• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

Jarnhamar said:
I think, much like our CDS, she isn't in a "political position" but it's disingenuous to say those positions aren't heavily involved in politics.

Politicians put Dr Tam in the position she is in and politicians put their faith in Dr Tam's word and reacted according to her advice. The fallout effected all of Canada. While she's not a politician I think she's definitely a political figurehead and thus within the arcs of a political discussion. I think her track record, like Ford and Trudeau, are absolutely open to public criticism.

I think some serious questions need to be asked about why she came to the conclusions she did. "Because the WHO said so" is pretty crumby, both for Dr Tam and for Prime Minister Trudeau.


*cross posted with Brad.

valid to a point.  But how many other world leaders did the exact same thing.

People still don’t get what the Novel part of the COVID virus means.  NEW. As in unknown and never dealt with before.  Things will evolve and change.  You go with the best information you have and act on that.  if info changes you adapt.  Or like some, stick to your original line and ignore and hope nobody checks what you said when you deny saying it.
 
Lack of political alignment doesn't mean a person isn't politically motivated.  A person can behave politically by distorting outputs to suit the government of the day.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Lack of political alignment doesn't mean a person isn't politically motivated.  A person can behave politically by distorting outputs to suit the government of the day.

And has she?
 
I think it's a huge leap to go from saying we should look into the initial response to saying Dr. Tam is a liberal shill.  She's got a few decades of experience at PHAC, is a specialist in infectious pediatric diseases, and worked her up to ADM, to deputy and finally the Chief doctor.  This is not a high prestige, corridors of power type job, it's a thankless BS fight against bureaucracy to try and get prepared for something people never believe would happen where you would probably have never heard of her except for the COVID pandemic. And now she's being double guessed by every arm chair keyboard warrior who has now mastered infectious diseases after a month of lockdown.

This is a brand new thing with no playbook.  Of course mistakes are made.  But unless you have evidence, maybe lay off the random attacks on the credibility of actual experts?

 
>And has she?

Don't know.  My point is that a person doesn't need to support a faction to be swayed from objectivity.

There is a playbook for infectious diseases.  It doesn't start with "carry on normally while we figure out how dangerous it is".
 
Remius said:
valid to a point.  But how many other world leaders did the exact same thing.

People still don’t get what the Novel part of the COVID virus means.  NEW. As in unknown and never dealt with before.  Things will evolve and change.  You go with the best information you have and act on that.  if info changes you adapt.  Or like some, stick to your original line and ignore and hope nobody checks what you said when you deny saying it.
Additionally, betting it took some time to realize just how incredibly, fractally bad the US response would be: wouldn't be shocked if some of the earlier "we've got this" was predicated on rational, CDC-led measures, versus the patchwork mess that continues to unfold.
 
The nursing home tragedy of New York.

After 5,000 deaths, state changes nursing home policy

After about 5 percent of the total nursing home population in New York has died, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is retreating from a much-criticized policy that resulted in seniors with the coronavirus being sent back to facilities caring for some of society's most vulnerable people.

Hospitals can’t discharge patients who test positive for Covid-19 to nursing homes anymore, Cuomo announced Sunday — undermining a rule issued in March barring nursing homes from turning down patients even if they were carrying the disease.

The Cuomo administration has faced a widespread backlash over its handling of the pandemic in nursing homes, with facility operators complaining they were left defenseless as the virus spread among patients and staff.

Nursing homes still cannot discriminate against patients because of their Covid-19 status, Cuomo aides explained at the Sunday briefing. But hospitals can’t discharge patients to the facilities until they test negative, and instead have to keep them or send them to a Covid-only facility.

“This is binding on a hospital, not on a nursing home,” Cuomo said. The state is also mandating that nursing home staff be tested for the coronavirus twice a week going forward. The governor warned that homes that can’t provide appropriate care, as well as personal protective equipment for staff, will lose their operating licenses. 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook/2020/05/11/after-5-000-deaths-state-changes-nursing-home-policy-nycs-tough-road-to-reopening-at-least-3-kids-dead-from-new-syndrome-489179
 
Navy_Pete said:
And now she's being double guessed by every arm chair keyboard warrior who has now mastered infectious diseases after a month of lockdown.

Dr. Tam was a Canadian medical leader during SARS, H1N1 and Ebola.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181124160118/http://www.who.int/about/who_reform/emergency-capacities/oversight-committee/theresa-tam/en/



 
AP Exclusive: CDC guidance more restrictive than White House

Advice from the top U.S. disease control experts on how to safely reopen businesses and institutions during the coronavirus pandemic was more detailed and restrictive than the plan released by the White House last month.

The guidance, which was shelved by Trump administration officials, also offered recommendations to help communities decide when to shut facilities down again during future flareups of COVID-19.

The Associated Press obtained a 63-page document that is more detailed than other, previously reported segments of the shelved guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It shows how the thinking of the CDC infection control experts differs from those in the White House managing the pandemic response.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/cdc-guidance-more-restrictive-than-white-house-ap-exclusive-1.4937150

https://apnews.com/d4fb9744fb3524b6aaff1036f3ba9cd2
 
Navy_Pete said:
I think it's a huge leap to go from saying we should look into the initial response to saying Dr. Tam is a liberal shill.  She's got a few decades of experience at PHAC, is a specialist in infectious pediatric diseases, and worked her up to ADM, to deputy and finally the Chief doctor.  This is not a high prestige, corridors of power type job, it's a thankless BS fight against bureaucracy to try and get prepared for something people never believe would happen where you would probably have never heard of her except for the COVID pandemic. And now she's being double guessed by every arm chair keyboard warrior who has now mastered infectious diseases after a month of lockdown.

This is a brand new thing with no playbook.  Of course mistakes are made.  But unless you have evidence, maybe lay off the random attacks on the credibility of actual experts?

I can eat that humble keyboard warrior pie for breakfast. I'm not an expert.

I'm certainly not a physician with expertise in immunization, infectious disease, emergency preparedness and global health security.

I also haven't served as an international expert on a number of World Health Organization committees and has participated in multiple international missions related to SARS, pandemic influenza and polio eradication. (from MM's link).

I'm personally not attacking her credibility as a doctor or expert. She sounds amazing (see italics). It's because of her expertise and credibility why I'm wondering why things played out the way it did.

Given her incredible expertise, given China's track record, given the WHOs less-than-subtle bias, given the 1 billion dollars more Canada just gave to the WHO, I don't think it's beyond the realm of reason to wonder why the Public Health Agency of Canada reacted the way it did.

What does this have to do with Covid Politics?  If mistakes were made, and maybe they weren't, I hope our politicians don't avoid asking serious questions to the Public Health Agency of Canada for fear of somehow losing face. Canadian MPs’ attempting to summon WHO adviser Canadian Doctor Bruce Aylward for questioning is certainly a good sign.



And while we're asking questions we should not forget the Liberals attempt to slide that 21 month, oversight free, spending power in under our noses. Back when Canada went from "it's fine to travel" to "defcon 1 everything is on fire" overnight.
 
Pretty sure I heard this on Joe Rogan, and it kind of stuck with me: "If everyone on in the world was stuck on the top of individual mountains, you bet a lot of them would be trying to learn everything they could about mountaineering really quickly."

These are extraordinary times, and humans by nature are curious adaptable so I don't fault anyone for questioning experts. In fact, questioning assumed facts is part of the scientific method and keeps democracy strong. If the experts and politicians get to run roughshod unchallenged whenever they declare an emergency (how many US cities have declared climate emergencies), then we no longer live in a democracy, we live in CCP's China or Soviet Russia.
 
PuckChaser said:
Pretty sure I heard this on Joe Rogan, and it kind of stuck with me: "If everyone on in the world was stuck on the top of individual mountains, you bet a lot of them would be trying to learn everything they could about mountaineering really quickly."

These are extraordinary times, and humans by nature are curious adaptable so I don't fault anyone for questioning experts. In fact, questioning assumed facts is part of the scientific method and keeps democracy strong. If the experts and politicians get to run roughshod unchallenged whenever they declare an emergency (how many US cities have declared climate emergencies), then we no longer live in a democracy, we live in CCP's China or Soviet Russia.


“When one with honeyed words but evil mind
Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”

― Euripides,  Orestes
 
PuckChaser said:
Pretty sure I heard this on Joe Rogan, and it kind of stuck with me: "If everyone on in the world was stuck on the top of individual mountains, you bet a lot of them would be trying to learn everything they could about mountaineering really quickly."

These are extraordinary times, and humans by nature are curious adaptable so I don't fault anyone for questioning experts. In fact, questioning assumed facts is part of the scientific method and keeps democracy strong. If the experts and politicians get to run roughshod unchallenged whenever they declare an emergency (how many US cities have declared climate emergencies), then we no longer live in a democracy, we live in CCP's China or Soviet Russia.

The simple questioning of experts and information is fine. Yes, it’s indeed expected, natural and with good reason.

What the issue is (and I’m not directing this towards anyone in particular) is when the questioning devolves into personal attacks, unfounded circulation of info touted as fact, threats and the inherent superiority of those seemingly believing they could do better if in the same position...without first-hand knowledge/education of the subject at hand.

Extraordinary times or not, the people who can logically discuss information presented, intelligently introduce alternate COAs within the confines of known/factual material from varying sources, and who can disagree with another’s angle without becoming offended are the ones who are helpful. Unfortunately, those types aren’t the vast majority. Or rather, when/if they are, they choose to remain silent in order to avoid the knuckleheads who all but dismantle any chances of the constructive sharing of ideas.

“Truth does not necessarily belong to the one who shouts the loudest.” And the mountain-toppers always seem to want to be the loudest.
 
Happening in a lot prisons.

Not necessarily something Manafort may have done but still related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/12/inmates-coronavirus-infect-los-angeles/
 
Prime Minister questioned about the CERB the memo about ignoring cheaters and fraud.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1957252

He sure does like to try and insinuate "other parties" wouldn't have helped Canadians as quickly as the Liberals did.

Took him some badgering and he didn't admit to his office signing off on the memo but the PM finally was cornered into saying the government will go after CERB cheaters in the following months. So that's good.
 
Dr. Tam might not be political in the Conservative/Liberal sense but you don't get to that position or even be interested in it to begin with without having some affinity for "politics". Otherwise you would just stay a practitioner. So while I think it is completely wrong to question her integrity without evidence at some point in the near future it will be within reason to ask how it is various decisions were made and what the outcomes of the decisions were. I think some people were questioning the government response and how it deviated from the recommendation in the report that Dr Tam helped author. I have not read it myself yet but I believe this is the report that was referred to.

https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf
 
Emails: Trump nominee involved in shelving CDC virus guide

A former chemical industry executive nominated to be the nation's top consumer safety watchdog was involved in sidelining detailed guidelines to help communities reopen during the coronavirus pandemic, internal government emails show.

Now the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is questioning the role played by nominee Nancy Beck in the decision to shelve the guidelines. Beck is not a medical doctor and has no background in virology.

President Donald Trump has nominated Beck to be chairwoman and commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a position that requires Senate confirmation. Beck is scheduled to appear before the Senate committee later this month.

Emails obtained by The Associated Press show that Beck was the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's main point of contact in the White House about the proposed recommendations. At issue was a 63-page guide created by the CDC that would give community leaders step-by-step instructions for reopening schools, day care centers, restaurants and other facilities.

Beck is currently on detail for the White House with the Office of Management and Budget, where she is coordinating review of pandemic-related stimulus measures, and of the CDC guidance. She has a doctorate in environmental health and has worked as a toxicologist, specializing in the study of the health risks from chemical substances to the human body.

"I am deeply concerned by the nominee's involvement in advocating for the deregulation of toxic chemicals known as PFAS and I also have questions about her potential involvement with the CDC coronavirus guidance," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the committee, in a statement to AP.

Cantwell sent a letter of inquiry on Wednesday to Beck, asking for more information. Beck did not immediately respond to questions from AP sent to her via email.

...


https://apnews.com/0cd4f7bdfc577e234a2c84fbc0b5e7ee
 
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/05/trump-says-we-could-cut-off-whole-relationship-with-china-among-options/?utm_source=asmdss&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook

Well back to the 60s we go, Trump threatens to cut all ties with China, force Chinese companies to use American accounting practices.
 
suffolkowner said:
Dr. Tam might not be political in the Conservative/Liberal sense but you don't get to that position or even be interested in it to begin with without having some affinity for "politics". Otherwise you would just stay a practitioner. So while I think it is completely wrong to question her integrity without evidence at some point in the near future it will be within reason to ask how it is various decisions were made and what the outcomes of the decisions were. I think some people were questioning the government response and how it deviated from the recommendation in the report that Dr Tam helped author. I have not read it myself yet but I believe this is the report that was referred to.

https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf

If one was to discuss deviation from a previously published plan/guidance, then perhaps the full title of the linked document should be used -  Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector.  Though it was well written and quite detailed, and readily applicable to more than "flu" (and remember Covid-19 is not flu), it did not describe a whole of government response.  And when it was published in 2006, it was meant to be an evergreen document.  It has been considerably edited and updated in the intervening 14 years.  The most up-to-date version, published in 2019, is now called:

CANADIAN PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/flu-influenza/canadian-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-planning-guidance-health-sector/table-of-contents.html#pre
1.2 Purpose
CPIP's overall purpose is to provide planning guidance for the health sector for pan-Canadian preparedness and response, in order to achieve Canada's pandemic goals:

First, to minimize serious illness and overall deaths, and second to minimize societal disruption among Canadians as a result of an influenza pandemic.

The main body of CPIP provides strategic guidance and a framework for pandemic preparedness and response, whereas the CPIP annexes provide operational advice and technical guidance, along with tools and checklists. As an evergreen document, CPIP will be updated as required to reflect new evidence and best practices.

It is important to note that CPIP is not an actual response plan. Rather, it is a guidance document for pandemic influenza that can be used to support an FPT all-hazards health emergency response approach. While CPIP is specific to pandemic influenza, much of its guidance is also applicable to other public health emergencies.

. . .
3.3.2 Pan-Canadian Coordination of the Pandemic Health Sector Response
. . .
Coordination of the FPT health sector response to a pandemic will follow the governance structure outlined in the FPT Public Health Response Plan for Biological Events (FPT-PHRPBE). The FPT-PHRPBE is complementary to and used in conjunction with existing jurisdictional planning and response systems.
. . .

The FPT-PHRPBE is also available on the Canadian government site.

Federal/Provincial/Territorial Public Health Response Plan for Biological Events
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/emergency-preparedness/public-health-response-plan-biological-events.html#s0
Executive Summary
This plan has been developed as a response plan for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (F/P/T) health sector in order to facilitate formal coordination of F/P/T responses to public health events that are biological in nature and of a severity, scope or significance to require a high level F/P/T response. Informed by lessons learned from past F/P/T public health responses and best practices of current F/P/T structures (i.e., the Public Health Network structure and Special Advisory Committees), this plan focuses on the implementation of F/P/T responses led by senior-level public health decision-makers at the federal, provincial and territorial level in order to facilitate an efficient, timely, evidence-informed and consistent approach across jurisdictions to event-specific response activities. Improving effective engagement amongst public health, health care delivery and health emergency management authorities during a coordinated F/P/T response is a key objective of this plan. It is intended to serve as an F/P/T resource for F/P/T public health and emergency management authorities; specifically those who are involved in public health response preparedness and implementation. In order to further support coordination of public health events at a national level, this plan aims to build on the strengths of existing F/P/T tools and mechanisms while providing a single, overarching user-friendly response plan that is scalable and flexible enough to be utilized in full or in part for a range of F/P/T public health responses.

The concept of operations of the plan indicates how notification of public health events that potentially require a coordinated F/P/T response should be made to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and how response needs are assessed to determine the appropriate level of F/P/T response coordination required. Four response levels that range from routine to emergency response are included to facilitate scaling of response activities as needed. The plan includes the details of a governance structure intended to be activated for those events in which a coordinated F/P/T response (i.e., led by senior-level decision makers) is deemed necessary and/or beneficial. The governance structure aims to: streamline response processes to a public health event; facilitate clarity on roles, responsibilities and approval processes; facilitate a high degree of situational awareness; and centralize risk management and task delegation. It incorporates three main streams: a Technical stream, a Logistics stream and a Communications stream. These streams are led by advisory committees/working groups and have been included in order to facilitate clarity regarding roles for issue management, response support, product development (e.g., recommendations, guidance, protocols), policy review and approval processes. "Cross stream" support and coordination will be essential to an efficient, informed and transparent response and therefore mechanisms for achieving this are also included.

Coordinated F/P/T responses will be conducted with each activated committee/group in the governance structure fulfilling the roles and responsibilities and decision-making processes as described in Section 4 of this plan and according to their respective terms of reference (included in corresponding appendices). Specifically, the Special Advisory Committee (SAC) will be the main approval/decision-making body for the duration of a coordinated F/P/T response under this plan, with governance structure products going to the Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health (CDMH) as required.

Public health emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions in Canada are relatively rare events. This plan is not exclusively an emergency response plan and therefore is expected to also be utilized for events not meeting the threshold of a public health emergency (i.e., for events requiring or that would benefit from enhanced F/P/T coordination); thus facilitating familiarity and opportunities to modify and improve this plan based on response experience.

This document is not intended to replace existing F/P/T health sector arrangements but rather is intended to complement and interact with the existing suite of plans and protocols currently in use by the health sector by providing an overarching governance framework with which the existing protocols will interact and/or align. Changes to those existing plans and protocols will be made following approval of this plan in order to clarify these linkages.

While I haven't taken the time to meticulously go through the several hundred pages of those documents (and myriad other national and international statutes, agreement, etc), my quick review did not indicate any "deviations" that one could lay at the feet of Dr. Tam.
 
https://thepostmillennial.com/china-may-have-as-many-as-640000-cases

Leaked data from Chinese military commission reports initial outbreak in China as high as 640k, if not higher.
 
Back
Top