occasions also adopted a public health approach to discuss topics like firearm regulationhealth equity and anti-Black racism. And that is an important and useful way to think about how we mount responses to challenging issues that threaten our health. While health is a fundamental condition in which we humans build and live our lives, I think there is another essential takeaway from this crisis that I would like to explore with you instead and that is: what other risks are we not thinking about, preparing for, and understanding better and how can we be build for resilience for the unknown unknown or for a low-probability big-impact event?

In my conversation with New York Times best-selling author of books about psychology and decision-making, Dan Gardner, about thinking during a pandemic in the C19cast series, he was pretty unequivocal: humans don’t think about risk well. It relates back to our psychology. We tend to crowdsource our risk assessments, overly guided by other people’s choices being the social creatures that we are. We often discount the likelihood of a risk event even as its probability rises; the probability of a certain event only grows as more time passes and yet we think less and less about the eventuality. We don’t typically use science, statistics and logic; we tend to favour our emotions and experiences. All of this means, we will probably over prepare for a pandemic now due to recency bias, just as we did for terrorist attacks after 9–11 as discussed on the C19cast with Ben Rhodes, New York Times best-selling author and former advisor to President Barack Obama.

COVID-19 has taken so much from us — human lives, businesses, large in-person gatherings, huge swaths of prosperity and equity — but we have not lost all of our progress, our economy marches on and we continue to enjoy life, liberty and security of the person (some more than others). An important lesson of COVID-19 is that we must do more to protect what we have during these dynamic and challenging times. Do you really value something if you’re not thinking about how you could lose it? Please join me @Risk, a new show on the 2020 Network, brought to you by Interac, and let’s think about risk better together.

Subscribe: http://ow.ly/1aZM50BtPXS

Jodi Butts, host of @Risk