[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

This was probably crossposted with the edit in which I added the parts describing how vaccines are mandatory for all workers in healthcare in BC - which is probably more to the point of the discussion.

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-health-services-makes-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-all-staff-1.5568524

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page16165.aspx

[crazy canuck]

BB, stop with your right wing fuckery for just one day.

BC does in fact require vaccines.

Details please.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/vaccinecard.html

Not any more a requirement than what Alberta just introduced.

As of Monday if you want to dine inside a restaurant you need to provide proof of vaccination.  Retail, entertainment and recreational facilities can operate as normal if they require proof of vaccination - otherwise it's 1/3 capacity, wear a mask, 2m separation.  My adult hockey league is shut down - unless they require proof of vaccination (I don't think any decision has been made).

I guess the only difference is Alberta will also accept a negative Covid test within 72 hours, but that doesn't sound like much of a difference to me.  It's hardly realistic for someone to constantly be getting Covid tests.

No, that is not accurate.  Testing is sufficient to qualify for "proof of vaccination".  Which misses the whole point of having a vaccine passport.  The purpose is to get people vaccinated by removing their ability to go to things like restaurants if they don't.  The Alberta government is still taking the position it is ok for people not to get vaccinated.

[crazy canuck]

Vaccines in BC are mandatory if you want to go to a restaurant, theatre, gym, etc etc etc.  In Alberta if you are a anti vaxer you just need a test.  Can't make it more simple than that.

[Barrister]

No, that is not accurate.  Testing is sufficient to qualify for "proof of vaccination".  Which misses the whole point of having a vaccine passport.  The purpose is to get people vaccinated by removing their ability to go to things like restaurants if they don't.  The Alberta government is still taking the position it is ok for people not to get vaccinated.

A private PCR test will cost you $150, and is only good for 3 days.

I can see how you might pay that kind of money to go see, say, a concert you really want to see, but is not a realistic option if you just want to go out for dinner, or go to your gym to work out.

Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer to see the government say "You must be vaccinated by December 1 or else pay a fine of $1,000" - that would be real mandatory vaccination.  And Kenney insanely repealed the law that had been in place for 100 years that allowed exactly that.

But I don't see Alberta doing anything significantly different from BC right now.

[Jacob]

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-health-services-makes-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-all-staff-1.5568524

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page16165.aspx

So similar. Cool. I guess the issue at hand are the differences and similarities in the two vaccine passport programs then, with the question whether a $150 for 3 days "pass" on being vaccinated is sufficient to drive people to vaccinate, or whether it's a loophole antivaxxers will embrace.

[Jacob]

In any case, if the Alberta vaccine required policy is essentially the same as BC's then hopefully it'll lead to a similar uptake in vaccinations.

[Barrister]

The bigger question is whether we just see mass noncompliance with the rules.  That's what worries me.

[Jacob]

I didn't even consider that as an option. That'd be pretty bad, yeah.

[crazy canuck]

No, that is not accurate.  Testing is sufficient to qualify for "proof of vaccination".  Which misses the whole point of having a vaccine passport.  The purpose is to get people vaccinated by removing their ability to go to things like restaurants if they don't.  The Alberta government is still taking the position it is ok for people not to get vaccinated.

A private PCR test will cost you $150, and is only good for 3 days.

I can see how you might pay that kind of money to go see, say, a concert you really want to see, but is not a realistic option if you just want to go out for dinner, or go to your gym to work out.

Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer to see the government say "You must be vaccinated by December 1 or else pay a fine of $1,000" - that would be real mandatory vaccination.  And Kenney insanely repealed the law that had been in place for 100 years that allowed exactly that.

But I don't see Alberta doing anything significantly different from BC right now.

So your province is relying on an economic stick to get people vaccinated and if they don't they are still allowed into indoor public areas.   Our PHO has ordered that no restaurants, theatres, gyms etc, can allow unvaccinated costumers into their premises.   That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Here are some of the effects:

In Alberta business and public bodies have the onus of establishing whether they will require vaccination, with all the related legal risks and burdens of making that decision.

In Alberta, the government has signalled fairly strongly that it is ok not to be vaccinated.  In fact their so called proof of vaccine is really a proof of testing for those who are unvaccinated.

In Alberta, there are considerable health risks since a test is only a snap shot in time and once taken is good for three days.  I can go to a restaurant knowing everyone around me is vaccinated.  You can't.  Simple as that.


And what explains these differences?  It is pretty fundamental.  In BC the PHO has made her orders under a statutory power given to her under provincial leglislation.  In Alberta, your equivalent only advises government and politicians make the decision.  So what they are doing may be within the range of options provided to them, but there was likely advise that a program similar to BC (and frankly most every other province) would be the better model to follow.  But for political reasons your government isn't doing that. 

[Barrister]

And what explains these differences?  It is pretty fundamental.  In BC the PHO has made her orders under a statutory power given to her under provincial leglislation.  In Alberta, your equivalent only advises government and politicians make the decision.  So what they are doing may be within the range of options provided to them, but there was likely advise that a program similar to BC (and frankly most every other province) would be the better model to follow.  But for political reasons your government isn't doing that.

Dr. Hinshaw has been clear on this.  The Public Health Orders that are being made are sent out under her name and her authority as Chief Medical Officer of Health granted to her by the Public Health Act.  However she serves as the Chief Medical Officer of Health at the pleasure of the current government.  As such she will only sign off and approve such Public Health Orders that have been approved by government.  She has refused to say what different advise she has given to cabinet, although she was clear that she did support the July 1 re-opening at the time.

So the statutory regime sounds to be almost identical to what exists in BC.

I would be shocked if there wasn't a similar level of co-ordination between Dr. Henry and the BC government.  I doubt it was as contentious as Dr. Henry gets to deal with a noble and wise NDP government, whereas Dr Hinshaw has to deal with the ignorant rubes from the UCP.  But there is no way I can see Dr. Henry making a public health order over the objections of the government of the day.

[Sheilbh]

So your province is relying on an economic stick to get people vaccinated and if they don't they are still allowed into indoor public areas.   Our PHO has ordered that no restaurants, theatres, gyms etc, can allow unvaccinated costumers into their premises.   That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

But aren't they both ultimately relying on the same thing - if you want to access these services you need to get vaccinated. Isn't the goal of both to encourage people to get vaccinated - but there's an alternative in Alberta if you have money (as it seems PCR tests aren't free)?

This may just be a difference in how vaccine passports are being understood/approached in Europe - but from what I've seen especially in France the purpose was to drive up-take not as public health measures for those venues (not least because if you've already got, say 80% of the eligible vaccinated I'm not sure excluding the remaining 20% from all venues is proportionate to their risk).

And what explains these differences?  It is pretty fundamental.  In BC the PHO has made her orders under a statutory power given to her under provincial leglislation.  In Alberta, your equivalent only advises government and politicians make the decision.  So what they are doing may be within the range of options provided to them, but there was likely advise that a program similar to BC (and frankly most every other province) would be the better model to follow.  But for political reasons your government isn't doing that.

Although that isn't inevitable - Sweden has the same model as BC by the sounds of it and have taken a very different approach throughout this crisis. On the other side France with a strong vaccine passport and New Zealand with their zero covid politicans work on the same model as Alberta - there is scientific advice but policy decisions and weighing of different risks and benefits is a job for elected politicians. I don't think it follows that this is what the scientific adviser would do if unfettered by politicians - in the same way as in the UK the pure science advice is don't vaccinate teenagers, it's other policy considerations that overridden that.

I think one of the most striking things about covid is the extent to which this global crisis has been a national and in some places provincial or federal crisis with wildly different policy decisions and approaches, relatively little (from what I can see) looking at or acknowledging what's going on in the rest of the world, so each place sort of faces the same issues as everywhere else as if it's entirely new. The different approaches those decision makers or advisers are taking aren't because they don't care or don't have the same evidence - it's because there is no single right answer (and if there is it's not in any western state but Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea).

And there's no easy political diagnosis - some democracies have done well, others haven't; same goes for authoritarian states or for populist v technocratic, left v right, male v female leaders.

[crazy canuck]

And what explains these differences?  It is pretty fundamental.  In BC the PHO has made her orders under a statutory power given to her under provincial leglislation.  In Alberta, your equivalent only advises government and politicians make the decision.  So what they are doing may be within the range of options provided to them, but there was likely advise that a program similar to BC (and frankly most every other province) would be the better model to follow.  But for political reasons your government isn't doing that.

Dr. Hinshaw has been clear on this.  The Public Health Orders that are being made are sent out under her name and her authority as Chief Medical Officer of Health granted to her by the Public Health Act.  However she serves as the Chief Medical Officer of Health at the pleasure of the current government.  As such she will only sign off and approve such Public Health Orders that have been approved by government.  She has refused to say what different advise she has given to cabinet, although she was clear that she did support the July 1 re-opening at the time.

Yeah, I know that is exactly my point.  In BC the PHO is an independent office.  So no political fuckery like what is happening in Alberta.  The orders our PHO issues are based on her best judgment as a public health professional.

A good example of the difference is when the NHL wanted to use Vancouver as a hub city.  Our Premier was very much in favour of doing that.  Our PHO said no.

[crazy canuck]

So your province is relying on an economic stick to get people vaccinated and if they don't they are still allowed into indoor public areas.   Our PHO has ordered that no restaurants, theatres, gyms etc, can allow unvaccinated costumers into their premises.   That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

But aren't they both ultimately relying on the same thing - if you want to access these services you need to get vaccinated. Isn't the goal of both to encourage people to get vaccinated - but there's an alternative in Alberta if you have money (as it seems PCR tests aren't free)?

This may just be a difference in how vaccine passports are being understood/approached in Europe - but from what I've seen especially in France the purpose was to drive up-take not as public health measures for those venues (not least because if you've already got, say 80% of the eligible vaccinated I'm not sure excluding the remaining 20% from all venues is proportionate to their risk).

And what explains these differences?  It is pretty fundamental.  In BC the PHO has made her orders under a statutory power given to her under provincial leglislation.  In Alberta, your equivalent only advises government and politicians make the decision.  So what they are doing may be within the range of options provided to them, but there was likely advise that a program similar to BC (and frankly most every other province) would be the better model to follow.  But for political reasons your government isn't doing that.

Although that isn't inevitable - Sweden has the same model as BC by the sounds of it and have taken a very different approach throughout this crisis. On the other side France with a strong vaccine passport and New Zealand with their zero covid politicans work on the same model as Alberta - there is scientific advice but policy decisions and weighing of different risks and benefits is a job for elected politicians. I don't think it follows that this is what the scientific adviser would do if unfettered by politicians - in the same way as in the UK the pure science advice is don't vaccinate teenagers, it's other policy considerations that overridden that.

I think one of the most striking things about covid is the extent to which this global crisis has been a national and in some places provincial or federal crisis with wildly different policy decisions and approaches, relatively little (from what I can see) looking at or acknowledging what's going on in the rest of the world, so each place sort of faces the same issues as everywhere else as if it's entirely new. The different approaches those decision makers or advisers are taking aren't because they don't care or don't have the same evidence - it's because there is no single right answer (and if there is it's not in any western state but Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea).

And there's no easy political diagnosis - some democracies have done well, others haven't; same goes for authoritarian states or for populist v technocratic, left v right, male v female leaders.

It is not merely scientific advice.  The PHO weighs all the factors.

And the two programs are in no way the same thing.  In BC you must be vaccinated if you want to go to the gym.  In Alberta you can risk it if you want.

[Jacob]

But aren't they both ultimately relying on the same thing - if you want to access these services you need to get vaccinated...

I went back and read BB's explanation of the situation in Alberta:

As of Monday if you want to dine inside a restaurant you need to provide proof of vaccination.  Retail, entertainment and recreational facilities can operate as normal if they require proof of vaccination - otherwise it's 1/3 capacity, wear a mask, 2m separation.

So in BC the choice is between:

1. Be vaccinated and attend all the various businesses and recreational activities; and
2. Not be vaccinated and be unable to attend any of those activities.

In Alberta - if I read BB correctly - the choice is between:

1. Be vaccinated and attend all the various businesses and recreational activities; and
2. Not be vaccinated and attend whatever businesses and recreational activities that choose not to check for vaccination, and as a result need to operate at a reduced capacity and require mask use.

So it appears that it's up to business owners to decide if they want require proof of vaccination, and that it's perfectly possible to access services if your local businesses decide not to check for whatever reason (personal belief, pressure from the community, appeal to specific market segments, whatever).

That's a bit of a difference there, I think.

[Sheilbh]

Okay - I'd misunderstood I thought the alternative in Alberta was vaccine or a negative test within the last three days.

It is not merely scientific advice.  The PHO weighs all the factors.

Okay but again that gets you to the question of whether it should be their job to weigh up all factors or provide advice/make decisions within their area of expertise. And as I say that's the same as the Swedish model - so I just don't think remove political interference = BC's policies; tolerate political interference = Alberta's.

Public health experts around the world don't have one view on this especially on the more edge/difficult cases like schools or who gets vaccinated or what combination of measures we have in place once we have a high level of vaccination, esepcially in vulnerable groups. I think the whole "follow the science" approach was true in the first wave, I think there was far more consensus. We're now moving into a more difficult set of decisions around what the world looks like with endemic covid.

Incidentally - I think a lot about Jeremy Farrer's remarks that this may be most difficult for somewhere like China that did very well to stop covid, has less efective vaccines and hasn't experienced many deaths. Because the rest of the world failed to or didn't try to achieve "zero covid" it's going to be very difficult for them because there will be deaths (same goes for Australia and New Zealand - but moreso in China because their vaccines are good and effective, but less effective than the alternatives).