picardonhealth turned 12 today!
Sade Olutola
Cosmic Funnies
Not today Justin
KIROKAZE
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

shark vs the universe

No title available
art blog(derogatory)
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
No title available
d e v o n

Origami Around
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Show & Tell

pixel skylines

bliss lane
No title available
Noah Kahan
Monterey Bay Aquarium
untitled

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Spain

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Dominican Republic

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
@picardonhealth
picardonhealth turned 12 today!
Canadian Journalism Foundation Tribute Award 2021 - André Picard
I want to begin by saying what a great honour it is to receive this tribute from the Canadian Journalism Foundation, and doubly so because I get to share the stage with Dr. Sanjay Gupta -- who really is a luminary.
An award like this is very humbling. It forces you to do something we rarely do in daily journalism – reflect on the impact of our work.
C’est aussi un peu génant parce ce que je reconnais qu’il y a beaucoup de superbe journalistes qui pourraient – et sans doute devraient -- être ici à ma place.
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how vital journalism is to democracy and the public’s health. It has shone a spotlight on our power to do good, and our need to do so much more to repair our fractured society.
I’ve had more than my share of awards and flattery this year -- to the point where it’s a bit overwhelming.
Don’t let the white beard fool you – I’m not a wise old sage.
More than anything else, the quirky things I’ve been interested in for decades – infectious disease, public health, health equity, and risk communication -- have suddenly become important and newsworthy.
In my 40th year of journalism, I’ve become an overnight success. Not because I’ve changed, but because the world has.
This is the premiere event in Canadian journalism. I know there are a lot of industry leaders in the audience.
My take-home message for you is if you want authoritative voices, if you want quality journalism, give young people the opportunities I was so privileged to have at The Globe and Mail:
Opportunities to learn, to travel, to fail, to get back up again, to specialize, to challenge traditions, to afflict the powerful, to blaze some new trails.
Just as importantly you need to give those opportunities to those who have too long been denied them, to young journalists who reflect all the richness of Canada: people of colour, Indigenous people, people of all genders, all languages, and beliefs.
The world is changing fast so our newsrooms must change faster.
Notre diversité est notre superpuissance et notre futur.
********
Les honneurs individuels sont un peu trompeur parce que le journalisme est un sport d’équipe.
Ce prix ne m’appartient pas uniquement. Il dois être partagé avec tout les collègues, rédacteurs et éditeurs qui m’ont enduré au cours des années. J’aimerais nommer des noms mais la liste de mes mentores serait beaucoup trop longue et sans doute incomplète.
I said a moment ago that being old doesn’t make you wise. But it does afford you the luxury of honest self-reflection.
I’m not the greatest writer. I don’t have the patience for investigative journalism. Partisan politics bores me to tears. I’ve got a face for radio.
I’m wonkish and a data geek. But I’m pithy. I have to ability to make complex issues understandable and digestible to the public.
I inherited this gift from my mother, a depression-era baby who grew to be a very frugal Mom, one who was convinced that any long-distance call exceeding 30 seconds would bankrupt the nation.
To this day, I cannot pick up a phone without the words “you don’t own Bell Canada” ringing in my ears.
We learned to get to the point in my family. And I’ve made a career of it, 750 words at a time. I’ve found my niche, and my passion. Every journalist should be so lucky.
The final thing I would like to say – especially after bragging about my brevity – is that awards like this can sometimes feel funereal.
But I want you to know I’m not done yet. Far from it. I’ll be more than happy, post-COVID, to go back to my relative obscurity as a health columnist.
But when the next pandemic comes around, I’ll be ready to kick ass again. And, hopefully, so too will a whole new generation of writers who put my knowledge to shame.
That would be the greatest tribute of all.
Je vous remercie de nouveau du fond de mon coeur.
Santé!
The invisible wounds inflicted by pandemic journalism
ANDRÉ PICARD, THE GLOBE AND MAIL
JUNE 7, 2021
The bread and butter of journalism is covering traumatic events.
The headlines drip with blood and sorrow: Dead children buried at residential schools, record numbers of casualties of the overdose crisis, mass shootings, armed insurrection, wildfires, war and more.
The COVID-19 pandemic added another layer: Millions dead, carnage in long-term care homes, burned-out health workers, glimmers of hope constantly crushed by new coronaviral plot twists, in wave after wave after wave.
Yet journalists rarely talk about the despair and trauma they suffer when covering such high-profile stories.
A story published recently on Study Hall, an online support network for media workers, has forced some self-reflection out into the open.
Fully vaccinated travellers? Welcome to Canada. Everyone else? Quarantine
Canada could break the pandemic by mid-summer. We just need more vaccines
In the piece entitled “The COVID Reporters Are Not Okay. Extremely Not Okay,” Olivia Messer talks frankly about quitting her dream job at the Daily Beast after “falling apart” under the relentless pressure of pandemic coverage.
“While I’m tempted to be vague about my departure, I also believe it’s important to acknowledge the profound exhaustion, loss, grief, burnout, and trauma of the past year covering – and living in – a mass casualty event that has changed all of our lives,” Ms. Messer tweeted at the time.
The raw revelation hit a nerve.
A lot of journalism is mundane, coverage of meetings and press conferences and events. But some of the work is inherently risky.
Journalists tend to run toward the danger, not away from it – often at breakneck speed.
Like victims of traumatic events and the first responders and front-line workers who help them, reporters can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
But journalists often feel their suffering is somehow less important, or unearned. After all, they are just observing. They are there voluntarily.
When you just write about the suffering of others, or watch endless video reels of horrific events, your own feelings somehow seem unworthy of mention.
Bearing witness is essential. But sometimes what reporters witness can leave scars, and deep psychic wounds.
“Moral injury” is the term academics use.
In the public imagination, reporters are like war correspondents portrayed in Hollywood movies – hardscrabble, hard-drinking blokes with impenetrable shells.
The reality is somewhat different. The adrenalin junkies reporting from the battlefields were as prone to PTSD as anyone else – they just tended to bury their feelings, often at the bottom of a bottle.
The up-and-coming generation of journalists is having none of that. Not because they’re “snowflakes” (or whatever other demeaning terms some of the old-timers will use), but because they are more sensible.
In an article published in The Thunderbird, a publication of University of British Columbia’s graduate school of journalism, reporters McKenna Hadley-Burke and Karan Saxena write thoughtfully about the need to break the silence about the “invisible wounds” journalists suffer in their everyday work.
Covering COVID-19 or the overdose epidemic can be every bit as traumatic as war coverage. In fact, it can be more so because reporters live in the communities they cover. The dead are neighbours and friends, not strangers.
Covering the horrors of the Kamloops residential school or missing Indigenous women and girls can be soul-shattering. But imagine how much more so it is for Indigenous reporters who grew up in the midst of intergenerational trauma.
During COVID-19, there was often no escaping the news – and that is doubly true for those who produce the news. Taking your work home can be a gross understatement. It doesn’t help that the culture of journalism often fetishizes constant connection.
There is much FOMO (fear of missing out) in the business. When you cover a story for days, weeks, months, you don’t dare take a break lest you miss a big development.
Social media also poses a dilemma. For journalists, platforms like Twitter can be a great way to find sources and promote their work, but also a cesspool of hatred. Increasingly, reporters are also physically attacked.
Then there is the thorny issue of resiliency. Why are some reporters more able to shake off trauma than others? There is a complex mix of genetic, psychological and spiritual factors at play.
But journalists who are coping often feel bad about not feeling worse, especially when they see their comrades fall. Survivor guilt.
Many newsrooms, virtual and otherwise, are making an effort to address these issues, with training on trauma-informed reporting, better access to therapy and culture change. But it’s becoming urgent.
We need to give ourselves permission to grieve.
In an industry already beset by financial woes, mass layoffs and political attacks, we can’t afford to lose a generation of journalists to despair.
On June 9, Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard and CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta will be honoured by the Canadian Journalism Foundation for their “exceptional impact in providing accurate and vital information during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
A tale of two pandemics: AIDS and COVID-19While AIDS and COVID-19 have both left marks on the world, they are very different beasts
André Picard, The Globe and Mail
Friday, June 04, 2021
On June 5, 1981, a short article titled “Pneumocystis Pneumonia – Los Angeles” appeared in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, a journal published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
Little did the authors know that the dry case report about a cluster of “5 young men, all active homosexuals” with PCP, a rare form of pneumonia, would herald the arrival of HIV-AIDS, one of the worst pandemics in human history.
Similarly, the moderator who posted chatter on the Chinese social-media site Weibo about an “urgent notice on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause“ in Wuhan on Dec. 30, 2019, on the ProMed (Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases) listserv likely had no idea that it was a harbinger of an earth-shaking pandemic. (China did not formally notify the World Health Organization about the spread of a novel coronavirus until Jan. 8, 2020.)
Today, on its unofficial 40th anniversary, AIDS almost feels like yesterday’s news, overshadowed by COVID-19, an in-your-face pandemic of the digital age.
While AIDS and COVID-19 have both scarred the world, they are very different beasts.
Human immunodeficiency virus, which is spread in bodily fluids like semen and blood, has infected an estimated 76 million people, 33 million of whom have died.
SARS-CoV-2, the airborne virus that causes COVID-19, has infected almost 175 million people and caused more than 3.7 million deaths, making it more easily spread but far less deadly than HIV.
And, of course, no one yet knows how long COVID-19 will be around, or what the long-term health consequences will be, especially for the significant minority of the infected who seem to be developing chronic symptoms.
Still, there are many parallels, many common lessons unheeded, and much to learn about bolstering public health in this tale of two pandemics.
If anything, AIDS should remind us that, for all the havoc COVID-19 has caused, it could have been much, much worse in the short term, and we should not make too many assumptions about how it will play out in years to come.
Dr. Catherine Hankins, a professor of public and population health at McGill University in Montreal, distinctly remembers reading the now-iconic MMWR report 40 years ago. “It was one of those ‘where were you when…’moments,” she said.
In pre-internet days, medical journals came in the mail and infectious disease experts such as herself read MMWR religiously. An unusual pneumonia in five otherwise healthy men hinted at something new and worrisome. One month later, on July 3, 1981, MMWR published a second report that sealed the deal.
Titled “Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocystis Pneumonia Among Homosexual Men – New York City and California,” the study reported the cases of 26 gay men who had an unusual combination of a rare pneumonia, PCP, and even rarer form of cancer, KS.
That same day, The New York Times published an article titled “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals,” which is often described as the first coverage of AIDS in the mainstream media. (Gay publications such as the New York Native had already been reporting on rumours of a “gay cancer.”)
“It took a few weeks to realize it was an infectious disease, but it was clearly something new and important,” Dr. Hankins said. All over the world, public-health officials and clinicians began to understand why they were seeing gay men falling ill and dying in large numbers.
The new virus changed the course of Dr. Hankins’s career. She went from working on preventing hepatitis B in babies to studying what was initially dubbed GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), including early work on the spread in prisons and among injection drug users.
Dr. Hankins is still at it four decades later. She is also a key member of the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, and that’s not a coincidence.
A year prior to the emergence of HIV-AIDS, in 1980, the World Health Organization declared the end of smallpox, the first disease to be eradicated in human history, thanks to vaccination.
It was a heady time. Many scientists believed that the end of infectious diseases was nigh – a rather pompous conviction that there were likely no new pathogens to be found, and if they did emerge, they could be quickly quashed.
AIDS was a brutal wake-up call.
It also spurred a resurgence of interest in epidemiology and immunology, which has paid great dividends since, and especially during COVID-19.
Today, the spread of the novel coronavirus is being tracked around the world virtually in real time and we know more about its immunology than any pathogen in history. Not to mention that the genome of the virus was decoded in mere weeks.
More importantly, there is a COVID-19 vaccine. Several actually, and more than 150 others in development.
On April 23, 1984, Margaret Heckler, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, told a packed news conference that a team led by American scientist Robert Gallo had discovered HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. (It turned out that a team of French scientists had actually discovered the virus in May, 1983, and shared samples with the Americans. After years of acrimonious legal battles, they are officially co-discoverers, although only Dr. Luc Montagnier, and his colleague Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, were awarded the Nobel Prize.)
What is also memorable about Ms. Heckler’s announcement is that she vowed that an AIDS vaccine would be available within two years, a prediction that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. In 1997, U.S. president Bill Clinton made a similar pledge, but said it would take 10 more years. That goal went unaccomplished, too.
So why have scientists been able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly, but failed repeatedly do to so for AIDS?
The problem is principally the virus itself. HIV is far more complex and wily than SARS-CoV-2. HIV is good at hiding and moves slowly and stealthily. (It can often take a decade before an infected person develops serious symptoms.) Worse yet, HIV infects the very cells a vaccine would need to trigger an immune response, and it can hide undetected in viral reservoirs and resurface again. The coronavirus, by contrast, is easy to detect, stymie and eliminate from the body.
There is also a question of political will. There have been many AIDS vaccine initiatives but never one with the urgency or breadth and financing of Operation Warp Speed, a U.S. initiative to develop COVID-19 vaccines quickly.
Governments around the world signed advance purchase agreements for billions of doses even before COVID-19 vaccines were developed, providing both funding and tremendous incentive for companies to succeed. Canada alone committed to buying 400 million shots.
In contrast, HIV vaccine development remains stalled – but it could be reinvigorated by the success of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19.
“The big and last Holy Grail we have to develop is a safe and effective vaccine,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview with HIV Unmuted, a podcast of the International AIDS Society.
While he has become a household figure during COVID-19, Dr. Fauci is also a lodestar of AIDS, having started researching the disease just weeks after the first MMWR publication. The U.S. National Institutes of Health are, by far, the biggest funders of AIDS research in the world.
The closest thing HIV has to a vaccine is antiretrovirals, cocktails of drugs that are used to keep the virus from replicating. That suppression makes it virtually impossible to transmit the virus and unlikely that infected people will fall sick.
It is a major improvement from the early days of the pandemic: Treatments have gone from non-existent, to complex and brutal, to incredibly effective. Some people now take only a single pill daily to control HIV. Given the aging demographic of those infected, and the damage caused by long-time treatments, however, many take a myriad of pills for conditions such as heart disease and diabetes.
Despite the lack of vaccines, both HIV infections, which peaked at 3.3 million in 1997, and AIDS deaths, which hit almost two million in 2006, have come down tremendously over the years. In 2019, there were “only” 1.7 million people newly infected with HIV, and 690,000 AIDS deaths. Treatment as prevention (TAsP), an approach developed in Canada, has contributed to the steep decline in cases. The concept is illustrated in the slogan U = U (undetectable = untransmittable).
In wealthy countries, HIV cases have largely disappeared outside of marginalized groups such as intravenous drug users and sex workers. The vast majority now occur in southern Africa.
This illustrates one of the many parallels Dr. Fauci sees between the pandemics, both in the scientific and political response. Infectious diseases always prey on vulnerable populations, and there are always groups who are harder hit, whether it’s gay men for AIDS or elders for COVID-19.
Dr. Fauci said on the podcast his greatest fear is that, as with AIDS, Western countries will control the initial surge and then move on, leaving the developing world to cope with the burden of COVID-19 for years to come.
In the 2020s, just as in the 1980s, it is well-off countries and individuals who are benefiting disproportionately from both new prevention programs and treatments.
As effective as HIV treatments are, it remains a struggle to get them to those who can most benefit. Of the 37.6 million people in the world living with HIV, 27.4 million have access to antiretrovirals, a vast improvement over the 7.8 million a decade ago, but still leaving many to suffer and die. Even in wealthy countries such as Canada, ARVs can be too costly, and are not covered by public-health plans in all provinces.
A similarly cruel pandemic math is playing out with COVID-19. Countries such as India and Nepal are experiencing deadly shortages of basic medical supplies, including oxygen.
Of the almost two billion vaccine doses administered worldwide, only a tiny fraction of shots have gone to those living in the developing world. The recovery is being enjoyed by the haves, not the have-nots.
Ron Rosenes, a long-time AIDS activist, was diagnosed with HIV in 1987, but is sure he was infected in the late 1970s when, like many of his generation, he revelled in the sexual liberation movement and was a frequent visitor to some of the over-the-top discos of New York.
Today, he says: “I’m a survivor, witness and pioneer – among the first generation to age with HIV.”
Echoing Dr. Fauci, Mr. Rosenes said his greatest frustration with COVID-19 is seeing the same prejudices and inequities surface 40 years after the advent of AIDS.
The scapegoating language, from “gay plague” to “China virus,” is similar. The tendency to blame “others” for the spreading of disease remains strong. With AIDS, it was gay men, and even individuals such as Gaétan Dugas. (The Canadian flight attendant was long described as Patient Zero, or the first case, when in fact he was patient O, the letter, for “out of California.”) Now, the COVID-19 finger-pointing is aimed at workers like those at the Wuhan seafood market (or, more recently, at a Wuhan microbiology lab).
The political unwillingness to invest adequately to protect those at greatest risk of newly emerging viruses – whether it’s gay men and hemophiliacs, or essential workers and elders – remains problematic. So too does the eagerness to move on when it’s only the marginalized who are still suffering.
Mr. Rosenes, at 73, was among the first to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and he hopes to see another world-changing scientific breakthrough. “I’m cautiously optimistic that I will still be around to see an HIV vaccine.”
He is only slightly less optimistic that he will be a witness to both the beginning, and beginning of the end, of two of the worst pandemics in history.
Lotto-Vax? Everyone’s a winner with higher vaccination rates, so let’s not rule out incentives
André Picard, The Globe and Mail
Wednesday, June 02, 2021
Canada is spending upwards of $8-billion to purchase COVID-19 vaccines. So what’s wrong with spending a few million, or even tens of millions, to encourage people to get their shots?
In recent days, much attention has been focused on U.S. vaccine lotteries – $1-million prizes, free college tuition, and more all being offered to incentivize Americans to roll up their sleeves.
Canadians have largely looked upon these schemes with skepticism, if not derision. The U.S. has a glut of vaccine – yet, after 34 million COVID-19 cases and 610,000 deaths, they still have to bribe people to get shots.
“In America,” we tell ourselves, “everything is about money.” We take comfort in soothing bromides like “Canadians are more civic-minded.”
But are we really? To date, about 21.5 million Canadians have received at least one vaccine dose, and two million are fully vaccinated with two shots.
Canada turned the tide in May. We can win the pandemic war in June
Drop in COVID-19 vaccine demand could push provinces to explore incentives
About 62 per cent of Canadian adults are partially vaccinated, about the same as the U.S. They’re hitting a wall, and we could be soon, too.
Vaccine hesitancy exists in Canada as well. So how do we encourage people, from the recalcitrant to the mildly hesitant, to get their shots?
We can urge people to close their eyes, roll up their sleeves and think of the Queen (or perhaps the possibility of attending a live sporting or music event), but stern appeals to civic duty can only take us so far.
Incentives work.
Two weeks ago, Ohio launched its Vax-a-Million lottery, with a promise to give a US$1-million prize to a vaccine recipient every week for five weeks, along with some “full ride” college scholarships. Governor Mike DeWine was widely mocked – but vaccine rates jumped 45 per cent in the state.
California followed suit, promising US$116.5-million in inducements for vaccine recipients, including 10 prizes of $1.5-million, 30 prizes of $50,000, and $50 gift cards for two million others. Minnesota took a more modest approach, offering the next 100,000 vaccine recipients prizes ranging from fishing licenses to amusement-park passes.
In Canada, reopening plans are tied to achieving vaccination rates of 70 to 75 per cent. We’re going to have to do something with a little more oomph than airing earnest Health Canada ads to get our vaccination rates up.
Several provinces are considering the lottery approach, but nobody has acted yet. We need to shake off our Canadian allergy to innovation and risk-taking in health care. Imagine the free publicity that’s going to come from the media coverage when one brave politician finally does something a bit bold.
The most common arguments against offering prizes or rewards are that these “bribes” are coercive and could create a precedent.
Offering people what is essentially a lottery ticket is not in any way punitive or inequitable. It’s true that people grossly overestimate their odds of winning, but if we’re going to argue that is inherently dishonest, then we should get rid of lotteries altogether.
We also offer incentives, big and small – ranging from cookies to insurance rebates – to incentivize all kinds of health behaviours, such as blood donation, smoking cessation and adherence to some drugs.
We pay people to participate in clinical trials testing new drugs, so why isn’t it okay to reward some who take these drugs, including vaccines, after they are approved?
Legally, we can make vaccines mandatory in some circumstances (though the case law is a bit mixed on when and where) so how can it be considered more coercive to offer people a little bribe? Instead of fuming over unvaccinated health workers, why don’t we pay them to get their shots?
Of course, offering prizes is not going to sway anti-vaccine naysayers, but there are very few of them. A few zealots tried to argue that offering young people free ice cream after their vaccines was luring children – which is laughable.
Where giving a little enticement will make a difference is the soft middle – the many people who are hesitant for a whole range of reasons, from fear of needles through to “I can’t be bothered.”
The incentives don’t have be big. In England, they offered young women aged 16 to 18 gift certificates worth £45 (about $77) if they would take the HPV vaccine. The small incentive doubled vaccination rates among those contacted for the first time, and quadrupled the rate among those who had previously refused.
Small cost, big payoff.
Widespread vaccination is our chance for a decent summer, and one of the key elements to getting back to a semblance of normal life.
We should be pulling out all the stops. Canada has Lotto Max (this week’s jackpot: $70-million) – so why not Lotto Vax?
Montreal chosen to host 2022 International AIDS Conference
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
André Picard, The Globe and Mail
Montreal has been chosen as the host city of the 2022 International AIDS Conference, which is poised to be one of the first large scientific gatherings of the postpandemic era.
The biennial conference, which routinely draws tens of thousands of scientists, clinicians, patients and journalists from around the world, went virtual in 2020, but is planning a hybrid of in-person and virtual sessions in 2022 in recognition that many people in the world will likely not be vaccinated a year from now.
Adeeba Kamarulzaman, president of the International AIDS Society, said the gathering, which will take place July 29 to Aug. 2, 2022, is essential to “get the HIV response back on track.”
Like many global health issues, HIV/AIDS has taken a back seat to COVID-19, even though it remains a big killer, especially in the developing world, she noted.
“AIDS 2022 will be a pivotal moment to once more galvanize the scientific, policy and activist communities to push the response forward,” Dr. Kamarulzaman said. “We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of people we still lose to AIDS-related illnesses every year.”
To ensure people from low- and middle-income countries can participate, the IAS has create a scholarship program that will support in-person attendance, as well as the provision of internet data and devices for those with travel limitations.
An estimated 1.7 million people became infected with HIV and another 690,000 died of AIDS in 2019, the most recent year for which detailed data are available. There have been 168 million COVID-19 cases and almost 3.5 million deaths recorded since the pandemic began in January, 2020.
Jean-Pierre Routy, a professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, and local co-chair of the conference, said advances in COVID-19 science, particularly the rapid development of vaccines, have made it an “exciting time” for HIV research, policies and programs.
“Following COVID-19 vaccine discovery, we are closer than ever before to an effective HIV vaccine and even on a path toward a cure,” he said.
AIDS 2022 will mark the 24th International AIDS Conference since its inception in 1985, and the fourth time Canada has played host. The global scientific gathering was staged in Toronto in 2006, Vancouver in 1996, and Montreal in 1989.
Federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu said holding the conference reflects Canada’s commitment to ending the AIDS pandemic.
“We know that there is still a long way to go in the fight against HIV and AIDS,” she said in a statement. “By bringing together domestic and international partners, we can redouble our collective efforts to improve the health of all our citizens and finish the fight against HIV and AIDS.”
Globally, Canadian researchers are known for pioneering the “treatment as prevention” approach, and for its embrace of harm reduction programs such as supervised injection sites.
It is estimated that 75.7 million people have become infected with HIV since the beginning of the pandemic, and 32.7 million have died.
Globe leads with 10 wins at National Newspaper Awards, including Picard for columns
Saturday, May 8, 2021
The Globe and Mail
The Globe and Mail has been awarded 10 National Newspaper Awards for coverage that included an in-depth investigation into racial bias in Canada's corrections system and reporting on repression in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.
The Globe was the most decorated publication this year by the NNAs, Canada's most prestigious journalism prizes for text-based reporting. Awards went to departments across The Globe's newsroom: politics, arts, sports, health, columns, design, features and investigations.
Globe journalists' probe of the WE organization and the scandal that centred around it, as well as a moving essay of a long-term care worker's efforts to comfort COVID-19-stricken residents were also honoured.
The Globe's Tom Cardoso won in the Investigations category and was also named Journalist of the Year for his work.
David Walmsley, editor-in-chief of The Globe, said: "This year ranks as the most special when one considers the disadvantages the industry has faced.
Working away from our beloved newsrooms and our cherished colleagues, we nevertheless maintained our covenant with the audience - to deliver the news.
"The range of winners is testament to the efforts of deeply committed professionals working in sometimes dangerous and often isolating conditions. The pride we all feel for those both named tonight and those behind the scenes is inestimable."
Three awards each went to La Presse and The Canadian Press and two each went to Le Devoir and the Toronto Star. The Kenora Miner and News and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix each picked up one award. There were 66 finalists from 20 news organizations in 22 categories. There were 926 entries. The NNAs were established in 1949.
Mr. Cardoso was among 15 category winners considered for Journalist of the Year. His reporting was based on hard-to-access data that proved "beyond an iota of doubt" that evaluations used to determine the likelihood of prisoners being rehabilitated are profoundly and clearly biased against people from racialized backgrounds, the NNA judges found. The assessments make the difference in whether prisoners receive access to programming and better living conditions.
Mr. Cardoso created sophisticated programs to analyze the data and found compelling stories about the people reflected in the numbers.
The work resonated "like thunder" and took place amid a growing focus on racial bias within policing, the judges noted.
Globe and Mail reporters won as a group for their coverage of the devastation inside Canada's long-term care homes from the pandemic. This is the first year for the Sustained News Coverage award.
In fact, 10 of the 22 winning entries were for pandemic-related submissions.
The Globe's health columnist, André Picard, won in the Columns category. His work on long-term care and Canada's pandemic response has become required reading for Canadians trying to understand these unprecedented times.
Globe feature writer Erin Anderssen won the Short Feature award for her moving account of a long-term care worker who offered comfort to residents with COVID-19 so that they didn't have to spend their last moments alone.
Globe reporters were also honoured for work that was not pandemic-related. China correspondent Nathan VanderKlippe was awarded the International Reporting award for his coverage of repression in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.
Globe Ottawa reporters Bill Curry, Marieke Walsh, London correspondent Paul Waldie, Africa correspondent Geoffrey York and Report on Business reporter Jaren Kerr combined for coverage of the WE scandal and the publicpolicy questions raised by that organization. They won in the Politics category.
Designers Laura Blenkinsop, Jeremy Agius and Timothy Moore won for an interactive approach that helped bring readers close to the experience thousands of Mexican families have had searching for loved ones who disappeared since the start of Mexico's "war on drugs" 15 years ago.
In Sports, Globe reporter Michael Doyle was awarded for exposing sexual, psychological and physical abuse and manipulation of elite athletes by the most powerful person in Canadian track and field.
In Arts and Entertainment, Johanna Schneller won for her Globe columns tackling gender identity and gender politics in the arts world.
Paul Samyn, chair of the board of governors of the NNAs and editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, issued a statement during the ceremony acknowledging that neither the NNA board nor its list of winners and finalists represents diversity in Canada.
He said that after the North American focus on race last summer in the wake of the death of George Floyd, the NNA organization took "a long, overdue look in the mirror."
"Canadian newsrooms had to come face to face with reckoning about our own role in perpetuating and failing to combat racial injustice," he said.
He added that the NNAs would take "concrete steps" to ensure voices that should have been heard before are now heard.
COVID-19 in Canada: Are we in the home stretch?
In the first episode of The Globe and Mail’s new podcast The Decibel, André Picard speaks to host Tamara Khandaker about how Canada has fared in the COVID-19 pandemic, what to do if you have vaccine-hesitant friends or family and whether the end of restrictions is in sight88 Words
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
The Globe and Mail
Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard discusses how Canada has fared nearly 14 months into its COVID-19 pandemic, what to do if you have vaccine-hesitant friends or family, and whether the end of this pandemic is in sight.
Listen and follow The Decibel in your favourite streaming app: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Pocket Casts or RSS.
Follow this link to view this story on globeandmail.com:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/the-decibel/article-covid-19-in-canada-are-we-in-the-home-stretch/
The easing of COVID-19 public health measures can’t be a free-for-all. Quebec and Ontario have both released their COVID-19 reopening plans. Will the public embrace the slow, cautious approach, or go nuts when they get a taste of freedom?
André Picard, The Globe and Mail
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
“Hope is here.”
Quebec Premier François Legault was downright giddy as he unveiled the province’s “deconfinement” plan last week. (Fourteen months into the pandemic, the past four-plus under curfew, the French word “déconfinement” seems much more apropos than the blander English descriptor “reopening.”)
A few days later, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a similar plan, but in a more sober, smile-free manner. In Ontario, it really is a reopening, because there never was a confinement.
“We all want to open up a lot sooner. But we can’t. We have to be cautious,” was the most enthusiasm Mr. Ford could muster.
Other than tone, the roadmaps back to normality are similar in Canada’s two biggest provinces, with gradual and prudent easing of restrictions on outdoor activities in coming days, allowing things such as outdoor dining and in-person gatherings in mid-June, then a one-dose summer of camps and backyard BBQs, culminating with the potential for easing masking and physical distancing rules in August.
More importantly, both are tying the untethering of the public to vaccination – specifically getting at least 75 per cent of the adult population vaccinated with at least one dose before the end of August.
We need to reward people for months and months of sacrifice, and vaccination is the golden (or at least gold-plated) ticket.
What both these plans say, in broad strokes, is that the more and faster people get a COVID-19 vaccine, the more freedom and fun they can have.
The big difference between the provinces is that Quebec is using a clear timetable, while Ontario is using a metric; in the former, restrictions will be eased on specific dates, while in the latter, the easing will only happen if a set percentage of the population is vaccinated.
Quebec’s approach has the advantage of being much more clear. Locked-down residents of Montreal, for example, can lick their lips in anticipation of curfew being lifted on May 28 and even the prospect of fans attending a Canadiens-Leafs hockey game live on May 29.
Ontario will lift its less-strict stay-at-home order June 2, but will only allow outdoor dining and reopening stores when at least 60 per cent of the adult population has had one dose of vaccine. (It’s 58.5 per cent now, so June 14 is the target.) Then the timing of the gradual, three-step reopening gets more vague.
Mr. Legault told Quebeckers that “summer rhymes with party” (and it does in French), but stressed that the summer gatherings need to be small and restrained.
That, of course, is the big unknown. When people get a taste of post-COVID life, will they be able to restrain themselves?
You can bet there will soon be photos and videos on the news of some small-scale debauchery, likely groups of young people dancing and partying.
We can take comfort in knowing that these little bursts of overenthusiasm don’t much matter, especially if they take place outdoors.
A greater worry is if the mainstream mindset becomes that “it’s over,” and people return to home visits, office work and gatherings incautiously.
A fourth wave is not out of the question. In fact, it’s likely if we make the mistake of abandoning public-health measures rather than easing out of them.
Vaccination is important, but it’s not magic.
Both the Quebec and Ontario strategies are based on having 75 per cent of the population get one dose of vaccine. But that’s an arbitrary number. It’s certainly not a guarantee of much vaunted “herd immunity,” even if that is achievable.
As we put our faith in vaccination to bring down infections and deaths, we also have to recognize that testing and contact tracing became all the more important.
In recent weeks, testing numbers have plummeted. Contact tracing – tracking the contacts of those who test positive for COVID-19 – was part of our daily vernacular early in the pandemic, but it’s almost been forgotten.
The only way to avoid a resurgence of cases is to stop the virus circulating in the community: test, trace, isolate aggressively.
The missing piece of the deconfinement plans in both provinces was a commitment to slam the door shut if case numbers do jump again. Yet, if there is an overarching lesson of the pandemic, it’s that: To counter the spread of a wily virus, you have to shut down swiftly and reopen slowly.
Yes, hope is here.
But if we want to remain hopeful, and on track to post-COVID freedom, we have to be willing and ready to adjust our metrics and timetables, and curb our enthusiasm.
The Games must not go on. With COVID-19 cases soaring in Japan, the Summer Olympics could lead to disaster
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
'The wait is almost over."
That's the latest catchphrase the International Olympic Committee is using to promote the Tokyo 2020 Games.
"Stop the madness" would be more appropriate.
While the IOC seems hell-bent on the already once-delayed Games proceeding from July 23 to Aug. 8 as rescheduled, resistance is growing in the host country - and for good reason.
"Infections are escalating extremely rapidly in populated areas," Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said on Friday, as he extended the country's state of emergency to nine regions, up from six.
Japan was one of the first countries in the world hit by COVID-19, having reported an outbreak aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship in February, 2020. Now the country is in its fourth wave, recording about 7,000 new infections a day - a rate that is about the same as Canada's, though we are home to less than a third of Japan's population. By the high standards of Asian countries, those numbers are horrible, and Japanese hospitals are having trouble managing.
Worse yet, the country's vaccine rollout is moving at a glacial pace. Only about 3 per cent of Japanese citizens have received even a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine (the only shot approved there). By contrast, almost 40 per cent of Canadians are at least half-vaccinated.
Given Japan's reality - rising caseloads, overwhelmed hospitals, virtually no vaccinations (and, oh, aren't we supposed to be limiting international travel?) - who would blithely invite about 14,500 athletes and 25,000 judges, officials, members of the media and broadcasters from 196 countries to congregate in one place?
Only the money-hungry, tonedeaf IOC.
Asked whether the Games would proceed, IOC president Thomas Bach declared: "There is no Plan B." But a poll published over the weekend in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper found that 80 per cent of Japanese people now want the summer Olympics postponed or cancelled. Only 14 per cent think they should proceed.
The public clearly has a lot more sense that the Olympic overlords and their corporate sponsors.
Japanese politicians, for their part, are siding with the IOC, despite mounting public anger over the combination of the traditionally costly obsession with the Olympics (about US$3.2-billion for these Games) and a tepid pandemic response.
Some of this may be related to the fact that, according to the Olympic contract, the decision to postpone or cancel the Games rests solely with the International Olympic Committee.
Regardless, Mr. Suga's oft-repeated claims that the Games will be "safe and secure" and a "symbol of global solidarity" are becoming increasingly difficult to swallow.
Hiroshi Mikitani, the billionaire founder and chief executive officer of Rakuten Group Inc., stated the reality more bluntly, saying that playing host to the Olympics in the midst of the far-from-over pandemic would be a "suicide mission."
Takarajimasha, a major Japanese publishing company, also blasted the government in fullpage ads for getting its priorities wrong: "No vaccine. No medication. Are we supposed to fight with bamboo spears? We'll be killed by politics if things remain unchanged."
Yes, the world is craving a return to some sense of normalcy.
But is staging a made-for-TV sporting spectacle the way to do it?
Wishful thinking notwithstanding, there will be nothing normal about these Olympics, even if they do go ahead. Other than direct participants, international visitors will be banned. It's not even clear whether there will be Japanese spectators in the stands; that decision will be made in June.
The fastest women and men in the world would be lined up to run in empty stadiums, prepared to do gymnastics without applause. It would be even more surreal than the football or hockey games that have been played in fan-free venues.
There will, of course, be mitigation measures for athletes, officials and press. The IOC has published "playbooks" to guide "safe and successful Games." The rules require two negative COVID-19 tests before arrival in Japan, plus daily testing. Participants are being "urged" to not mingle with locals, meaning no public transit, no restaurants and no tourism.
But there will be no quarantine requirement, and no mandatory vaccination for athletes, even though Pfizer has offered free doses to all participants.
And it is inevitable that participants will interact with each other, and not just on the field of play. Olympic villages, full of young, buff athletes, are renowned for the "mingling" that takes place.
Do we really want to risk the Olympics being a launching pad for another global pandemic wave?
The IOC, politicians and sponsors are all reluctant to do the right thing and pull the plug. So at this point, it's up to the athletes of the world - those who really have the most to lose - to step up again, as they did in March, 2020, and say unequivocally that we must choose safety over sport, and put public health ahead of profits.
Should Canada ditch AstraZeneca? Questions around the vaccine could lead to hesitancy - and as deliveries of other shots ramp up, we don't really need it
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
The European Union has decided Oxford-AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine is no longer worth the bother. The EU will not renew its contract for June, opting instead to go all-in with Pfizer-BioNTech.
Should Canada follow suit?
AZ (which is in the news so often it now has its own shorthand) accounts for about 12 per cent of the vaccines administered in Canada - and about 99 per cent of the grief.
Much of the talk about AZ revolves around the potential risk to individuals developing a rare blood-clotting syndrome, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
VITT is rare. So far, among the 2.3 million AstraZeneca doses administered in Canada, there have been 12 recorded cases, including three deaths. Depending on whose expert math you believe, the risk of VITT ranges anywhere from 1 in 26,000 to 1 in 250,000.
Pfizer and Moderna don't have that "safety signal." If all vaccines are equally effective - and that's a subject of debate too - then why would we bother with one that poses risks, however minimal?
The obvious answer is that we want to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible.
There's no question that getting COVID-19 is a much greater risk than getting a vaccine. But what happens if, because of their fears (legitimate or otherwise), people don't get vaccinated at all?
If AstraZeneca's woes are creating vaccine hesitancy, and we have alternatives available (like two million Pfizer doses rolling in weekly) then is it worth having it on offer?
There are a lot more questions here than answers. We're all trying to do complex risk-benefit calculations - individually/collectively, and politically/scientifically - with ever-shifting variables.
To date, Canada has administered 18 million vaccine doses.
We've plucked much of the lowhanging fruit. The rollout will only get more challenging as we reach out to greater swaths of the population.
That's why it's increasingly essential that there be no doubts about vaccine efficacy or safety.
And it's why clear communication is so important.
"All vaccines are equally effective" and "take whatever vaccine is offered" are good, clear publichealth messages.
But those messages are getting harder and harder to believe.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, an independent group of experts responsible for drafting national guidelines, now says that AstraZeneca vaccines should be taken by... well, who the hell knows?
The advice has changed so often that nobody knows what the advice is anymore.
NACI's "Recommendations on the use of COVID-19 vaccines" is more than 110 pages long, full of head-spinning nuance. To make matters worse, NACI's public statements are downright perplexing. It says mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) should be "preferentially offered," which suggests they are better than adenovirus vaccines (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) - which is very different from public-health messaging.
Depending where you live in Canada, AstraZeneca is being offered to those over 30 or 40 years of age. The logic here is that the younger you are, the lower your risk of serious harm from COVID-19, meaning the relative risk of suffering harm from VITT is greater.
NACI says people over 30 can take AZ or the Johnson & Johnson vaccine "if they do not wish to wait for a mRNA vaccine" (not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement), and they should do an "individual risk assessment." But it doesn't say how.
Humans are pretty bad at judging risk at the best of times, and even less so when they are caught in a twister of conflicting information.
If you aren't already sufficiently confused about the pros and cons of AZ vaccination, just pay a visit to Twitter, where experts relentlessly drop fiery hot takes.
This kind of discussion is normal in science, but in the public realm it's off-putting at best.
Bottom line: We're left with the perception that the AstraZeneca vaccine is second-rate. In the public/political realm, perception matters more than science, especially when you're trying to vaccinate 38 million people.
Those who rushed out to get the AstraZeneca vaccine (mostly Gen-Xers, who are the most ardent vaccination supporters) are feeling burned. They are left with the impression that decisions have been driven more by supply issues than science.
When supplies of Pfizer and Moderna were running low and the U.S. had AstraZeneca vaccine that was about to expire, suddenly AZ was being highly touted.
In retrospect, it has an "eat the stuff at the front of the fridge before it goes bad" feel to it.
Perhaps it's time to clean out the vaccine fridges, to stick with Pfizer and Moderna, and stop trying to foist AZ on people when it is looking increasingly unpalatable.
Long-term care is caught in a cycle of inaction. Will we ever break the deadly pattern of studying the issue and then responding with platitudes?
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
The 322-page final report of Ontario's Long-Term Care Commission was released at 7:18 p.m. on Friday night - the political equivalent of taking a shovel, digging a deep hole and burying it.
Then, on Monday morning, the province delivered another slap in the face to Ontario's elders when Long-Term Care Minister Merrilee Fullerton offered up a mealy-mouthed response to the report, featuring such gems as "fixing the problem will take many solutions."
There is nothing surprising or new in the report, though that's not a knock on the commissioners. It's hard to come up with anything groundbreaking when more than 150 reports have been written since the advent of medicare about how to fix the hellishly inadequate long-term care system.
There was nothing unexpected in the government's response, either. Blaming previous governments for all failings and making vague commitments to do something, some time - that's all standard political fare.
But at some point, politicians have to stop commissioning reports that they intend to send directly to the dumpster and start implementing the long-overdue and eminently sensible recommendations therein.
The latest report - which the authors didn't even bother gracing with a catchy title such as "Now Is The Time" - features 85 recommendations. They are centred on three points: Care homes are hard-pressed to offer decent care because they are chronically understaffed; the infrastructure is horribly outdated and inadequate; and inspection and regulation of homes is a joke.
On the first issue, the report calls for urgently needed legislated standards to guarantee residents receive four hours of daily hands-on care (up from the current 2.75 hours). The mix of staff matters, too: It should be 20 per cent registered nurses, 25 per cent registered practical nurses and 55 per cent personal support workers. More nurse-practitioners are needed for oversight, and medical directors need to be geriatric specialists.
On the second issue, not only are more beds needed, they should be home-like: No more four-bed ward rooms and bathrooms shared by up to eight people. Ownership matters, too, but it's not as simple as eliminating for-profit operators. The most intriguing recommendation is to separate the ownership and construction of LTC homes from their operation - in other words, not allowing real estate companies to be care providers.
The commission also calls for a "co-ordinated and comprehensive long-term care inspection regime," including regular and unannounced inspections, plus transparency and follow-up on findings.
One of the most useful aspects of this type of quasi-judicial exercise is providing a clear, factual chronology of government action (and inaction) - something that is hard to grasp in real-time. It is hard for readers to consume the dry recitation of events and not be sickened by the failure of government officials to take the clear threat to long-term care homes seriously. "It was not always clear who was in charge" - these words, from the review of Canada's handling of the SARS crisis, echo to this day.
The commission notes that the bulk of long-term care residents who died in the first wave of the pandemic did so or were infected between March 22 and April 22, 2020. Most (but not all) were preventable, but sitting on one's hands was the modus operandi in that period.
Given the deadly bungling during that stretch of time, why did Dr. David Williams, the province's Chief Medical Officer of Health, still have a job afterward? The death count was even higher in the second wave than the first; clearly nothing was learned. So why is Dr. Williams still "in charge" now?
The many, many reports such as this one almost all suffer from the same fundamental flaw: a lack of details about how to implement recommendations.
What is the point of saying, as this latest report does, that 55,000 more long-term care beds will be needed by 2023 without providing a full costing and timetable?
When there is no concrete goal and budget, it's easy for government to weasel its way out of acting and, as Ms. Fullerton did Monday, utter vague platitudes such as "we are fixing a broken system."
Yes, the province had announced $9.6-billion in new spending on long-term care, but most of it is supposed to happen after the next election - so really, that's no commitment at all.
Simply saying that government should provide a progress report on implementation one and three years later - as the commissioners have done - is to let officials off the hook.
Prior to COVID-19, there was no plan to improve the lives of elders in care. Thousands of deaths later, there is still no actionable plan.
"Delay is deadly," the commissioners wrote. Indeed it is. And as long as we keep burying reports under delays and a lack of will, we will keep burying elders who have been cruelly neglected.
In praise of COVID-19 vaccine selfies. We should be using every tool we have to combat vaccine hesitancy - including photos of people getting their shots
Thursday, April 22, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
Vaccines are the way out of the accursed COVID-19 pandemic, so we should be celebrating the vaccinated at every turn.
So why have so many vaccine clinics in Canada posted aggressive "no photos" posters? Why are so many people getting self-righteous finger-wagging instead of encouragement and praise when they pull out their phones?
Vaccination is not only an individual good, it's also a societal one. The atmosphere at our vaccination clinics should be celebratory, not funereal.
What better way to tackle vaccine hesitancy than to see Canadians of all ages, shapes and sizes smiling - behind a mask, of course - as they get the jab?
If anything, we should be mounting a public campaign that rivals Tim Hortons' annual "roll up the rim" drive, featuring some of the roughly 10 million Canadians who have rolled up their sleeves.
We had the right instincts at the outset of the vaccine rollout. On Dec. 14, 2020, Gisèle Lévesque, an 89-year-old resident of the SaintAntoine nursing home in Quebec City, received the first COVID-19 vaccination in Canada. She was featured on every newscast in the country.
What followed were images of the first personal support worker to get their vaccine, then the first nurse, then the first doctor, and on and on. Many front-line physicians and nurses have proudly posted photos while getting shots - the first glimmer of hope in their work lives in a long time.
Eventually and ideally, we would get politicians to pose for the cameras, too, especially those who want to convince members of the public that the AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and effective.
So why should we treat the public differently? Why is it okay when health care workers post selfies, but when everyday Joe Schmoes do so, they receive hectoring and shaming?
This question has been much debated in cyberspace, and apparently, there are three principal arguments against selfies: privacy, efficiency and dignity.
Privacy is obviously not an issue for the person taking the selfie. We can take photos of ourselves whenever and however we please. Concerns about privacy of the person administering the vaccine - the nurse, the physician, the pharmacist - are legitimate, but can be easily overcome with a simple conversation.
Indeed, most health professionals are proud of their work and would gladly be included in a photo. So we should ask, politely.
If they demur, the camera can easily be adjusted to exclude these masked heroes.
Then there's the argument that people taking selfies waste time.
Piffle. Canada's vaccine rollout is not exactly a well-oiled machine, and if a picture takes a few extra seconds, so what?
Again, this is an act of civic engagement, not a medical act that must be performed in secrecy.
Finally, it has been argued that selfies are, well, selfish - that they can create "vaccine envy."
That's preposterous. Yes, there are a lot of people waiting to be vaccinated. Yes, there are inequities. But banning photos does nothing to resolve those issues.
If seeing a photo of someone getting a shot makes us more eager to get ours - well, all the better.
After all, we know there is widespread vaccine hesitancy - not people who are anti-vaccination, but who have legitimate questions and doubts. One of the best ways to overcome that mistrust is by normalizing vaccination. If you see your peers getting vaccinated, you are more likely to do so yourself.
So why would we ban photos?
That would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
When this is all over, some of the most poignant memories we will have of the pandemic will be visual: images of empty streets, isolated loved ones at windows, intensive-care units, sourdough bread and more. Vaccine selfies should have a place of honour among those galleries of remembrance, to mark the long-awaited end of those hardships.
Is there an element of narcissism in selfies? Perhaps. The French word for selfie is "ego portrait," which seems fitting. But selfies, and images more generally, have become a key way of communicating in the digitally, physically distanced world.
As our vaccination rollout targets younger and younger age groups - Gen X, millennials, Gen Z - we should be encouraging, not quashing, their means of communicating.
This pandemic has provided many lessons for public-health officials, among them that they need to shake off any prurience and embrace any and all platforms that people use to exchange information in their everyday lives.
So tear down those "no photos" posters and bring on the selfies! Fill up Instagram and Twitter feeds with close-ups of the needle. Post the selfies on Facebook for the grandchildren to see. Pull out your phone and boast about the bandage.
Every vaccine we administer should be a smiling celebration of hope, widely shared.
Earnest words, but little real action on affordable eldercare in the federal budget
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
Early in her budget speech, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland offered a heartfelt apology to the hardest-hit victims of the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada's elders.
"To them, and to their families, let me say this: I am so sorry. We owe you so much better than this. As a country, we must fix what is so clearly and utterly broken," she said, unveiling budgetary measures she described as "partial repayment."
"Partial" is the operative term here, if we're being generous.
Of the more than 23,500 COVID-19 deaths in Canada, almost 17,000 have been in congregate care settings such as long-term care facilities and retirement homes.
The breadth and depth of this carnage should have sparked a fundamental rethink of how we care for elders in this country. Instead, we have more of the same: earnest words and little real action.
In the budget, Ottawa committed $3-billion over five years, starting in 2022-23, "to support provinces and territories in ensuring standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made."
No commitment to what an actual minimum standard should be, such as four hours of hands-on care daily for each LTC resident.
No money for better infrastructure. No investment in home care - so elders have an alternative to long-term care. Nothing for caregivers either.
A child-care program - the bim, bam, boom announcement in the budget - is a great health initiative. It will make for healthier children and provide an economic boost by allowing more women to work.
But we can't forget that as many women (and, let's face it, it's overwhelmingly women) care for aging parents and in-laws as they do for children.
In our aging society, support for caregivers of elders - with adult daycare respite care, flexible employment rules and more - should matter, too.
When you commit $30-billion over five years to ensuring Canadians have affordable child care and zero to ensure they have affordable elder care, something is out of whack.
Ottawa has spent big on the pandemic, including about $8billion on COVID-19 vaccines. So it's puzzling that it would not invest in some essential long-term fixes, such as creating a national vaccine registry.
Similarly, while there has been a lot of chatter about how Canada's lack of domestic vaccine production hampered the pandemic fight, there are no big new initiatives.
The budget included $2.2-billion over seven years "toward growing a vibrant domestic life sciences sector." However, the money is being distributed through a series of scattergun (or is that scatterbrained?) investments in various agencies - the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, the Stem Cell Network - and little additional support for the trio of granting agencies that are supposed to oversee health research in the country. There's a good chunk of money for mental health, almost $1-billion over three years, most targeted for high-risk groups such as Indigenous communities, front-line workers, veterans with PTSD and racialized communities.
A big loser in the fiscal blueprint is pharmacare. The word is barely mentioned in the 739 pages of budget documents, a vague promise to "continue to engage with willing partners on national universal pharmacare, alongside other important health priorities."
The overdose epidemic, which has claimed as many lives as COVID-19 in some provinces, also barely merited a passing mention, with $116-million in additional funding.
While it's a predictable response regardless of what's in a federal budget, the premiers will no doubt be disappointed with what they've been offered to support struggling health systems.
Late last year, Ottawa provided a one-time boost of $4-billion in health transfers to the provinces but the budget does not provide any additional funding, other than $54-million to the territories.
The premiers, in a rare united voice, have been pushing hard for a big boost in the Canada Health Transfer to $70-billion annually from the current $43.1-billion (which grows by 3 per cent annually).
The federal government made a strategic decision that it will get more political bang for the political and economic buck by investing in child care than spending more on the seemingly bottomless pit of sickness care.
That's probably a good shortterm bet.
But, eventually, the backlog of neglected care over the past year, and the swelling desire for better elder care in the future, is going to catch up with governments, and that debt will have to be paid - in full.
When the COVID-19 fight ends, a bigger health challenge will begin.
Will a child's death make us see our failures? We should respond to the loss of 13-year-old Emily Viegas by providing parents better workplace protections
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
It shouldn't take a dead child to wake us up.
But the death of 13-year-old Emily Viegas is just that - a wakeup call, and a brutal reminder that COVID-19 is not done with us yet. Far from it.
COVID-19 continues to spread in Canada at an alarming rate - almost 10,000 cases daily. Ontario gets all the media attention, but case counts are exploding in Alberta and British Columbia, too.
Even Nova Scotia's bubble is leaking, if not bursting.
While our contact-tracing efforts have proven abysmal and the public sharing of data has been incredibly opaque, every indication is that the continued spread is driven largely by workplace outbreaks.
Essential workers - those who make sure we have food to eat and an endless stream of material goods from such retailers as Amazon - are paying a steep price for our consumerism, and public authorities are doing little to protect them.
Many essential workers, in factories, warehouses and retail outlets, have few labour protections.
They lack easy access to paid sick days, and they face constant threats of losing their jobs if they stay home or post on social media about the outbreaks they are witnessing.
Workplace cases soon make their way to the community when people bring the virus home, often to crowded households where families are cooped up.
That's one of the most disturbing third-wave trends we're seeing: Entire families - more often than not working-class and racialized - have been sickened and hospitalized.
Emily lived in Brampton, Ont., Canada's COVID-19 hot spot and, not coincidentally, the country's warehouse and distribution centre. Her dad worked at one of these warehouses; her mom was already in hospital. Now Emily is dead.
Deaths in young people are exceedingly rare. Emily's death is the eighth recorded pediatric death in Canada. But that just makes her passing feel crueller.
The best way to shield children from the pandemic is to protect their parents - to take the necessary measures to get the spread of the coronavirus under control.
It's not just about shutting down international flights or cracking down on parties. We need to ensure that any operational workplaces are truly essential, that work conditions are as safe as possible, that workplaces where outbreaks occur are shut down swiftly and that workers have basic protections such as the ability to stay home when they're sick without financial penalty.
It's been said often, but, in many ways, the third wave is a new pandemic unto itself. The variants, including B.1.1.7 and P.1, are more contagious and the symptoms more severe than coronavirus classic.
Increasingly, older people are being vaccinated - 12 million Canadians have received their jab, and counting. But that is shifting risk to younger people.
For months, our intensive-care units and morgues were replete with elders, especially those who had lived in congregate settings such as nursing homes.
Now it's young and middleaged adults filling up the hospital beds. People who have jobs, or are out and about in the community, are furthering the spread of illness.
Our hospitals' ICUs are overflowing, not just because more people are sick, but because they're surviving longer. Some groups, such as pregnant women, are being particularly hard hit.
The stress on the system is so great - with more than 4,200 pandemic patients in hospital, including more than 1,400 in intensive care - that we are shipping patients from major cities to farflung hospitals in search of a free bed.
Indeed, Emily Viegas's father hesitated to bring his daughter to hospital because he didn't want to add more load to an already overburdened system and feared she could end up alone in a faraway hospital.
Our hospitals are actively adopting guidelines to determine whom we treat - and whom we don't - if things such as lifesaving drugs and oxygen are no longer available. This is a chilling new burden for health workers, who have already been beaten down by three waves of coronavirus and even more waves of political mismanagement.
Vaccination offers some hope, but there are still many more challenges to come. We don't yet fully know what the long-term health consequences of being sickened by the coronavirus are, but there is a growing body of evidence that they can be devastating. The number of "long COVID" cases continues to climb, and about 10 per cent to 20 per cent of those who recover from severe illness have reported chronic symptoms; even those with mild symptoms can have lasting repercussions. Then there is all the collateral damage, from delayed surgeries to mental-health issues.
We are increasingly antsy and want all this to be over. We have become numb to the numbers and the modelling predictions.
But let us hope we haven't grown so numb that we can't see the death of a child for what it is: not just an individual tragedy, but yet another symbol of our collective failure.
One year in, we've lost our ability to put risk in perspective
Thursday, April 15, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
After more than a year of soul-battering pandemic life, every molehill is starting to feel like a mountain.
We've reached the point where we seem to have totally lost our ability to judge risk rationally.
A striking example is the reaction to news that some coronavirus vaccines may cause blood clots in rare instances. Day after day we read headlines about the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, each more alarming than the last.
The U.S. paused use of the J&J shot; Denmark stopped using AstraZeneca vaccines altogether.
Anecdotally, we know that a growing number of Canadians are refusing the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply staying away from clinics.
All this because of very rare side effects. Out of 6.8 million J&J recipients, six women suffered blood clots; there have been 222 reports of clots among 34 million recipients of AstraZeneca jabs.
As many scientists have observed, you have a greater risk of being badly injured in a car crash while driving to your vaccination appointment than actually being harmed by a COVID-19 vaccine.
Drugs we take every day - Tylenol, birth-control pills, heart medications, sleeping pills - all have potentially severe side effects. We generally accept those risks, or at least don't think of them.
Why do we expect vaccines to be magically problem-free when we don't expect that of other drugs?
Part of it is human nature. We don't worry about common risks because it would drive us crazy.
We fret about rare problems because, well, they're rare. For example, people are far more fearful of being attacked by a shark than they are of drowning, although the latter is far more likely than the former.
You have to feel for regulators trying navigate the not-shark-infested waters because they find themselves in a no-win position.
We can, like Denmark, toss the AstraZeneca vaccines overboard because of our trust issues. Doing so leaves the impression it's unsafe, which it's not.
We can, like Canada, stay the course and continue using the vaccines. The risk there is people having doubts and staying away from vaccination clinics.
Perception matters. So, too, does the situation on the ground.
The large majority of shots in Denmark are Pfizer, which has no reports of clotting issues.
Abandoning the use of AstraZeneca's shot will delay the vaccination campaign by a couple of weeks, which is not a big deal in a country where virus spread is minimal right now.
Canada is a different story, sort of. The large majority of our vaccinations to date have been Pfizer and Moderna, and we have contracts for 120 million doses in total. If we abandoned use of AstraZeneca and J&J, we would still get everyone vaccinated, but do it more slowly.
Is that politically palatable in this country, especially as a third wave rages? Likely it is not.
So the best we can do is forge ahead, as Health Canada has wisely decided. Keep using the vaccines we have, and urge people to get whatever vaccine is available, with few exceptions.
As with everything COVID-related, messaging matters.
Politicians, public-health officials and media should not stop talking about these safety issues, as some have demanded.
Sticking our heads in the sand is not the answer.
We should always err on the side of transparency. But we also need to do a better job of providing context and nuance.
"The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks" and "COVID-19 is far more likely to cause blood clots than a COVID-19 vaccine" are phrases that have been repeated like mantras. That needs to continue.
Similarly, we have to clearly state the trade-offs. If we don't want a specific vaccine, individually or collectively, then the result will be waiting longer.
Humans don't like uncertainty. Never knowing what's coming next - our COVID-19 reality - is unnerving.
Dan Gardner, author of the book Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear, states the problem succinctly: "Monsters are scary. Not knowing if there is a monster is even scarier."
This pandemic may be monstrous, but the vaccines that are our best hope of getting out of it are not.
So keep rolling up those sleeves - and drive carefully on the way to the clinic.
COVID-19 has flipped the health care script. Can B.C. maintain its superiority as the pandemic reverses the country's health-outcome norms?
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail
Traditionally in Canada there is a health gradient that goes from north to east to west.
Health outcomes - everything from traumatic injuries to rates of chronic illness to life expectancy - are the worst in the north, get slightly better in the Atlantic provinces, and gradually improve as you move across Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and the Rockies before arriving at the health pole star of British Columbia.
With COVID-19, the pattern has been different.
The three territories and the four Atlantic provinces have put the more wealthy and populous provinces to shame with their strict, no-nonsense pandemiccontrol measures.
This demonstrates, more than anything, that political will and public buy-in matter more than resources in controlling the spread of the coronavirus.
Over all, the pandemic has hit hardest by every calculable measure - deaths, hospitalizations, cases - in Quebec.
This can be explained, in part, by bad luck. The virus hit Quebec hard in March, 2020, because of an early spring break that resulted in travellers bringing the virus back; this allowed it to take root. The province reacted slowly and has never really fully recovered - this despite having enacted the toughest measures in the country in recent months, including lengthy curfews.
Ontario, arguably, has been hardest hit politically. The criticism of Premier Doug Ford's handling of the pandemic has been loud and relentless. This can be explained, at least in part, by the concentration of news media in Canada's most populous province - though the narrative has been helped immensely by the province's abysmal communication. Ontario also has an enthusiastic cadre of outspoken health experts.
Given the significant news coverage, many might be surprised to learn that Ontario's pandemic performance is actually slightly better than average, at least in terms of cases and deaths per capita. Even now, with daily dire reports of hospitals on the brink, Ontario does not have the worst COVID-19 hospitalization rate.
That dubious honour belongs to Saskatchewan, with Manitoba and Alberta not far behind. But for better or worse, the criticism of politicians and public officials is more muted in the rest of the country.
While we're doling out prizes for poor performance, it should be noted that Manitoba also has the worst per capita death rate after Quebec, and Alberta takes second-place "honours" (again, after Quebec) in terms of cumulative cases per capita.
The poor showing of the Western provinces is doubly troubling because they got off relatively lightly in the first wave and were hammered by the far more predictable and preventable second wave.
The one province that has not been mentioned so far is British Columbia. That's because the Pacific province has the best outcomes in every category - cases, hospitalizations, deaths - among all the provinces west of New Brunswick. B.C. has "charted a different course," to quote Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry.
If you recall your ancient history (ancient, in pandemic time, meaning January, 2020), B.C. had the first COVID-19 death in Canada, at the Lynn Valley Care Centre in North Vancouver. The province acted swiftly, largely avoiding the carnage in nursing homes that soon occurred in Quebec and Ontario. Tragically, however, B.C. was as complacent as other provinces during the second wave, and longterm-care deaths soared.
One of the fascinating things about B.C.'s pandemic response is that the province has largely avoided the frustrating cycle of lockdowns and reopenings, and it has done so primarily by doing the bare minimum.
Until recently, B.C. had far fewer restrictions than any other jurisdiction in Canada. (It also has a handy foil next door, with neighbouring Alberta always seeming to do far worse, while generating lots of political controversy to boot.)
More than anything else, B.C.
has managed its pandemic messaging masterfully. It has done so despite having the worst data and the least transparency - and despite undertaking some dubious decisions, including waiting too long to close ski hills (this has allowed case numbers to explode recently).
Dr. Henry is clearly in charge, at least on the public stage, with the province's politicians in the background. That is a stark contrast to Ontario, where Mr. Ford takes centre stage while Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams stumbles and bumbles behind him.
The question now is whether Dr. Henry's mantra of "be kind, be calm, be safe" can still work, or whether B.C.'s largely laissez-faire approach will catch up with it - and whether, perhaps just as importantly when it comes to the optics, the ineptitude of other provinces will make it all look not so bad, relatively speaking.