Vaccinated people can ditch the mask outdoors in many cases: CDC

You can ditch the mask walking your dog or dining outside with friends if you are fully vaccinated from COVID-19. But keep it on for any outdoor crowded events like concerts, parades and sporting events.


Wearing a mask in public spaces indoors also remains a must.

That’s according to new guidance released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for people considered fully immunized -– a milestone achieved two weeks after a person’s final vaccine shot.

CDC relaxes mask guidelines for vaccinated people outdoors

In a press briefing Tuesday announcing the change, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said the latest research suggests transmission outdoors is rare, with indoor settings posing a "20-fold" increased risk. The CDC plans to further loosen suggested rules as more people become vaccinated and case numbers decline, she said.

"The more people who are vaccinated, the more steps we can take towards spending time with people we love doing the things we love to enjoy," Walensky told reporters on 

Tuesday.

MORE: As debate swirls, colleges weigh whether to mandate COVID-19 vaccines

The new guidelines could pave the way for states and local officials to relax mask mandates now that vaccination rates are climbing. Among the new federal recommendations is that vaccinated people can consider themselves safe attending church, shopping at the mall or going to the gym, although the CDC still recommends wearing a mask in those indoor settings.

The primary reason for urging caution, the CDC says, is because it’s not clear whether a vaccinated person can transmit the virus.

Studies show the vaccine is extraordinarily effective in preventing a person from getting seriously ill after becoming infected. But less is known about whether they could still carry the virus and infect others who aren’t vaccinated.

© Reading Eagle Vi/MediaNews Group via Getty Images Women sit at a table outside Farmhouse Kitchen, June 5, 2020 in West Reading, Penn.

"In public spaces, the vaccination status of other people or whether they are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 is likely unknown. Therefore, fully vaccinated people should continue to follow guidance to protect themselves and others, including wearing a well-fitted mask, when indoors or in an outdoor setting or venue where masks are required," according to the CDC.

Less than a third of the country has been fully vaccinated, meaning much of the population remains at risk. And while rising vaccinations are credited for helping to blunt the impact of the pandemic – states are reporting a nearly 17 percent decline in the last week -- the U.S. daily case average is still nearly 55,000.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, has said previously that he would want to see that number drop below 10,000 a day before states consider pulling back on mitigation measures like mask mandates. Until then, people can protect themselves by getting vaccinated, he said.

© Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images A man wears a mask as uses his cellphone in Times Square on March 5, 2020, in New York City.

"Even when you're talking about variants, indoors, outdoors -- get vaccinated and you will certainly have a degree of protection," Fauci said Tuesday.MORE: 3 things scientists have learned about vaccine hesitancy: Analysis

Last month, Walensky said she feared "impending doom" as cases appeared to be back on the rise after a massive post-holiday surge. On Tuesday, the director said that curve is now "stabilizing," which she attributes to rising vaccination numbers. But, she warned, future success could vary by region.

"Where we have low areas of vaccination, we are going to potentially see more outbreaks, which is why I think it's really, we have to be careful," she said.

The MIT study that said social distancing does little to stop COVID-19 indoors didn't look at the main way the virus spreads

Dr. Catherine Schuster-Bruce
cschusterbruce@businessinsider.com
4/27/2021

© RichLegg/Getty 

 High school students in a social distanced classroom. 

An MIT study published Tuesday suggested social distancing did little to limit airborne coronavirus transmission indoors.

But the study didn't look at whether social distancing stops coronavirus spreading via other routes.

The virus can also spread in larger droplets when people cough or sneeze, or via direct contact with surfaces.

A study published Tuesday in a world-leading medical journal said that 6-foot social distancing indoors did little to stop the spread of coronavirus indoors - but it didn't take into account all the ways the virus spreads.

Crucially, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study focused on airborne transmission of very small droplets. The study didn't look at whether distancing stops the virus spreading via two other possible routes: first, larger respiratory droplets, and second, direct contact.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), coronavirus mostly spreads through large respiratory droplets. This can happen when people are within about 6 feet or each other for a prolonged period, and an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, launching droplets from their mouth or nose into the air and onto other nearby people.

It is also possible to catch coronavirus by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and subsequently touching the mouth, nose, or eyes. This is called direct contact. This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, according to the CDC.

Social distancing could stop the virus from spreading in these ways, according to the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO).

Bryan Bzdek, research fellow at the Bristol Aerosol Research Centre at the University of Bristol, told Insider that physical distancing reduces exposure to the largest droplets, which "travel like cannonballs" and settle on the ground quickly.

He said distancing helps reduce exposure to smaller aerosol droplets, too, because their concentration is always highest nearer the source, i.e., a person's mouth and nose.

"If you are standing farther away, there is more time for that plume to dilute, reducing exposure," Bzdek explained.

The MIT researchers didn't advocate scrapping social distancing entirely. They said in a joint statement Sunday that the study indicated the 6-feet rule was "insufficient" to stop airborne transmission of coronavirus indoors.

In "well-mixed" spaces, where effectively everyone in the room is breathing the same air, no-one is safer from airborne pathogens at 60 feet apart than at 6 feet apart, Martin Byzant, professor of chemical engineering and applied mathematics at MIT, and John W. M. Bush, professor of applied mathematics, said.

People must also limit the time they spend in an indoor space, they said. According to the study, risk depended on the number of people in a space, the type of activity, ventilation, and mask-wearing.

Byzant and Bush created a guideline for policy makers, schools, and individuals to gauge the risk of catching coronavirus indoors based on these factors.

Bzdek told Insider that in a poorly ventilated space, like the ones considered in the study, the aerosol levels would gradually build up over time, increasing exposure with time spent in the room. But the fact remains that the guidance was based on just one route of transmission, and the authors' physics-based models assumed coronavirus particles always spread evenly throughout a room.

Howard Stone, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, who was not involved in the study, told MIT News that the analysis was a valuable tool for estimating the maximum time to spend indoors with others, but it was a "rough estimate."

Read the original article on Business Insider

MIT COVID study shows indoors, masks may be more important than social distancing
Sean Buckley 

CNET 4/27/2021

Wash your hands. Wear a mask. Stand at least six feet away from others. These are the guidelines many of us have lived by for the past year, all of them suggested in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, MIT researchers are taking a closer look at the six-foot recommendation to see how effective social distancing really is.

© Provided by CNET New MIT study examines the benefit of wearing masks. James Martin/CNET

The short answer? In certain situations, six feet of distance isn't enough to protect you on its own and you should probably still wear a mask.

The real answer? That's a little complicated. The paper says that in "well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft than 6ft," but the context of this statement depends on the size of the space, how well ventilated it is and what the persons in the room are doing.

Researchers specifically designed the study to mimic the conditions of certain kinds of indoor "superspreading events," such as the Skagit Valley choir practice that resulted in the infecting 53 of 61 attendees. In other words, researchers were only targeting the transmission of small aerosol droplets in a "well-mixed" indoor space with only moderate ventilation -- one where the air moves around frequently enough that potentially infected particles don't have time to settle.

© Provided by CNET Martin Z. Bazant / John W. M. Bush

For example, the formula researchers devised for calculating indoor safety guidelines suggest that if an infected person was riding on a commercial airline with 100 other people, other passengers would be at risk of infection within 70 minutes. If all of the passengers wore masks, however, that space could be safe for up to 54 hours.

With data like that, it's possible to conclude the study says social distancing isn't effective, but the authors are quick to point out that the paper examines only one method of transmission under very specific conditions. In a statement, the researchers said that their findings had been "mischaracterized by some on social media and in the news," stating that the paper makes a point of calling out the benefits of social distancing and mask-wearing in conditions outside of the study's purview.

"The value of social distancing in limiting COVID-19 transmission by respiratory jets is made clear in the last section of our paper, 'Beyond the well-mixed room,'" they said. "Our study highlights that face masks can be an extremely effective indoor safety measure."

The researchers have built an online tool to help readers calculate how their formula estimates risk for differing room sizes, occupancy levels and mask-wearing behavior. 

Staying 6 feet apart indoors does almost nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19, MIT study finds

mguenot@businessinsider.com (Marianne Guenot) 

4/27/2021

© REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha 

People eating behind individual plastic screens at a restaurant in Bangkok on May 8. 

The widely used 6-foot rule does little to prevent COVID-9 exposure indoors, MIT researchers found.

The risk of exposure from an infected person is similar at 6 feet and 60 feet, one researcher said.

The study said mask-wearing, ventilation, and what a space is used for were bigger variables.

The widely used rule of staying 6 feet away from others does little to affect the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in indoor spaces, according to a new study out of MIT.

According to MIT researchers, the rule is based on an outdated understanding of how the coronavirus moves in closed spaces.

They said other variables - like the number of people in a space, whether they wear masks, what they are doing, and the level of ventilation - were much more important.

The 6-foot rule is used in various forms around the world: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises 6 feet of separation indoors and outdoors, while in the UK the figure is 2 meters. In much of Europe, the figure is 1 meter, which is also recommended as a minimum distance by the World Health Organization.

But while such distancing rules are easy to remember, and purport to suit any situation, the new study says they may not be that useful.

The study was released online ahead of its publication in the peer-reviewed journal PNAS on Tuesday.

It says a better way of controlling indoor exposure is to do individual calculations based on variables for that space.

In some cases, the exposure level might be the same at 6 feet as at 60 feet, one of the study authors has said.

Martin Bazant and John Bush, both MIT professors in applies mathematics, developed a formula to estimate how long it would take for a person to hit dangerous levels of exposure from one infected person entering a room.

The calculation is more sophisticated version of the traffic-light system previously proposed by MIT. It takes into account the number of people in the room, the size of the space, what they are doing, whether masks are being worn, and what kind of ventilation is in place.

Using this calculation, it could be that the level of exposure is high in some spaces even if people are more than 6 feet away. It could also be lower than expected.

"The distancing isn't helping you that much, and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant told CNBC.

Scientific understanding of how the coronavirus moves in the air has challenged earlier assumptions about how best to adapt to minimize its spread.

At the beginning of the pandemic, it was widely believed that the virus traveled via heavier droplets ejected during exhalation, sneezing, or speaking.

But evidence has long suggested that the virus instead floats around on lighter aerosol droplets that can stay suspended in the air and travel much farther than first thought.

In their calculation, the MIT researchers took into account the effect of having people in the room, and their behavior, on how long the virus would stay suspended in the air.

In a calm environment, these particles would slowly drift to the ground, the researchers said in their study.

But in an environment in which the air is moving around the room and people are talking, eating, singing, and sneezing, the drops can be suspended in the airflow and mixed throughout the room longer.

The effect can be counteracted by ventilation or filtration to get the virus particles out of circulation in the room.

A website made available by the researchers shows how this model works in different scenarios.

For example, if an infected person walks into a classroom hosting 25 people, none wearing masks and all speaking, everyone would be at risk from the coronavirus within 36 minutes, the website says. It doesn't matter if they follow the 6-foot rule.

By contrast, if all 25 people in that room were wearing a mask, the air would be safe to breathe for 20 hours, it said.

If they were all singing without a mask, they be at risk from the virus within three minutes.

Public-health bodies have started to acknowledge that the 6-foot rule is not a catchall. In March, the CDC advised that the 6-foot rule could be brought down to 3 feet in K-12 schools.

This weekend, the CDC also updated social-distancing guidance for children in summer camps, saying they can be within 3 feet of one another except when eating or drinking.

It also suggested that disinfection of surfaces might not be necessary in public spaces, urging an end to what some have called "hygiene theater."

As for rules dictating social distancing outdoors, Bazant said they are "kind of crazy," CNBC reported. The infected air "would be swept away," Bazant said, making the rule irrelevant.

Unless the space outdoors is crowded, Bazant said, he would feel comfortable being as close as 3 feet even without masks.

Experts have told Insider that when it is possible to stay more than 6 feet away from people, wearing a mask outside is not always necessary.
Read the original article on Business Insider

Call for new approach to end silence over miscarriage

By Katie Hunt, CNN 4/27/2021

Miscarriages are common. Some 23 million pregnancies worldwide end in miscarriage every year -- that's 15% of all pregnancies or 44 each minute, according to new estimates published in The Lancet medical journal on Monday.

© Getty Images A new system that provides women suffering miscarriage with physical and mental health support is needed, found new research published in The Lancet medical journal.

However, existing care and support for women and couples is "inconsistent and poorly organized" and amounts to little more than patients being told to "just try again," said the authors of three new studies on the causes, treatment and scale of miscarriage around the world. A new system is needed to ensure miscarriages are better recognized by health care practitioners and women are given the physical and mental health support they need, the researchers said.

"Many womn have concerns over the unsympathetic care they receive following a miscarriage -- with some not being offered any explanation, and the only advice they receive being to try again. This is not good enough, and we must ensure women are properly supported," Siobhan Quenby, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, said in a news statement. Quenby is also deputy director of Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research and was one of 31 experts who authored the three studies.

The actual number of cases is likely "considerably higher," as many miscarriages are managed at home and go unreported or they are undetected. However, the research said recurrent miscarriages are much less common, with 2% of women having experienced two miscarriages and less than 1% of women having three or more, according to a review of published scientific literature.

While definitions of miscarriage vary, it's generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability, the authors said.

Misconceptions about pregnancy loss

Miscarriage is often misunderstood by women, men and health care professionals -- and misconceptions persist.

For example, the authors said, women might believe it's rare -- when it affects one in 10 women across their lifetime -- that there are no effective treatments, and that it could be caused by lifting heavy objects or previous contraceptive use. These misconceptions often prevent women from seeking help.

And when women do seek help, they often need to attend many clinics to find a cause for miscarriage, and there is rarely one place that can address all their needs, according to the research. Patients are often treated by multiple practitioners, who frequently give conflicting advice. This can add to women's distress as they process the loss.

An editorial published by The Lancet alongside the research said that for too long, miscarriage had been "minimized and often dismissed."

"The lack of medical progress should be shocking. Instead, there is a pervasive acceptance," the editorial said.

Recently, celebrities like Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and Chrissy Teigen have helped chip away at the long-standing culture of silence around miscarriage and baby loss by sharing their own stories.

"Miscarriage causes devastation to large numbers of couples in every country; there is silence around miscarriage from women and their partners, health-care providers, policy makers, and funders," the researchers said.

Given the fragmented system that exists in most countries, the authors proposed a new system of miscarriage care and treatment that they said governments and health care providers should make universally available:

After a first miscarriage, women should have their physical and mental health needs evaluated and be provided with guidance to support future pregnancies.

If a second miscarriage occurs, women should be offered an appointment at a dedicated miscarriage clinic for full blood count and thyroid function tests, as well as a discussion of their risk factors. Women who have had two miscarriages and then get pregnant should be offered extra support and early scans for reassurance.

After three miscarriages, additional tests and treatments should be offered including genetic testing of pregnancy tissue, as well as pelvic ultrasound and, if necessary, parental genetic testing.

Study coauthor Chandrika N. Wijeyaratne, a senior professor of reproductive medicine at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka, said in a statement that there needs to be a minimum service available globally for women who have had recurrent miscarriages.

"Women -- and sometimes their partners -- who do not have children face discrimination, stigma, and ostracism in many cultures worldwide, but miscarriage prevention remains a low public health priority in many low- and middle-income countries, where there are many competing health care priorities and services for women can be especially limited."


Miscarriage risk factors

The new research highlighted several factors that have been linked with a higher risk of miscarriage.

These include increasing age for both men and women and having a very low or high body mass index. Ethnicity may play a role as well: Black parents were more likely to experience pregnancy loss when compared to White couples. Smoking, drinking alcohol, persistent stress, working night shifts, and exposure to air pollution and pesticides have also been associated with an increased risk in miscarriage.

While there is limited evidence, some treatments including progesterone, a hormone essential to a healthy pregnancy, could help women who experience miscarriages, the research said. However, much more research is needed, including new clinical trials and dedicated research centers with expertise in genetics, developmental and reproductive biology, and data science.

"Not all miscarriages could be avoided, but the insidious implication that miscarriage, like other women's reproductive health issues, including menstrual pain and menopause, should be managed with minimal medical intervention is ideological, not evidence based," said the editorial that accompanied the research.

This new body of research should, it added, "catalyze a major focus on miscarriage for the medical research community, for service providers, and for policy makers. The era of telling women to 'just try again' is over."

The doctor behind 'The Vagina Bible' wrote a new book on menopause, and she says she's skeptical of the startups targeting middle-aged women

pyeo@businessinsider.com (Patricia Kelly Yeo) 15 hrs ago

LikeComments|

2

© Peacock Alley Entertainment Dr. Jen Gunter in 2019. 

Gynecologist Jen Gunter's new book debunks myths about menopause.
Gunter said most startups that are trying to tackle menopause aren't selling anything new.

Her expert advice for those approaching or in menopause: quit smoking, exercise, and eat healthy.

Menopause - medically defined as the stage after a biological female's final menstrual period - is as universal an experience as first starting your period in puberty.

Accompanied by declining levels in sex hormones and eventual loss of fertility, the experience of going through menopause isn't exactly well-depicted in media or commonly spoken about - so Dr. Jen Gunter wrote her second book about it.

"Menopause is puberty in reverse," she writes in "The Menopause Manifesto," set to be published May 25. Unlike pregnancy, menopause will happen in all biological females who live past a certain age, yet few honest, accessible, and women-centered discussions on the reproductive transition exist, Gunter said.

Beyond the loss of period and measured hormonal declines, menopause symptoms can vary widely. Common ones include changes in body temperature, mood, sleep, weight, and sex drive.

Intended to be an inclusive, educational and historical guide to the fertility transition, "The Menopause Manifesto" is Gunter's follow-up to The New York Times-bestselling "The Vagina Bible" published in 2019.

Gunter, a practicing gynecologist in the Bay Area, also dispenses science-backed health advice for women across the board.

Having first spoken out against Goop's controversial jade eggs in 2017, Gunter is a vocal online critic of health misinformation and the many forms misogyny can take within it.

Speaking to Insider, Gunter said she was inspired to write "The Menopause Manifesto" largely due to the negative stereotypes women approaching menopause face around their sexual value and social worth, as well as the lack of easily understandable, de-stigmatized information on the biological transition.

Similar to her first book, it cuts through the misogyny embedded in conventional Western medicine to talk about women's health to debunk myths and provide historical and social context. Her 25 years of clinical experience and her personal experiences with premenopause, the long and varied phase leading up to it, guided its writing as well.

Gunter's focus on aging women is happening at a time when there's been a"menopause product boom," and calls for increased venture funding. Though she said that women over the age of 45 have been "treated like a silent demographic," Gunter expressed skepticism about the increased attention to the estimated $600 billion market.

"If you need calcium, you can take a calcium supplement," she said. "Why do you need one branded for menopause? Is that like a pink tax, plus a menopause tax on top of it?"

Instead, Gunter offered three general health recommendations for those either already in or approaching menopause: quit smoking, exercise, and eat a healthy diet - with plenty of fiber.
Venture-backed menopause startups aren't doing anything new

"The Menopause Manifesto" draws upon dozens of scientific studies evaluating the evidence for different approaches to managing menopause symptoms, most of which are caused by declining levels of the sex hormone estrogen.

One of the first mainstream medical treatments for menopause that might come to mind is hormone replacement therapy. In her book, Gunter rejects the term for its value-laden connotations, preferring to use the term menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT.

"While MHT can be helpful for many people, it really needs to be looked at as one part of the puzzle," Gunter said. "Often the focus seems to be on estrogen, as opposed to the whole experience."

Other approaches beyond MHT and lifestyle recommendations, Gunter found, have little evidence for wellness and alternative health products in treating the symptoms of menopause. In "The Menopause Manifesto," she devotes seven chapters to both medical treatments and unregulated products, including dietary supplements, bioidentical hormones, birth control, and MHT.

Although Gunter said she would need to consider each product on an individual basis, she's wary of slickly marketed products, particularly supplements and other combination products that market themselves as blanket solutions.

"Things claim to be 'ovary support' or 'menopause support,' but that's a medically meaningless term," she said. "Most people don't need to take a supplement."

With the exception of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin B12, the data on efficacy for most menopause-targeted supplements, including popular multivitamins, remains spotty and scarce, according to "The Menopause Manifesto." Despite the billions of dollars consumers pour into the supplement industry, food remains the best way to get micronutrients.

In the last year, she said a handful of startups have pitched her menopause-related ventures, none of which seemed to be different for existing free resources for menopause patients.

"Someone pitched me some app that women would sign up for and pay for with all the guidelines [for menopause]," Gunter said.

"And I'm like, 'The North American Menopause Society has one and it's free! How is your app different from that?' Then there's just a big silence."
Her doctor's advice for managing menopause symptoms is science-backed and likely unsurprising

Menopause symptoms can include hot flashes and brain fog. Gunter pointed to some ways to improve health and well-being during that time.

Gunter's recommendations for people in menopause are simple: quit smoking, strive for the American Heart Association's recommended 150 minutes of weekly aerobic exercise, and learn how to eat healthier - including hitting the broadly recommended daily 25 grams of fiber.

"The science of nutritional studies is really challenging for a lot of reasons, but the takeaway really is that people need to eat more vegetables," she said.

In addition to getting enough fiber, Gunter added we'd likely all be a little bit better off with trying to eat more plant-based protein and minimizing processed food. More accessible, high fiber, healthy food would improve public health overall, and reduce people's risk of other conditions like hemorrhoids and colorectal cancer.

"I guess what people can benefit from isn't sexy," she added. "Nobody wants to buy a book about the hundred joys of fiber."

Gunter also highlighted adding weight-bearing exercise, since strength training can help mitigate the effects of bone loss and accelerated loss of muscle mass that occurs during menopause.

What works for one person may not work for another, but Gunter is firm in her belief we all probably need to move our bodies more - a message that's often lost in Instagram-friendly advertising for women's health products.

"If health and wellness is something that appeals to you - exercising and learning how to eat better and prepare meals is good, but there isn't a specific pillow or bed sheet or supplement that's going to help with menopause," she said.

 Ontario’s failed plan for paid sick leave falls flat 

REAL FAKE NEWS
NY Post Reporter Resigns, Says She Was 'Ordered to Write' False Kamala Harris Story

J. Clara Chan

THEWRAP

4/27/2021

© TheWrap New York Post Kamala Harris cover

The Post's Laura Italiano says the article about Harris' book was her "breaking point"

A New York Post reporter who wrote a since-retracted article about migrant children getting a copy of Vice President Kamala Harris' book as part of "welcome kits" said she resigned on Tuesday after she was "ordered to write" the story.

"Today I handed in my resignation to my editors at the New York Post," reporter Laura Italiano tweeted. "The Kamala Harris story — an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against — was my breaking point."

Video: Right wing falls for bogus story about Kamala Harris (MSNBC)
Duration 2:40

A spokesperson for the Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fox News Walks Back Report That Kamala Harris' Book Was Given to Migrant Kids (Video)

The story originally was published last Friday, promoted on the Post's Saturday front page and amplified by Fox News and prominent Republicans like RNC chair Ronna McDaniel and Sen. Tom Cotton. But according to fact-checking from other outlets, including The Washington Post, Harris' book, "Superheroes Are Everywhere" has not been handed out to children as part of "welcome kits" at a shelter in Long Beach, California. One single copy of the book was donated during a donation drive, Long Beach officials told The Washington Post.

On Monday, the incorrect New York Post piece was taken offline briefly before a heavily edited version was reposted with an editor's note that read, "The original version of this article said migrant kids were getting Harris' book in a welcome kit, but has been updated to note that only one known copy of the book was given to a child."

Undocumented workers in B.C. worry COVID-19 vaccine could get them deported

Duration: 02:10 

4/27/2021

Many undocumented workers in British Columbia are hesitant to get a COVID-19 vaccine over concerns that if their status is revealed at a vaccination clinic, they could be deported.

CANADA

Parliamentary report calls for ‘coercive control’ to become crime
Duration: 02:01

 cbc.ca

 4/27/2021
A parliamentary report and an aligning private member’s bill calls for "coercive control" to be added to the criminal code.

Six Nations elected chief endorses building moratorium, calls for unity with Confederacy ahead of hearing on land claims

Six Nations Elected Chief Mark Hill has signalled his support for the development moratorium within the Haldimand Tract declared by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council last week.

“We reiterate and acknowledge their call for the moratorium,” Hill said, noting the elected council’s “major” land claims lawsuit against the federal government is scheduled to be heard in court late next year.

“It would not be responsible to allow continued development in an uncertain legal environment,” Hill said. “The government of Canada owes Six Nations potentially in the trillions of dollars in relation to our lands.”

Hill made the comments during a virtual press conference on Monday while discussing the importance of finding common ground with the Confederacy on issues such as clean drinking water on the reserve, new long-term and palliative-care facilities, and the need for a permanent home for Kawenni:io Language School, which has been without a fixed address for its 30-plus-year history.

The Confederacy — made up of hereditary chiefs and clan mothers — announced any developers wishing to build along the Grand River need to first go through a consultation with the Confederacy’s development arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute.

“In terms of the (consultation) process, we need to make sure the people are part of that process as well, and what that looks like,” Hill said.

“We need to all be held accountable for our actions, and again, be accountable to our people.”

The federal government has said the elected and hereditary leadership — often at loggerheads over who is the legitimate authority on Six Nations — must smooth over their long-standing differences before negotiations can begin over the future of 1492 Land Back Lane, a planned Caledonia housing development presently occupied by Six Nations land defenders.

“We have to develop that road map together in order to get to unity,” said Hill, who characterized recent talks between the two councils as “optimistic.”

“Our people have said over and over again that they would like to see the two bodies work together,” he said.

“What that looks like is the big question.”

The chief said one positive to come out of the pandemic was how representatives from both councils collaborated on public health measures.

“We’ve come together on this issue, and it’s that beauty of when our people do come together, we can really flourish,” he said, expressing hope the two councils can join forces “and once and for all address our long-standing land issues.”

“We have to make sure that we’re keeping Ontario and Canada accountable, because this is very much part of their issue as well,” Hill said.

J.P. Antonacci, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Hamilton Spectator