Avoiding needless confrontation in the Arctic and rebuilding Canadian disarmament diplomacy

• September 24, 2021
• Ceasefire.ca
• Blog

The last thing the Canadian Arctic needs is British military meddling

An article by CBC senior defence writer Murray Brewster features the headline

Britain offers Canadian military help to defend the Arctic.

Bear in mind that we have an elaborate air, aerospace, land and maritime defence infrastructure with the USA — NORAD — to defend North America. The article suggests that much of Canada’s “reluctance” to accept increased Allied activity in the Canadian Arctic relates to “contested claims to Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic”.

Since Canada has contested legal claims not just with the UK but also with the USA over the Northwest Passage, it defies common sense that this would be the reason for rebuffing British proposals for more military engagement there.

The plain fact is that there’s little agreement among NATO members on the role of the Alliance, or even of individual European members, in the North American Arctic, and its potentially negative impact on the productive non-military cooperation in the entire Arctic, particularly through the Arctic Council, which Russia currently chairs.  And this is reflected in the carefully worded statement by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, referenced in the article, that

the Arctic is a zone of global cooperation …

that also demands collaboration and partnership with close allies.

For a good overview of the issues, see the NAADSN August 2021 policy primer by Mackenzie Foxall, available here. One comment from the introduction should suffice to illustrate the complexities involved:

Russia’s fear of being encircled means that NATO must ensure its engagement in the Arctic is clear and transparent to avoid a rapid rise in tensions between the different sets of actors.

Canada already beefing up surveillance capabilities in the Arctic

Note the following question and answer from the Brewster article:

With Australia planning to acquire nuclear submarines — which conceivably could operate in the Arctic as well — Perry was asked if Canada will have to rely more on its allies to monitor and defend its territory.

“I think the AUKUS deal is an indicator that there are some countries with whom we have been intimately familiar and intimately allied with. Some of our best friends on the planet are firming even tighter, smaller clubs,” he [Perry] said.

The direct answer to the question is that increased surveillance capabilities to monitor Arctic waters, as part of Canada’s shared responsibility with the USA for the defence of North America, have been a priority of the 2017 defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged.

In addition, as detailed in our post-budget blog, the defence portion of the 2021 federal budget includes specific expenditures related to Canada’s contribution to NORAD modernization in the amount of $163 million over 5 years for Canada’s niche area of “all domain situational awareness”, including through upgrades to the North Warning System using artificial intelligence and machine learning.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca,

Increasing Canada’s capabilities in this manner has the twin benefits of bolstering our Arctic legal claims and our contribution to the defence of North America, in a cost-effective and stability-enhancing manner — the very antithesis of an approach based on nuclear-powered submarines.

Indo-Pacific club of three not a snub to Canada at all

Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the public discussion to date of the new “club” and the alleged “snub” to Canada is the failure to point out the glaringly obvious — the USA, under its excessively confrontational military strategy vis-à-vis China, is doubling down on forward deployments in China’s backyard — hence the attraction of Australia because of its geographic location.

In return for the technologically challenging and hugely expensive nuclear-powered sub deal (which raises serious nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability issues), Foreign Policy reports that, among other things,

The Biden administration is hoping to rotate fighters and bombers to the land Down Under.

And the price Australia will likely pay in terms of further limits on its defence autonomy is a problem Canada knows only too well and is wise to avoid needlessly worsening.

Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong posed the question for Australia as follows:

With the prospect of a higher level of technological dependence on the US, how does the Morrison-Joyce government assure Australians that we can act alone when need be; that we have the autonomy to defend ourselves, however and whenever we need to….

Since New Zealand won’t even allow nuclear-powered subs in its waters, their self-exclusion based on long-standing policy is refreshing evidence of independent decision-making on defence matters by a US and Canadian ally. Interestingly, in the expert discussion of the difference between the hawkish Australian view on China and the more nuanced New Zealand position, the similarity with Canada’s position is raised:

In recent years, Canada and New Zealand have had similarities in their orientation toward Beijing – condemning human rights breaches on specific issues in a case-by-case way, but avoiding strong statements on the country more broadly.

Canada had its brief dalliance with nuclear-powered submarines back in the 1980s, as we outlined in last week’s blog.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca,

The truth is Canada was not in any way “excluded” from this potentially destabilizing new club and our resistance to bringing that increased Indo-Pacific instability into the Canadian Arctic should be applauded by all those interested in a Canadian defence policy based on Canadian analysis of Canadian defence and security interests.

A word about defence burden-sharing

In the Murray Brewster article featured earlier in the blog, Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) Vice-President David Perry is also quoted as follows:

The United States under successive administrations is being far less benign about allies that they look at as pulling — or not pulling — their weight … The United States is looking for people who will pull their weight.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that Canadian subsidiaries of major American weapons manufacturers, including General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are regular financial patrons of the CGAI. Yet, surely this is relevant when, under the mantra of “burden sharing”, seemingly uncritical support is offered for American defence priorities, with their relentless focus on more expenditures and more weaponry.

See, for example, the infographic below with the headline trumpeting Chinese increased expenditures, that are dwarfed by those of the USA.

Infographic Courtesy of Visualist Capitalist

Whither Canada?

We applaud Canada’s military restraint in the Arctic, in accordance with long-standing Canadian defence policy under both Liberal and Conservative governments, and urge the opposition parties to constructively contribute to its continuation.

26 September — International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Achieving global nuclear disarmament is one of the oldest goals of the United Nations, and was the subject of the General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946.

In 2013 the General Assembly established this commemorative day to

advance public awareness and government action to prevent nuclear war and to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres:

As a global family, we can no longer allow the cloud of nuclear conflict to shadow our work to spur development, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Now is the time to lift this cloud for good, eliminate nuclear weapons from our world, and usher in a new era of dialogue, trust and peace for all people.

Senior government representatives will attend a high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 28 September to commemorate and promote the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

For further information on actions that legislators, civil society representatives and ordinary citizens alike can take in conjunction with the day, click here.

Whither Canada?

If Canada wants to be more than just a back-row supporter of nuclear disarmament, it will need to invest some diplomatic energy in this endeavour.

So begins an excellent article by two Canadian arms control experts, Paul Meyer and Cesar Jaramillo, entitled Nuclear disarmament must be a priority for the next Canadian government (hilltimes.com, 16 September 2021). It outlines concrete steps that Canada needs to take to help address this “entirely preventable existential threat” that “lingers over humanity”.

Their key recommendations for Canadian government action are:

• Helping to heal the rift between Ban Treaty (TPNW) supporters and opponents by attending, as an Observer, the first meeting of States Parties of the new, landmark treaty.
• Working to strengthen the Stockholm Initiative proposals with inclusion of a “No First Use” of nuclear weapons declaration.
• Elevating Canada’s own involvement in the initiative by attendance at the ministerial level and by offering to host a preparatory meeting of the group before the upcoming NPT Review Conference that is the ultimate focus of the group’s work.

For non-subscribers to the Hill Times, the article is available here in PDF format by the kind permission of the authors.

Many of us had hoped that the gratuitous attacks on the historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would end with the incoming Biden administration, but that proved a false hope.

The latest ignominious example of this tone-deaf attitude can be found in a recent tweet by the new US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Bonnie Jenkins, summarizing her recent interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) thusly:

Canadian expert Tariq Rauf, a former senior IAEA official, responded as follows:

This is patently unacceptable not to mention silly, as Article III.B.1 of the IAEA Statute clearly authorizes the Agency to support UN mandated disarmament measures:

B. In carrying out its functions, the Agency shall:

1. Conduct its activities in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations to promote peace and international co-operation, and in conformity with policies of the United Nations furthering the establishment of safeguarded worldwide disarmament and in conformity with any international agreements entered into pursuant to such policies

So the lead American arms controller — for the self-proclaimed champion of the “rules based international order” — is putting pressure on the IAEA to ignore its statutory mandate to support such treaty gatherings.

Whither Canada?

In accordance with our once celebrated bridge-building role, we call on Canada to attend as an Observer the meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as a first tangible step to narrowing the gap between treaty supporters and opponents.  

Photo credit: Wikimedia (Baffin Island Glacier)

Pandemic Urbanism
Praxis in the Time of Covid-19

A Collective Effort
Draft: April 22, 2020This open access reading list is a result of the collective effort of PhD and Masters students inthe Urban Planning program at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservationat Columbia University. The aim of the list is to provide a collection of materials that address thepandemic as it relates to urbanism, urban planning, architecture, and the built environment. Thematerial presented here is being collected, organized and summarized over the months ofMarch and April 2020 as we witnessed our lives transformed by the COVID 19 crisis, especiallyin New York City, a city many of us call home and a place that has become one of the mainhotspots for the spread of the infectious disease that so far has killed more than 15,000 people(as of April 22). Our hope that this list will be useful in bringing together -in one document-materials that students and scholars will find useful to think about the pandemic as it relates tourbanization. We also hope that this document will become a “living document” that people cantake the liberty to update with relevant entries in the spirit of providing a collective resource forpeople across the globe interested in the implications of COVID-19 for our built environment(instructions to add entries are at the bottom of the document).

About the team:
Assembled and developed during ProfessorHiba Bou Akar ’s spring 2020 classes: “On SpatialExclusion and Planning” and “Advanced Planning Theory.”Contributions by (in alphabetical order): Maureen Abi Ghanem; Sebastian Andersson; DareBrawley; Jenna Davis; Lanier Hagerty; Joe Hunnekens; Martine Johannessen; Stefan Norgaard;Zeineb Sellami; and Wenfei Xu.For comments or questions, please email: hb2541@columbia.edu
Columbia University

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Avery Hall, 1172 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027www.arch.columbia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/43089631/Pandemic_Urbanism_Praxis_in_the_Time_of_Covid_19

 

What to do with America’s nonconformist anti-vaxxers?

Final thought and a warning for nonconformists: understand that the greatest threat to your freedoms will not come from government mandates, but when the deadly virus comes after you.

By

 Michael Payne

 -

September 24, 2021

SOURCENationofChange

One thing is for certain, what is happening in America today relative to the deadly Covid-19 virus and the Delta variant cannot be allowed to continue. This virus, which was almost under control a few months ago, has erupted once again with the sudden appearance of the Delta variant that is spreading rapidly.

TV news reports have been filled with videos of Americans at school meetings, protests, and political meetings, strongly venting their anger at that those who would try to force them to wear masks or get vaccinations. 

We hear many of them say: “Don’t tell me what to do, I’m an American, I have my freedoms and no one is going to take any of them away from me.” I’ve even heard of some radicals who threatened to use weapons against those who would try to force them to comply.

President Biden has recently taken strong measures to deal with this latest surge and issued several mandates intended to force certain governors and people in their states to comply with CDC directives. These mandates will, of course, be met by vehement rejections by Republican governors.

The time for trying to deal with these nonconformists rationally is now over. Strict measures have to be taken to prevent a societal collapse in this country. We have these freedom-loving Americans who thumb their noses at any kind of mandate and then get infected with the virus. So many of them end up in hospitals where tired, overworked doctors and nurses have to treat them. 

Some hospitals are delaying elective surgeries, some of them being of a very serious nature. This simply cannot, must not, continue. Hospitals that are doing this need to reconsider these practices. You can’t delay important medical procedures to treat people who will not conform to CDC guidelines. 

We Americans readily agree with local and federal mandates to use seat belts, to stop at stoplights and stop signs, and we don’t yell FIRE in a movie theater. But some 80 million of us that agree with those particular mandates say “Hell NO” when told to get vaccinated or wear masks. Two different kinds of freedoms?

Right now the president can mandate that federal employees get vaccinations and can pressure large businesses to do the same. He can’t mandate vaccinations for the general population but he can strongly advise people to get them, as he has been doing. 

He can and must mandate vaccinations for those on plane flights.

If we are to get rid of this pandemic for good we somehow have to see state and local governments create strong guidelines to follow. I don’t think we will see mandates for vaccinations for everyone, but state and local governments can advise \businesses to have people wear masks to gain entrance. 

To gain entry to groceries, restaurants, stores such as clothing or hardware, people will have to wear masks whether they are vaccinated or not. That’s what I and my family are doing now.

Huge crowds at sports and other events where multi-thousands of people gather side by side will have to wear masks. Any large gathering, the size to be determined by local officials, will also need them. 

Freedoms are great and very necessary but during crises, when the future of our country is at stake, we all have to put our freedoms aside for a time to preserve them as we go into the future.

At some point in time, if this situation is on the verge of going out of control, Congress must stop the squabbling and the backstabbing and immediately pass laws to make people all over this country comply or face felony charges,

America has arrived at a critical crossroads and it must decide which road and direction to take. To take the left road means we will keep going in the same direction as right now and, based on what is happening with this pandemic, the future will be dire indeed.

Instead, we must take the right road and go in the right direction. That means we as a country have to change, we have to think out of the box to come up with new and more effective ways to deal with and defeat this great threat. 

How will this dark chapter in world history end? Well, I think the best word to describe how it will end is “progression.” Over time, there will be a steady progression in the number of vaccinations that more and more Americans will take to protect themselves.

The good news is that these Americans will largely be protected from getting the virus when coming in contact with these nonconformists who put their own freedom above all others.

Final thought and a warning for nonconformists: understand that the greatest threat to your freedoms will not come from government mandates, but when the deadly virus comes after you. That’s when your freedoms will come to an end.

Opinion: Alberta's feuding conservatives must be careful what they wish for

Author of the article: 

Evan Menzies is a senior campaign strategist with Crestview Strategy and former director of communications for the United Conservative Party and Wildrose caucus.

Calgary Herald
Publishing date:Sep 25, 2021 

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney during a news conference in Calgary on the surging COVID cases in the province on Sept. 15. PHOTO BY AL CHAREST /Postmedia file

A word of warning to conservatives demanding resignations and accelerated leadership reviews against Premier Jason Kenney: be careful what you ask for. A civil war is the last thing the United Conservative Party needs right now.

Since the early ’90s, Kenney has been one of the top leaders and faces of the conservative movement across Canada. He was at the front lines of Alberta budget battles in the early 1990s, stood up for Western Canada for more than a decade and then was a top lieutenant in the Harper government, advancing the conservative agenda and policies that were literally decades in the making. He stitched conservatives back together with 95 per cent support from members and secured an eye-popping mandate to implement one of the biggest agendas of conservative political reform in Alberta history.

But now he’s facing the biggest political challenge of his life after a Delta-driven wave, another contentious caucus meeting and internal party flare-ups.

IN POWER AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FOR 44 YEARS AS A SUPER MAJORITY ONE PARTY STATE

For nearly two decades, our conservative movement in Alberta has been caught in internal civil wars, from the beginning of the end of Premier Ralph Klein’s reign, to the last string of PC premiers, to the brutal infighting and path to unity in 2017, to today over the fight on Alberta’s COVID-19 response.

It’s both a blessing and a curse to have a conservative movement so animated in convictions from all corners of the big blue tent. But it’s clear these battles can be and are bruising and unforgiving. The party has lost good talent through the years as a result.

And while the seemingly endless internal fighting rages on, the left in Alberta and across Canada has been mobilizing as they unite on a policy agenda that drifts further to the left than what would have ever been imaginable even just a few years ago.

Rachel Notley and her Alberta NDP are more beholden than ever to a base that is increasingly hostile to free markets and Alberta’s energy sector. Need proof? Just look at the difference from Notley carefully staying out of the 2019 federal election to in 2021 confidently inserting her endorsement for local federal NDP candidates in Edmonton who want to kibosh any current or future pipeline projects.

Nationally, thanks to a chronically inefficient conservative vote in Eastern Canada, Alberta is staring at a Justin Trudeau-led federal government that has become even more confident and brazen in its policies to knock out any natural resource industry whose headquarters aren’t in the Toronto-Montreal corridor.

So where do conservatives go from here? Kenney has seen some of his own MLAs and party insiders call for his resignation. And a 2022 leadership review has been in the books for months under the party’s own bylaws and now looks set for the spring. Some have demanded one even sooner.

Severely normal United Conservative members have some important reflection to do. A question they should ask themselves is, what do those most adamant in their calls for Kenney’s resignation want to do with the party and the government?

It’s fair to say that Kenney’s greatest critics have been inconsistent and full of contradictions with no binding message or vision. In May, it was that Alberta did not open more quickly and should not have brought in more restrictions while hospitalizations surged. Today, it’s that the province should not have opened for the summer after Alberta reached vaccine targets that would be the envy of any other national jurisdiction in the world. At no point have any of them articulated a concrete policy agenda to the crisis we’re facing that would receive broad support from MLAs internally or the broader public. On top of that, there is no obvious alternative leadership waiting in the wings who has a silver bullet to help us put a permanent end to a stubborn, dangerous and highly contagious respiratory virus as we chase even higher vaccination rates across the province.

There is no doubt frustration and anger with the latest interventions and crisis facing our hospitals. But Kenney and Dr. Deena Hinshaw have put together a policy package focused on the crisis facing our health-care system without losing sight of the importance of keeping businesses, sports and schools open, while rewarding the vaccinated. We will get through this wave.

And conservatives should remember that there remain important non-COVID items on the agenda for the government and Alberta’s conservative movement to make progress on. The Fair Deal agenda must continue, from equalization to court challenges against federal legislation like Bill C-69. Under Kenney, the government has cut nearly a quarter of red tape in just over two years and still has more rules and regulations to untangle out of the economy. Finally, all Albertans must feel and see not just Alberta’s economic recovery, but its total rebound as Canada’s economic leader. The last fiscal update showed that Alberta’s policy agenda of low taxes, fewer regulations and diversification is already taking effect due to important legislative accomplishments like the Job Creation Tax Cut and Open for Business Act

Kenney has told Albertans that he has put party politics on the sidelines while trying to manage the public health crisis. Party members and caucus members who have an axe to grind should try and do the same. There will be a leadership review in 2022 and members can evaluate in full his time as leader from unity, to his performance in the 2019 election, to his term in government, with plenty of time for the party to choose a new leader before the next election in 2023 — if that’s what party members, not outspoken insiders, choose to do.

Jason Kenney, Scott Moe face similar COVID-19 crises but different political pressure

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Alberta premier faces threats from within party, decidedly

 lower approval ratings

Adam Hunter · CBC News · Posted: Sep 25, 2021 

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, left, and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney have both seen their provincial health-care systems pushed to the brink by the pandemic's fourth wave. But only Kenney is facing a leadership review. (Bryan Eneas/CBC; Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

Longtime political allies Jason Kenney and Scott Moe, the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, are facing nearly identical health-care crises, but only one is facing a leadership review.

Kenney's handling of the fourth wave of COVID-19, which has hit Alberta harder than other provinces, has led to questions about his future as premier.

He met on Wednesday with his United Conservative Party caucus, with his political future said to be in the balance. Kenney emerged from the meeting without seeing a non-confidence motion, but a party leadership review will take place this spring. 

Saskatchewan is experiencing a similar crisis — averaging 279 new cases per 100,000 people over the past seven days, to Alberta's 253, as of Friday. (For comparison, Ontario is averaging 32 cases per 100,000.)

Saskatchewan also has the lowest vaccination rates among all provinces, with 72 per cent, and on Friday reported a record 276 people in hospital and 61 in intensive care units. Alberta also set a record for COVID-19 patients in ICU on Friday with 243.

The difference between the situations for Kenney and Moe, according to political analysts, is that Alberta's premier faces threats within his party and decidedly lower approval ratings.

Health-care workers attend to a COVID-19 patient in the ICU of Peter Lougheed Centre in Calgary on Nov. 14, 2020. Alberta set a record for COVID-19 patients in intensive care on Friday, with 243. (Leah Hennel/AHS)

Polling disparity

Moe led his party to a convincing re-election last October, garnering more than 60 per cent of the vote, while Kenney faces a viable threat in former premier Rachel Notley and the NDP in Alberta's next planned election in 2023.

An Angus Reid Institute survey from June showed the Alberta NDP 11 points higher than the UCP, while the Wildrose Independence Party trailed the UCP by 10 per cent among decided voters.

Donation figures show the Alberta NDP was raising more than double the UCP in the early part of 2021.

The same survey placed Kenney's approval at 31 per cent, the lowest among all premiers and 30 points lower than Moe.

Moe is "not facing re-election for quite a while [but] Kenney is facing a moved-up leadership review," said University of Regina political studies professor Tom McIntosh.

"For all the similarities in how they've responded to things, their political situations are quite different."

One nurse injects another with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at the Regina General Hospital in Regina on Dec. 15, 2020. Saskatchewan has the lowest vaccination rate in the country. (Michael Bell/The Canadian Press)

Political pressure

There are two factions within Kenney's caucus, says Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary — one that believes the premier broke promises by last week not keeping the province open without health restrictions and another that thinks the government waited too long to act.

"What they do agree on is Premier Kenney needs to go," Bratt said.

University of Calgary political science professor Lisa Young says she can't see a scenario where Kenney is still premier by the next planned election.

"I think the damage is too great," Young said. "I think that his personal brand is ruined. The current situation is really quite disastrous, and it's going to get worse before it gets better."

But while Kenney faces pressure from within the UCP, McIntosh notes Moe's party does not leak its squabbles publicly.  

"We get a lot of inside information about Alberta caucus meetings in the press," said McIntosh. "We are not hearing about what's going on in Saskatchewan Party caucus meetings. There is a discipline in the Sask Party caucus that any premier or prime minister would love."

Kenney celebrates the lifting of public health restrictions by taking part in Canada Day celebrations in Calgary on July 1. (Larry MacDougal/The Canadian Press)

That said, Moe's insulation may be hurting his pandemic response, according to Murray Mandryk, political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post. Moe has, on several occasions, ignored doctors and other health workers who have formally asked him to impose health measures.

"He's certainly not listening to the doctors who have written him up to five times to do something," Mandryk said. 

"Caucus has kept him isolated from that and that's hugely problematic."

As for the public pressure on Kenney, that might have to do with personality, says Melanee Thomas, a political studies associate professor at the University of Calgary.

"Scott Moe is not nearly as bellicose as Jason Kenney," said Thomas.

WATCH | Saskatchewan's hospitals pushed to limits by COVID-19:

Each day, Saskatchewan's hospitals facing rising pressure from COVID-19. As frustration rises among officials and doctors, patients are suffering. 1:54

Thomas says that before the fourth wave, the Alberta government was discussing a wage rollback for nurses, which further antagonized health-care workers. Saskatchewan was the first to remove isolation requirements for positive cases, but kept it fairly quiet.

"Scott Moe is not wearing this the way that Jason Kenney is. Kenney's a lightning rod for negative attention," said Thomas.

The UCP government, she says, "thinks that all attention is good attention, even if it's totally negative. I'm not persuaded that it's working out."

Open for summer

Perhaps the biggest similarity in the provinces' COVID-19 policies was their "open for summer" plans.

On July 1, Alberta removed nearly all health restrictions. Kenney and chief medical health officer Dr. Deena Hinshaw said the province was moving from "pandemic to endemic."

On July 11, Saskatchewan removed its public health restrictions. Moe and chief medical health officer Dr. Saqib Shahab spoke of people learning to "live with COVID."

But on Sept. 16, days after eclipsing 500 new cases and one day after Alberta announced new health measures, the Saskatchewan government implemented mandatory masking and announced an upcoming proof-of-vaccination policy — moves that doctors, nurses and medical health officers had been calling for since late August.

When Kenney announced the new measures, he apologized for the province's messaging when it removed restrictions in July.

But that apology has not relieved the pressure.

• Jason Kenney survives caucus meeting with leadership review to come

• Alberta sees record number of ICU admissions as COVID-19 hospitalizations soar

• COVID-19 in Sask.: 528 new cases, 5 new deaths, new hospitalization and ICU records

When asked if he took any responsibility for Saskatchewan's fourth wave, Moe said decisions throughout the pandemic were made to "protect health-care capacity."

Mandryk says it's "patently ridiculous" Moe didn't apologize. 

But, he says, Moe's handling of the fourth wave may not be threatening his job security because he maintains the caucus support that Kenney seems to lack.

That said, Mandryk added: "I do wonder if voter support will start to move for Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party because of their handling of the pandemic." 

A LITTLE LATE FOR THAT

Corbella: ER doctors hear tearful regrets from unvaccinated patients

Author of the article:Licia Corbella
Publishing date:Sep 24, 2021 

Calgary ICU staff speak with a COVID-19 patient to determine if there is anyone they would like staff to call. 

PHOTO BY SUPPLIED BY ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES

“If only people could see what I see and hear what I hear, every eligible Albertan would be vaccinated.”

If only.

Those are the words of an Edmonton emergency room and transport physician who gets to hear the regrets of Albertans who live in remote communities where the low COVID-19 vaccination rates are contributing so heavily to Alberta’s state of medical emergency.

This physician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says every day — usually several times, but as much as 10 times a day — they transport people who might not have outwardly denied the existence of COVID-19 but admit they never believed reports about the severity of it.

“The most common response I’m hearing from people is: ‘I had no idea that I would be this sick. I wish I had gotten vaccinated or taken COVID more seriously and taken more precautions.'”

HALLWAY MEDICINE IS BACK

 ANOTHER THING KENNEY RIPPED OFF RALPH KLEIN

IN THIS CASE THE UNVACCINATED SHOULD NOT GET PRIORITY BUT SUFFER HALLWAY MEDICINE


This doctor says recently a man in his 60s from a remote northern Alberta community was weeping with regret. He was missing a wedding anniversary that coincided with a family member’s birthday that was being marked by a special joint event.

“He was a very, very lovely gentleman, and he was crying and scared. He said to me: ‘I wish I had known better. I wish I had listened to my grandchild who asked me to get vaccinated and I just hope that I can survive this to make it to this event next year. If only I had listened.’ ”

If only.

The doctor tracked this patient’s progress and he did, in fact, survive, but many people don’t. Those who survive often suffer with long COVID — many months of intense fatigue and other symptoms.

On Thursday in Alberta, 17 new deaths from COVID were reported in the previous 24 hours. There are 1,058 people in hospital, 226 of them in intensive care.

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, said “100 per cent of new ICU admissions were in Albertans who did not have any vaccine protection.”

If only they had listened.

Hinshaw said Albertans who have not been vaccinated are “about 15 times more likely than those with vaccine protection to end up in the hospital from COVID-19. They are about 40 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU.”

During her COVID update on Thursday, Hinshaw referred to a story first reported by City TV in Edmonton that several residents of Edson are fighting for their lives in an Edmonton ICU after they attended a “COVID party.”

The point of the party, apparently held just outside the town about 190 kilometres west of Edmonton, was to have healthy people mingle with those who had tested positive for COVID-19 in an effort to develop natural immunity to the virus. This is the same virus that has flooded Alberta hospitals with sick patients and overwhelmed intensive-care units, which are now running at 179 per cent of normal capacity. The system is only coping because 177 surge beds have been added, sacrificing scheduled surgeries, including cancer operations.

“I cannot confirm that these (party) reports are accurate,” said Hinshaw, “but whether or not this specific report is verified, what is important to know is that anyone contemplating this kind of activity should know that this consequence — severe illness, and transmitting to others who may become severely ill or even die — is an absolutely likely outcome.

“Hosting or attending an event like this in the current time of crisis is irresponsible and dangerous. It doesn’t just put you at risk, but those around you, including people who may need health care for other reasons than COVID, but have no critical care capacity available for them when they need it.”

If only people weren’t so ill informed, if only they weren’t so selfish and ignorant.

If only they’d listen to the experts instead of some crackpot with no credentials on social media.

Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious-disease specialist in Edmonton, called the story about the COVID party “tragic” because people are “literally falling prey to misinformation.”

“I guess what people are kind of losing track of is the risk-benefit part of the equation,” said Saxinger, reached via telephone on Thursday.

“And a lot of that risk has been shifted by the Delta variant, which is so much more transmissible and aggressive at spreading.”

Saxinger says Delta is affecting all age groups and greater than five per cent of all cases end up in hospital. “That’s like one-in-20 people hospitalized and a quarter of those go to ICU. Those are terrible odds,” said Saxinger.

“No one would take those odds, like, here, have a one-in-20 chance of going to hospital. So I think there’s some really serious misconceptions about the risk of COVID right now and we have to tackle that better.”

Hinshaw also addressed the rampant misinformation.

“We have heard persistent questions and rumours on social media that vaccines are not working against the Delta variant, but this is categorically untrue,” said Hinshaw.

“In Alberta, COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be 85 per cent effective against infection with the Delta variant after two doses. COVID-19 vaccines are even more highly effective at preventing severe disease and death, including against the highly contagious Delta variant.

“The bottom line is that two doses of vaccine will protect most people from getting sick, having to go to the hospital, or dying if they catch the virus.”

She points out that no vaccine is 100 per cent effective and there are some “breakthrough” infections in people who are double vaccinated, but that’s because some people have conditions that mean their body cannot fully respond to doses of vaccine.

The transport physician says before they intubate severely sick COVID patients either on a helicopter, plane or in an ambulance, they give the patient the opportunity to FaceTime their loved ones before they will no longer be able to talk — and because it may be the last thing they ever say to their loved ones.

One young mother who was having troubles breathing because of COVID was giving instructions to her parents who were caring for her small child, who was too young to understand what was going on.

“With tears streaming down her face she was telling her parents what her child typically likes to have for a bedtime snack.”

If only she’d had her vaccine, she could have tucked her own baby into bed and told her she loves her herself.

If only.

Licia Corbella is a Postmedia columnist in Calgary.

IF ONLY CORBELLA HAD WRITTEN THIS A YEAR AGO OR IN JULY DURING BEST SUMMER EVER

Canada 

Anti-vaxxers 'don’t have a right to accommodations', Ontario human rights watchdog says

•  News Reporter
•  5 hours ago
• 
  

People who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine "due to personal preferences or singular beliefs," do not have a "right to accommodations" under Ontario’s human rights law, the province’s rights watchdog says. The decision to get vaccinated is voluntary, and a person chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference - they do not have the right to accommodation under the (Human Rights Code), the Ontario Human Rights Commission said this week in a policy paper discussing the limits of vaccine mandates and proof-of-vaccination requirements.

While human rights law prohibits discrimination based on creed - someone’s religion, or a non-religious belief system that shapes their identity, world view and way of life - personal preferences or singular beliefs do not amount to a creed, the commission said.

Adding that it "is not aware of any tribunal or court decision that found a singular belief against vaccinations or masks amounted to a creed within the meaning of the Code."

Furthermore, even if someone can show they have been denied service or employment over their creed, "the duty to accommodate does not necessarily require they be exempted from vaccine mandates, certification or COVID testing requirements," the commission said.

"The duty to accommodate can be limited - if it would significantly compromise health and safety amounting to undue hardship, such as during a pandemic."

Ontario - rolled out its long-awaited vaccine certificate requirement on Wednesday, limiting access to indoor dining, meeting spaces, gyms, concert venues and more. Anyone seeking to enter these settings now must show ID and proof they have been fully vaccinated.

Those who have been vaccinated, they can download their proof documents online.

The province’s plan has exceptions for those under age 12 (who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated), and anyone with a doctor’s note saying they have a valid medical reason they cannot be vaccinated.

The commission is responsible for administering and enforcing Ontario’s human rights laws, and is being led by newly-appointed chief commissioner Patricia DeGuire, who began a two-year term in August.

In its policy paper, the commission explained that vaccine mandates and proof requirements are "generally permissible," but must offer reasonable accommodations for people who are "unable to be vaccinated for Code-related" reasons, such as a disability or a medical reason. The commission added that this standard would apply to any organizations seeking to impose vaccine restrictions.

Exempting people with medically documented reasons is a "reasonable accommodation," said the commission.

Testing those who are unable to be vaccinated for the virus is an option for organizations, and the costs should be covered as "part of the duty to accommodate," it said.

The commission also emphasized that restrictions that deny people access to employment or services... on grounds protected under human rights law may be acceptable, but should only be used for the "shortest possible length of time."

"Such policies might only be justifiable during a pandemic. They should regularly be reviewed and updated to match the most current pandemic conditions, and to reflect up-to-date evidence and public health guidance.", they added.

The commission also urged the provincial and municipal governments to take proactive steps to make sure any enforcement of vaccine mandates or proof of vaccination policies does not disproportionately target or criminalize Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized communities, people who are experiencing homelessness, or with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

Human rights complaints are handled provincially by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Complaints about federally overseen organizations, such as banks, airlines and federal government, can be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

News Link: Read Original Source

WHY MAKE VACCINES FOR POOR COUNTRIES
COVID-19 vaccine boosters could mean billions for drugmakers
By TOM MURPHYan hour ago



FILE - In this March 2021 photo provided by Pfizer, a technician works on a line for packaging preparation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the company's facility in Puurs, Belgium. Billions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans' protection against the virus. (Pfizer via AP)


Billions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.

How much the manufacturers stand to gain depends on how big the rollout proves to be.

The Biden administration last month announced plans to give boosters to nearly everybody. But U.S. regulators have rejected the across-the-board approach and instead said third shots of Pfizer’s vaccine should go to people who are 65 and older and certain others at high risk from COVID-19.

Still, the crisis is constantly evolving, and some top U.S. health officials expect boosters will be more broadly authorized in the coming weeks or months. And that, plus continued growth in initial vaccinations, could mean a huge gain in sales and profits for Pfizer and Moderna in particular.

“The opportunity quite frankly is reflective of the billions of people around the world who would need a vaccination and a boost,” Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said.

Wall Street is taking notice. The average forecast among analysts for Moderna’s 2022 revenue has jumped 35% since President Joe Biden laid out his booster plan in mid-August.

Most of the vaccinations so far in the U.S. have come from Pfizer, which developed its shot with Germany’s BioNTech, and Moderna. They have inoculated about 99 million and 68 million people, respectively. Johnson & Johnson is third with about 14 million people.

No one knows yet how many people will get the extra shots. But Morningstar analyst Karen Andersen expects boosters alone to bring in about $26 billion in global sales next year for Pfizer and BioNTech and around $14 billion for Moderna if they are endorsed for nearly all Americans.

Those companies also may gain business from people who got other vaccines initially. In Britain, which plans to offer boosters to everyone over 50 and other vulnerable people, an expert panel has recommended that Pfizer’s shot be the primary choice, with Moderna as the alternative.

Andersen expects Moderna, which has no other products on the market, to generate a roughly $13 billion profit next year from all COVID-19 vaccine sales if boosters are broadly authorized.

Potential vaccine profits are harder to estimate for Pfizer, but company executives have said they expect their pre-tax adjusted profit margin from the vaccine to be in the “high 20s” as a percentage of revenue. That would translate to a profit of around $7 billion next year just from boosters, based on Andersen’s sales prediction.

J&J and Europe’s AstraZeneca have said they don’t intend to profit from their COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.

For Pfizer and Moderna, the boosters could be more profitable than the original doses because they won’t come with the research and development costs the companies incurred to get the vaccines on the market in the first place.

WBB Securities CEO Steve Brozak said the booster shots will represent “almost pure profit” compared with the initial doses.

Drugmakers aren’t the only businesses that could see a windfall from delivering boosters. Drugstore chains CVS Health and Walgreens could bring in more than $800 million each in revenue, according to Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager with Gabelli Funds.

Jonas noted that the drugstores may not face competition from mass vaccination clinics this time around, and the chains are diligent about collecting customer contact information. That makes it easy to invite people back for boosters.

Drugmakers are also developing COVID-19 shots that target certain variants of the virus, and say people might need annual shots like the ones they receive for the flu. All of that could make the vaccines a major recurring source of revenue.

The COVID-19 vaccines have already done much better than their predecessors.

Pfizer said in July it expects revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine to reach $33.5 billion this year, an estimate that could change depending on the impact of boosters or the possible expansion of shots to elementary school children.

That would be more than five times the $5.8 billion racked up last year by the world’s most lucrative vaccine — Pfizer’s Prevnar13, which protects against pneumococcal disease.

It also would dwarf the $19.8 billion brought in last year by AbbVie’s rheumatoid arthritis treatment Humira, widely regarded as the world’s top-selling drug.

This bodes well for future vaccine development, noted Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan.

Vaccines normally are nowhere near as profitable as treatments, Gordon said. But the success of the COVID-19 shots could draw more drugmakers and venture capitalists into the field.

“The vaccine business is more attractive, which, for those of us who are going to need vaccines, is good,” Gordon said.

___

Follow Tom Murphy on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thpmurphy

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Greta Thunberg, activists in 70 nations call for urgent action against climate change



Sept. 24 (UPI) -- Fridays for Future, an environmental movement for action to fight climate change, organized rallies in dozens of countries on Friday in the first mass event for the cause since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Activists rallied for awareness and action to mitigate global warming in 70 countries, including Germany, Japan, India and New Zealand.

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who inspired Fridays for Future, was part of the event in Germany, where federal elections will elect new leaders and a new chancellor this weekend.

"We are frustrated and angry," one protester said outside German Parliament, the Bundestag, according to NBC News. "We need structural change, a social plan and actions that are based on scientific evidence."

The global strike has become an annual event and usually takes place in September at the same time as the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where Thunberg spoke about the urgency of climate change in 2019.

Large rallies were held in several German cities. German Green Party candidate for chancellor Annalena Baerbock attended a strike in Cologne.

RELATED Climate change in North Atlantic fuels summertime warming in Northeast U.S.

"The election Sunday is a climate election," she tweeted. "Just like in Cologne, tens of thousands of children, young people and people of all ages across Germany take to the streets in the climate strike and make it clear: They want a new departure because they know that our future is at stake."

The global strike Friday came just weeks before the United Nations' COP26 climate summit in Scotland next month. where world leaders will work to limit emissions worldwide through new limits.

"Nothing has been done," another activist told NBC News in Berlin. "We want leading politicians to publicly declare that Germany is in a climate emergency." 

RELATED Arctic sea ice hits lowest point of the year as planet warms

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first woman to hold the office, is leaving the post after 16 years.