Coronavirus outbreak

[Alflives]

32 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Well we all should be more careful shouldn't we?  I don't think that is something we shouldn't strive for.

 

I never said he shouldn't have gone to the Summit.  Did any of the other leaders who went to the Summit contract COVID?  Maybe they were more careful than Trudeau and wore their masks and social distanced.  

Wearing a mask is to protect others.  Maybe Prime Minister Trudeau was wearing his, and others weren’t? 

Trudeau did a good job managing the Covid pandemic for us.  It’s the moron antivaxxers who were (and continue to be) the problem.  

[RUPERTKBD]

14 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

This is getting dangerously close to the kind of thinking that leads to victim blaming for sexual assault.

To me. "be more careful" is kind of a meaningless phrase.....

 

It's kind of like when you were a kid and you'd fall off your bike.....your mom would say, "Well, you should have been more careful"....

 

"Yeah, okay Mom....next time I go for a bike ride, I'll ask the city for a map that shows all the current pothole locations"...

[The Arrogant Worms]

This worries me a bit as my son works for the CRA

Ottawa lifts COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal, transport workers

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ottawa-lifts-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-workers-truckers-1.5946270

[Cerridwen]

9 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

This worries me a bit as my son works for the CRA

Ottawa lifts COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal, transport workers

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ottawa-lifts-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-workers-truckers-1.5946270

I'm with you...it's worrisome...especially with another variant showing up as being the most common one infecting folks right now. I worry that we're playing with fire and gambling with lifting mandates all over the place.... I truly hope we don't end up regretting it...

 

[Ghostsof1915]

The best I think we can hope for is each generation/mutation of Covid the symptoms get weaker and weaker. 

Sadly the virus has probably other ideas. 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

43 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

This worries me a bit as my son works for the CRA

Ottawa lifts COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal, transport workers

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ottawa-lifts-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-workers-truckers-1.5946270

Your son works for the CRA?

 

Were there no openings at the Brothel? The Massage Parlour?

[The Arrogant Worms]

6 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Your son works for the CRA?

 

Were there no openings at the Brothel? The Massage Parlour?

That is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

That is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

Sorry. A poor attempt at humor.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

 

 

If the CDC approves on Saturday, shots could be rolled out next week.  Canada should soon follow.  

 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/15/fda-panel-recommends-covid-vaccines-kids-young-6-months-old/7628194001/

FDA panel recommends Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines for the youngest kids

America's youngest children could soon have access to two COVID-19 vaccines.

An expert panel on Wednesday unanimously found Moderna's vaccine safe for children ages 6 months to 6 years old and provided protection against COVID-19. In a vote an hour later, the committee voted to support a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 6 months to 5 years. 

If its decisions are upheld by the Food and Drug Administration's commissioner and then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccines will be available for young children as soon as Tuesday.

Although young children have largely been spared the worse of COVID-19, they can still become seriously ill and more than 200 have died from their infections, according to data presented by the Food and Drug Administration.

Half of the young children hospitalized with COVID-19 did not have any pre-existing conditions before they fell ill, the FDA said.

Because risks from COVID-19 infection in young children are relatively low, the risk of side effects from the vaccine must also be low to justify their use.

Committee members said they want to give parents the option to vaccinate their youngest children.

"We've got to be transparent about the real risks of COVID-19 for children. Tens of millions of children in this age group have been infected and have done just fine," said Dr. James Hildreth, Sr., CEO of Meharry Medical College, in Nashville. "For those parents who choose to do so, especially those parents of kids that have underlying conditions, this is a choice they should have and I'm pleased that they'll have it."

Dr. Jay Portnoy, an allergist at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, said he hopes the committee's decision will help parents who have lived in fear of their child catching COVID-19. "This will certainly alleviate a lot of their concerns," said Portnoy, who is the patient representative on the committee. "I think it was the right vote."

Every other age group of Americans has long had access to the vaccines, except babies younger than 6 months old, who can get protection by vaccination during pregnancy.

Moderna's vaccine met the FDA's criteria for safety and effectiveness and its benefits outweigh its risks, the committee decided 21-0. The committee also voted 21-0 that the benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine outweighed its risks.

Adding a layer of confusion for parents, Moderna studied its vaccine in two doses, while Pfizer-BioNTech found three doses of its vaccine were needed to provide adequate protection during the omicron wave. 

Moderna recipients will likely need a third shot to receive protection against currently circulating variants, committee members, FDA staff and the company said, although the current review includes only two doses.

Because the two vaccines were studied separately, they cannot be compared directly.

Committee members said they worry the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines won't provide much protection until after the third dose; Moderna's shot may provide more protection faster.

Moderna's shots are given four weeks apart, meaning a child could have some protection against infection and severe disease by mid-summer. With Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine on the other hand, a child would have to wait until two doses three weeks apart and a third dose eight weeks later – roughly three months – to get protection.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said he thinks Pfizer-BioNTech may have chosen too low of a dose for these young children. He said he's worried parents will think their child is protected after two doses and will take fewer precautions to prevent COVID-19. 

Before either vaccine can be made available, the FDA commissioner must sign off on them, which he is expected to do almost immediately.

A second expert advisory panel, this time for the CDC, is scheduled to consider the same vaccines on Saturday. If the CDC director then approves of the shots, they are set to roll out Tuesday.

The Biden administration has already allowed pre-orders of up to 10 million vaccine doses for young children, half of Moderna and half of Pfizer-BioNTech, which will be made available beginning Tuesday at pediatricians offices as well as pharmacies, clinics and some libraries, children's museums and other venues.

The government has pre-purchased vaccines, so parents won't have to pay for them.

Also beginning Tuesday, parents are expected to have access to Moderna's vaccine for older children. Until now, only Pfizer-BioNTech could be provided to children, but this week, the FDA advisory committee said the benefits of Moderna's vaccine outweighed its risks. The FDA commissioner is expected to sign off on the vaccine and the CDC advisory committee to review it on Friday.

Vaccines available to children are the same as those for adults, but in lower doses. 

For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, adults receive two 30 microgram doses three weeks apart followed by a booster at least five months later. Adolescents receive the same dose, while children 5 to 11 receive three 10-microgram doses on the same schedule and children 6 months to 5 years would get three 3-microgram doses.

For the Moderna vaccine, adults receive two 100-microgram doses a month apart, followed by a 50-microgram booster at least six months later. Adolescents would have the same dose and schedule, once shots and boosters are authorized.

Children 6 to 11 would eventually receive two 50-microgram initial doses and a 25-microgram booster, and younger children would receive two 25-microgram doses followed by a 10-microgram booster. 

Committee members spent much of the question-and-answer period Wednesday trying to understand if one COVID-19 vaccine is more effective in small children than the other – but ultimately were frustrated by the lack of data.

Both vaccines appear to be safe, with short-term side effects like fever and fatigue fairly common, but no evidence of the more serious side effects seen rarely in adults: severe allergic reactions and myocarditis, a swelling of the heart muscle.

As with adults, young children generally had more side effects after the second dose, except if they had previously been infected with COVID-19, when they felt more effects from the first dose. Otherwise, there were no safety differences noted between children infected with COVID-19 before vaccination and they appeared to have greater protection against the virus, based on their levels of protective antibodies. 

As the studies in small children were relatively small, 5,000 who received at least one dose of the active vaccine in Moderna's trials and 3,000 in Pfizer-BioNTech's, those rare side effects or others could still turn up as more children are vaccinated.

As with adults and older children, it's unclear how long COVID-19 vaccines will be protective or whether more boosters will be needed.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

Avoid r/conservative and r/conspiracy if you wish to avoid hatred and venom being spewed regarding Fauci.  

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/niaid-director-fauci-tests-positive-covid-19

NIAID Director Fauci Tests Positive for COVID-19

 

Today, Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden, tested positive for COVID-19 on a rapid antigen test. He is fully vaccinated and has been boosted twice. He is currently experiencing mild symptoms. Dr. Fauci will isolate and continue to work from his home. He has not recently been in close contact with President Biden or other senior government officials. Dr. Fauci will follow the COVID-19 guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical advice from his physician and return to the NIH when he tests negative.

[King Heffy]

21 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Avoid r/conservative and r/conspiracy if you wish to avoid hatred and venom being spewed regarding Fauci.  

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/niaid-director-fauci-tests-positive-covid-19

NIAID Director Fauci Tests Positive for COVID-19

 

Today, Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden, tested positive for COVID-19 on a rapid antigen test. He is fully vaccinated and has been boosted twice. He is currently experiencing mild symptoms. Dr. Fauci will isolate and continue to work from his home. He has not recently been in close contact with President Biden or other senior government officials. Dr. Fauci will follow the COVID-19 guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical advice from his physician and return to the NIH when he tests negative.

@Elias Pettersson think he should have been more careful too?

[nuckin_futz]

Dozens dead, hundreds infected, but health authorities fight to conceal B.C. hospital outbreak findings

Vancouver -

A CTV News investigation into COVID-19 outbreaks in hospitals in the Lower Mainland has resulted in scant information from health authorities, which have fought disclosure even though hundreds of patients and staff have contracted the virus in hospital and dozens have died as a result.

 

For months, multiple attempts to obtain information and documentation around investigations, responses and fallout from COVID-19 outbreaks in Lower Mainland hospitals have been met with stonewalling, redactions and insistence that no such documentation exists, even though lives were lost.

 

Fraser Health fought a months-long battle with a freedom of information request, ultimately resulting in 79 pages of written documentation, of which 55 pages’ worth were redacted. Every page is marked “Confidential,” and some say “Confidential Do Not Distribute.”

 

Meanwhile, a Vancouver Coastal Health privacy officer insisted that – despite the deadliest COVID-19 outbreaks taking place in that health authority – there was “no documentation” to provide under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. A public health officer for VCH pointed out the BCCDC does not require them to produce a report. 

 

The Information and Privacy Commissioner may ultimately decide on whether a semantic decision about what constitutes a “report” should’ve been produced under the Information and Privacy Act, which compels public bodies to produce information. The possibility that there is no paperwork would raise other issues around documenting viral transmission and mitigation efforts in lethal outbreaks during a pandemic. 

 

Fraser Health cited three sections of the act in redacting the large swathes of information: s. 22, pertaining to personal information of staff and patients, but also s. 13, “information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister,” and s. 17, “disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body.”

RECURRING PROBLEMS IN EARLY OUTBREAKS

CTV News filed a freedom of information request after a Fraser Health communications staffer directed us to obtain the information that way, while Vancouver Coastal Health’s communications department never provided the information, despite several requests.

 

In the few pages that contain information, Fraser Health’s outbreak reports describe common issues in outbreaks at Abbotsford Regional, Burnaby, Delta and Surrey Memorial hospitals. Among these issues were patients who were unknowingly COVID-positive moved between units, staff who didn’t distance or wear masks outside of patient treatment areas, issues with clutter and hygiene, questionable adherence to personal protective equipment rules and staff who were working while infectious.

 

“Whether all (health-care worker) cases were infected on (the) outbreak units or elsewhere in the site and in what direction transmission occurred (patient-to-staff, staff-to-patient, staff-to-staff) cannot be determined,” say most of the reports, with most adding: “Transmission may have occurred through direct contact between cases or through contact with a contaminated environment.”

 

While the outbreak report writers encouraged a low threshold for testing staff and patients, infection control specialists who investigated the documented outbreaks did not proactively test everyone in the hospital and instead screened for symptoms; spot-testing random people.

 

The outbreak at Delta Hospital was particularly noteworthy because the unnamed unit where the infections took place “experienced a high bioburden of SARS-CoV-2 during the outbreak.”

 

“Air flow measurements found the actual air changes per hour (ACH) to be below the design expectations,” the report reads. “International experience with COVID-19 and observations of super-spreading events in various settings suggest crowding and poor air flow may contribute to outbreaks.”

 

This week, CTV News asked to speak with senior health officials at both health authorities to find out how investigations were conducted, what measures were taken in the first 24 hours, what recommendations were made and if they were implemented. Neither health authority gave an interview, nor a written statement.

SWIFT DENUNCIATION OF GOVERNMENT SECRECY

The executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association was taken aback by the stonewalling from health authorities. 

 

“There shouldn't be anything that they're afraid of disclosing to the public here,” said Jason Woywada. “One of the primary elements in a health-care system is providing assurance to the patient that they're going to be treated appropriately – and that means someone knows before they go to an ER or a hospital that they aren't going to get sicker by going there – that they're not going to go in with a broken arm and out with COVID-19.”

 

He said the public needs to know that efforts are being made to quash the spread of the virus.

 

“Making sure that communication is undertaken and there's transparency in terms of what changes have taken place is really important and that is something we'd hope we would see," said Woywada.

 

The official opposition echoed those sentiments and added that the public could be reluctant to seek medical attention if government isn’t clear about what lessons are being learned to keep people safe from getting COVID-19 in hospital.

 

"I think it's incumbent on health authorities to provide us with information and data that actually backs up their protocol, their procedures they have in place,” said Liberal leader Shirley Bond. “It is a pattern that has developed with this government: We continue to see a reluctance to be transparent. It's disappointing and frankly it should've been fixed long ago." 

 

MULTIPLE ACUTE CARE OUTBREAKS ANNOUNCED

 

The two health authorities have declared dozens of outbreaks at hospitals, where staff or patients who’d been virus-free contracted COVID-19. Virtually every hospital in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley has had at least one outbreak, with hundreds infected and dozens dead.

 

Among the worst:

• Burnaby General Hospital: a dozen people died and more than 100 were infected at the facility last year
• Lions Gate Hospital: three outbreaks, with 52 people infected and at least 16 dead in the last two
• Surrey Memorial Hospital: a three-month-long outbreak starting Nov. 18 saw 125 people infected on site, 13 of whom died

On their websites, the health authorities only list ongoing or recent outbreaks, removing old ones after they’ve ended. Currently, Fraser Health has one at Mission Memorial Hospital, which has had at least one previous outbreak. 

 

Woywada is urging the government to be proactive with information on something as vital as our hospital system, which he maintains is in government’s best interests.

“Trying to hide behind redacted documents and all these other elements and not getting the information out there as quickly as possible can erode trust in public institutions,” he said. “That's ultimately why we're advocating for more transparency. I would hope they would re-examine that."

 

 

 

[HKSR]

On 6/15/2022 at 1:10 PM, thedestroyerofworlds said:

 

 

If the CDC approves on Saturday, shots could be rolled out next week.  Canada should soon follow.  

 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/06/15/fda-panel-recommends-covid-vaccines-kids-young-6-months-old/7628194001/

FDA panel recommends Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines for the youngest kids

America's youngest children could soon have access to two COVID-19 vaccines.

An expert panel on Wednesday unanimously found Moderna's vaccine safe for children ages 6 months to 6 years old and provided protection against COVID-19. In a vote an hour later, the committee voted to support a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 6 months to 5 years. 

If its decisions are upheld by the Food and Drug Administration's commissioner and then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccines will be available for young children as soon as Tuesday.

Although young children have largely been spared the worse of COVID-19, they can still become seriously ill and more than 200 have died from their infections, according to data presented by the Food and Drug Administration.

Half of the young children hospitalized with COVID-19 did not have any pre-existing conditions before they fell ill, the FDA said.

Because risks from COVID-19 infection in young children are relatively low, the risk of side effects from the vaccine must also be low to justify their use.

Committee members said they want to give parents the option to vaccinate their youngest children.

"We've got to be transparent about the real risks of COVID-19 for children. Tens of millions of children in this age group have been infected and have done just fine," said Dr. James Hildreth, Sr., CEO of Meharry Medical College, in Nashville. "For those parents who choose to do so, especially those parents of kids that have underlying conditions, this is a choice they should have and I'm pleased that they'll have it."

Dr. Jay Portnoy, an allergist at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, said he hopes the committee's decision will help parents who have lived in fear of their child catching COVID-19. "This will certainly alleviate a lot of their concerns," said Portnoy, who is the patient representative on the committee. "I think it was the right vote."

Every other age group of Americans has long had access to the vaccines, except babies younger than 6 months old, who can get protection by vaccination during pregnancy.

Moderna's vaccine met the FDA's criteria for safety and effectiveness and its benefits outweigh its risks, the committee decided 21-0. The committee also voted 21-0 that the benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine outweighed its risks.

Adding a layer of confusion for parents, Moderna studied its vaccine in two doses, while Pfizer-BioNTech found three doses of its vaccine were needed to provide adequate protection during the omicron wave. 

Moderna recipients will likely need a third shot to receive protection against currently circulating variants, committee members, FDA staff and the company said, although the current review includes only two doses.

Because the two vaccines were studied separately, they cannot be compared directly.

Committee members said they worry the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines won't provide much protection until after the third dose; Moderna's shot may provide more protection faster.

Moderna's shots are given four weeks apart, meaning a child could have some protection against infection and severe disease by mid-summer. With Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine on the other hand, a child would have to wait until two doses three weeks apart and a third dose eight weeks later – roughly three months – to get protection.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said he thinks Pfizer-BioNTech may have chosen too low of a dose for these young children. He said he's worried parents will think their child is protected after two doses and will take fewer precautions to prevent COVID-19. 

Before either vaccine can be made available, the FDA commissioner must sign off on them, which he is expected to do almost immediately.

A second expert advisory panel, this time for the CDC, is scheduled to consider the same vaccines on Saturday. If the CDC director then approves of the shots, they are set to roll out Tuesday.

The Biden administration has already allowed pre-orders of up to 10 million vaccine doses for young children, half of Moderna and half of Pfizer-BioNTech, which will be made available beginning Tuesday at pediatricians offices as well as pharmacies, clinics and some libraries, children's museums and other venues.

The government has pre-purchased vaccines, so parents won't have to pay for them.

Also beginning Tuesday, parents are expected to have access to Moderna's vaccine for older children. Until now, only Pfizer-BioNTech could be provided to children, but this week, the FDA advisory committee said the benefits of Moderna's vaccine outweighed its risks. The FDA commissioner is expected to sign off on the vaccine and the CDC advisory committee to review it on Friday.

Vaccines available to children are the same as those for adults, but in lower doses. 

For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, adults receive two 30 microgram doses three weeks apart followed by a booster at least five months later. Adolescents receive the same dose, while children 5 to 11 receive three 10-microgram doses on the same schedule and children 6 months to 5 years would get three 3-microgram doses.

For the Moderna vaccine, adults receive two 100-microgram doses a month apart, followed by a 50-microgram booster at least six months later. Adolescents would have the same dose and schedule, once shots and boosters are authorized.

Children 6 to 11 would eventually receive two 50-microgram initial doses and a 25-microgram booster, and younger children would receive two 25-microgram doses followed by a 10-microgram booster. 

Committee members spent much of the question-and-answer period Wednesday trying to understand if one COVID-19 vaccine is more effective in small children than the other – but ultimately were frustrated by the lack of data.

Both vaccines appear to be safe, with short-term side effects like fever and fatigue fairly common, but no evidence of the more serious side effects seen rarely in adults: severe allergic reactions and myocarditis, a swelling of the heart muscle.

As with adults, young children generally had more side effects after the second dose, except if they had previously been infected with COVID-19, when they felt more effects from the first dose. Otherwise, there were no safety differences noted between children infected with COVID-19 before vaccination and they appeared to have greater protection against the virus, based on their levels of protective antibodies. 

As the studies in small children were relatively small, 5,000 who received at least one dose of the active vaccine in Moderna's trials and 3,000 in Pfizer-BioNTech's, those rare side effects or others could still turn up as more children are vaccinated.

As with adults and older children, it's unclear how long COVID-19 vaccines will be protective or whether more boosters will be needed.

What the hell is Health Canada doing right now... they received Moderna's application back in late April.  Ridiculous how long they're sitting on this when the FDA got this done faster, even though they received the data much later.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Gurn]

Last week:

895 new cases reported, for a total of 372,611 cases in BC 219 hospitalizations, for a total of 23,713 in BC  43 deaths,

 

So fewer new cases, fewer hospitalizations, but more death; this week as compared to last.

[Alflives]

18 minutes ago, gurn said:

Last week:

895 new cases reported, for a total of 372,611 cases in BC 219 hospitalizations, for a total of 23,713 in BC  43 deaths,

 

So fewer new cases, fewer hospitalizations, but more death; this week as compared to last.

Is the government letting us know is the persons in hospital (and dying) are antivaxxers?  

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Is the government letting us know is the persons in hospital (and dying) are antivaxxers?  

I don't know.

[Gurn]

Judge rules on "anti-masker's charter challenge:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/sask-judge-finds-mask-mandate-not-rights-violation-in-convicting-man/ar-AAYySxn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=93810c7870b84bde8233aecd651879e0

"As Saskatchewan rested firmly in the grip of a viral pandemic, and under a mask mandate, Richard Keough repeatedly walked into a small town grocery store without one.

 

On at least four occasions, beginning in late 2020 and stretching into 2021, he entered the Foam Lake Co-op food store without a face covering. He was slapped with tickets, he fought those tickets by saying his constitutionally protected rights and freedoms were violated, and now a court has found him guilty in what is possibly the first published written decision of its kind in this province.

The recently published decision, dated May 20, indicates its author, Wynyard Provincial Court Judge Michelle Marquette, found Keough guilty of failing to wear a face covering while in an enclosed setting, contrary to the Public Health Act, on four occasions. This follows her finding in the same decision that public health orders in place at the time of the offences did not run afoul of his protections under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as he’d argued in an attempt to have the court declare those orders invalid to his case.

Further, he was found guilty of trespassing at the same venue on two occasions, contrary to the Trespass to Property Act.

In discussing evidence, the judge wrote that not only did the store manager testify that Keough had entered without a mask on multiple occasions, the Crown produced in-store video recordings that showed the man enter with his face uncovered on Dec. 16, 2020, on Feb. 26, 2021, on March 9, 2021 and on March 17, 2021. In addition, Keough himself admitted to not wearing a mask in all four instances, according to the decision.

The Crown called six witnesses at trial, including the store manager, four RCMP officers and a doctor who testified as an expert in respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19.

The Saskatoon-based respirologist, Dr. Mark Fenton, is listed in the decision as, among other things “the chair of the expert committee within the safety pillar of the Emergency Operations Command associated with the pandemic and this committee adjudicates the science behind interventions employed to mitigate the risk of acquiring infections within health care facilities.”

The decision states he testified about transmission of COVID-19 and the utility of mask use , and while he was cross-examined “at length,” he maintained his opinion that mask use reduces the spread of that virus. This conclusion was accepted by the judge who wrote no medical evidence to the contrary was presented.

The onus was on Keough and his lawyer to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the mask mandate violated his Charter rights and freedoms — in this case, he argued, his freedom of expression and his right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The decision states the defence argued “ the face covering expresses a message that COVID-19 is real and dangerous, and this message is contrary to his beliefs and as such this compelled speech infringes on his freedom of expression.”

The judge wrote that case law dictates “freedom of expression necessarily entails the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things.” However, she did not accept that a face covering is a form of expression, and found that the mandate was made for the purpose of public health, not controlling expression.

Further, the mandate didn’t keep Keough from voicing his opposition to it, the judge wrote, and in fact he attempted to show Co-op employees cell phone videos with “counter information concerning COVID-19” on a number of the offence dates.

On the other Charter issue, the decision states the defence argued “liberty rights protect an individual’s right to control their bodily integrity and make their own health care decisions and as face coverings are medical treatment, any order requiring or mandating medical treatment upon an individual is a breach of an individual’s liberty rights.”

Further, the defence asserted that “an individual has a right to be free from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress and submits that the face covering requirement imposes psychological and emotional stress” on Keough.

The judge approached both points.

“Based on the evidence, I am unable to conclude that the wearing of a face covering is a medical intervention that intrudes on one’s bodily integrity to the degree that infringes a person’s  section 7 rights,” she wrote.

“There was no medical evidence presented to this court that demonstrates Mr. Keough was caused serious psychological harm or even physical harm by wearing a face covering,” she later adds.

She went on that even if she had found he’d been deprived of his rights under section 7 of the Charter, she would’ve concluded that he failed to demonstrate that deprivation was “contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”

The defence also argued that the public health orders were vague, specifically in a section that described exemptions to the mask mandate. Keough had testified he’d tried to obtain an exemption.

“I do not find the wording of the section vague,” the judge wrote.

She added that Keough was “not uncertain of the steps required to obtain a medical exemption to avoid culpability.”

“He followed the procedure as outlined and a medical exemption was not granted by the health professional.”

The trespassing charges related to an allegation that on Feb. 26, 2021 he did not leave the store after being asked to, as he’d refused to wear a mask and, subsequently, an allegation of failing to leave the store on Mar. 17, 2021 after being told he was no longer allowed to visit it.

The judge concluded she was satisfied that both offences occurred.

Though the amount Keough was fined was not specified by the decision, it does state that convictions under the Trespass to Property Act, as it existed at the time of the offences, provided for fines up to a maximum of $5,000.

The Public Health Act provides for anyone in contravention to be fined, on a first offence, up to a maximum of $75,000, increasing to a maximum of $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

bharder@postmedia.com

 

[thedestroyerofworlds]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

Judge rules on "anti-masker's charter challenge:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/sask-judge-finds-mask-mandate-not-rights-violation-in-convicting-man/ar-AAYySxn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=93810c7870b84bde8233aecd651879e0

"As Saskatchewan rested firmly in the grip of a viral pandemic, and under a mask mandate, Richard Keough repeatedly walked into a small town grocery store without one.

 

On at least four occasions, beginning in late 2020 and stretching into 2021, he entered the Foam Lake Co-op food store without a face covering. He was slapped with tickets, he fought those tickets by saying his constitutionally protected rights and freedoms were violated, and now a court has found him guilty in what is possibly the first published written decision of its kind in this province.

The recently published decision, dated May 20, indicates its author, Wynyard Provincial Court Judge Michelle Marquette, found Keough guilty of failing to wear a face covering while in an enclosed setting, contrary to the Public Health Act, on four occasions. This follows her finding in the same decision that public health orders in place at the time of the offences did not run afoul of his protections under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as he’d argued in an attempt to have the court declare those orders invalid to his case.

Further, he was found guilty of trespassing at the same venue on two occasions, contrary to the Trespass to Property Act.

In discussing evidence, the judge wrote that not only did the store manager testify that Keough had entered without a mask on multiple occasions, the Crown produced in-store video recordings that showed the man enter with his face uncovered on Dec. 16, 2020, on Feb. 26, 2021, on March 9, 2021 and on March 17, 2021. In addition, Keough himself admitted to not wearing a mask in all four instances, according to the decision.

The Crown called six witnesses at trial, including the store manager, four RCMP officers and a doctor who testified as an expert in respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19.

The Saskatoon-based respirologist, Dr. Mark Fenton, is listed in the decision as, among other things “the chair of the expert committee within the safety pillar of the Emergency Operations Command associated with the pandemic and this committee adjudicates the science behind interventions employed to mitigate the risk of acquiring infections within health care facilities.”

The decision states he testified about transmission of COVID-19 and the utility of mask use , and while he was cross-examined “at length,” he maintained his opinion that mask use reduces the spread of that virus. This conclusion was accepted by the judge who wrote no medical evidence to the contrary was presented.

The onus was on Keough and his lawyer to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the mask mandate violated his Charter rights and freedoms — in this case, he argued, his freedom of expression and his right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The decision states the defence argued “ the face covering expresses a message that COVID-19 is real and dangerous, and this message is contrary to his beliefs and as such this compelled speech infringes on his freedom of expression.”

The judge wrote that case law dictates “freedom of expression necessarily entails the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things.” However, she did not accept that a face covering is a form of expression, and found that the mandate was made for the purpose of public health, not controlling expression.

Further, the mandate didn’t keep Keough from voicing his opposition to it, the judge wrote, and in fact he attempted to show Co-op employees cell phone videos with “counter information concerning COVID-19” on a number of the offence dates.

On the other Charter issue, the decision states the defence argued “liberty rights protect an individual’s right to control their bodily integrity and make their own health care decisions and as face coverings are medical treatment, any order requiring or mandating medical treatment upon an individual is a breach of an individual’s liberty rights.”

Further, the defence asserted that “an individual has a right to be free from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress and submits that the face covering requirement imposes psychological and emotional stress” on Keough.

The judge approached both points.

“Based on the evidence, I am unable to conclude that the wearing of a face covering is a medical intervention that intrudes on one’s bodily integrity to the degree that infringes a person’s  section 7 rights,” she wrote.

“There was no medical evidence presented to this court that demonstrates Mr. Keough was caused serious psychological harm or even physical harm by wearing a face covering,” she later adds.

She went on that even if she had found he’d been deprived of his rights under section 7 of the Charter, she would’ve concluded that he failed to demonstrate that deprivation was “contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”

The defence also argued that the public health orders were vague, specifically in a section that described exemptions to the mask mandate. Keough had testified he’d tried to obtain an exemption.

“I do not find the wording of the section vague,” the judge wrote.

She added that Keough was “not uncertain of the steps required to obtain a medical exemption to avoid culpability.”

“He followed the procedure as outlined and a medical exemption was not granted by the health professional.”

The trespassing charges related to an allegation that on Feb. 26, 2021 he did not leave the store after being asked to, as he’d refused to wear a mask and, subsequently, an allegation of failing to leave the store on Mar. 17, 2021 after being told he was no longer allowed to visit it.

The judge concluded she was satisfied that both offences occurred.

Though the amount Keough was fined was not specified by the decision, it does state that convictions under the Trespass to Property Act, as it existed at the time of the offences, provided for fines up to a maximum of $5,000.

The Public Health Act provides for anyone in contravention to be fined, on a first offence, up to a maximum of $75,000, increasing to a maximum of $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

bharder@postmedia.com

 

If you're going to argue a Charter defense, it would help to actually read the damn thing.  Like, the first section.  

[nuckin_futz]