Canadian military to end Covid-vax mandate – but

Canadian military poised to end vaccine mandate | Ottawa Sun - Andrew Duffy:

July 21, 2022 - "Canadian Forces members discharged from service because they disobeyed an order to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will have the opportunity to re-enrol, according to leaked details of the military’s revised vaccination policy. That policy, expected to be unveiled later this summer, will put an end to the military’s vaccine mandate, which was introduced in October 2021.

"Under the updated policy, service members will no longer have to attest to their vaccine status and new recruits will no longer have to be fully vaccinated to enrol in the Canadian Armed Forces. The directive from Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre will bring the military into alignment with the federal government’s updated vaccination policy.

"Last month, the government ended the vaccine requirement for all civil servants and RCMP members. As of June 20, unvaccinated civil servants forced to take leave without pay were allowed to return to work. Ending the vaccine mandate in the Canadian military is not so simple....

courtesy Canada.ca

"According to figures released Thursday by the Department of National Defence, 105 Canadian Armed Forces members were approved for voluntary release based primarily on their opposition to the vaccine mandate. Another 241 CAF members have been released 'non-voluntarily.' Another 434 CAF members are involved in administrative reviews that could lead to being released in the future. Those members who have had their cases go through administrative reviews and face future release dates will be discharged from the military, according to the new draft policy. Similarly, those who have been served with a notice of release — and are still waiting for administrative reviews — will have to abide by the decisions made during those reviews. 

"Other discipline procedures being conducted against unvaccinated service members will be ended, but paperwork connected to those cases will remain on personnel files....

"The updated policy allows those released from the military due to their vaccination status to apply for re-enrolment. Those who received a 5(f) release — it means a member was deemed 'unsuitable for further service' — will require waivers from the chief of the defence staff.

"Edmonton lawyer Catherine Christensen, a military law specialist, called the re-enrolment provision 'smoke and mirrors.... Because the only person who can re-admit someone who has been released under a 5(f) is the chief of the defence staff,' Christensen said, 'and I don’t think someone who has gotten rid of so many people from a very short-handed military is now about to allow these people to come back.'

"Christensen is building a class action lawsuit on behalf of almost 300 former Canadian Forces members released because of their vaccine status. That lawsuit will seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages based on what Christensen alleges was an abuse of power. 'These people have lost income, promotions and pensions,' she said. 'These people being released are outstanding soldiers. It’s unbelievable the quality of the people the military is losing'.... She estimates the country has forfeited almost $1 billion in training costs because of vaccine-related discharges."

Read more: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/canadian-military-poised-to-end-vaccine-mandate

Canadian legacy media question Covid mandates (2)

COVID-19 vaccine mandates have worked in Canada — but they're harder than ever to justify | CBC News - Adam Miller: 

February 12, 2022 - "COVID-19 vaccine mandates have worked extraordinarily well at getting more Canadians vaccinated, but they are increasingly hard to justify.... 

"'There's now obvious evidence that they work,' Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, said during a press conference Friday. 'We saw a plateau in the uptake of vaccines after a really tremendous effort by Canadians, and then after the introduction of vaccine mandates by the various provinces and territories and jurisdictions, we did see an uptick.' Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos added that mandates worked to get 99 per cent of federal public servants vaccinated, and that over the last six months as many as three million Canadians chose to get vaccinated sooner because of them.... 

"But as the massive Omicron-driven fifth wave subsides across Canada and public health restrictions are set to lift, infectious disease experts and epidemiologists say two-dose mandates are no longer sufficient — and mandating boosters is not a realistic approach....

"[W]hile two doses are still effective at preventing severe illness, the highly transmissible Omicron variant has rendered them less protective against infection and transmission to others than with previous coronavirus strains.... 

"A recently updated Ontario study ... found that while vaccines were just 36 per cent effective against symptomatic Omicron infection seven to 59 days after two doses, with no protection after six months, that increased to 61 per cent a week after a booster.... If we were to keep the definition of 'fully vaccinated' as having had two doses, vaccine mandates will accomplish 'very little,' Dr. Isaac Bogoch,* an infectious diseases physician and member of Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine task force, said on The Current Wednesday. 'So you either say we're doing this as a three-dose vaccine series to be considered fully vaccinated — or you scrap it'.... 

"One key unanswered question with regard to whether we should expand or abolish vaccine mandates in Canada is how long the protection from a third dose lasts.... New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Friday found booster protection waned after about four months.... 

"The analysis of 241,204 emergency department and urgent care centre visits in 10 states found vaccine effectiveness dropped from 69 per cent within two months of a second dose to just 37 per cent after five months. That protection increased to 87 per cent with a booster, but dropped down to 66 per cent between four and five months and fell to just 31 per cent after five or more months. The researchers stressed that the data is limited.... Still, the data shows booster effectiveness can drop in the mere months after a third dose. This calls into question the role that vaccine mandates and passports will play in the future." 

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-mandate-passport-covid-19-omicron-boosters-1.6349038

* signatory of the John Snow Memorandum

Canadian legacy media question Covid mandates (1)

In the third year of the Covid pandemic, Canada's legacy media has begun to allow articles questioning vaccine and other mandates into print. This weekend, a couple of examples.

The logic behind vaccine mandates for travellers no longer holds | Globe & Mail - Zain Chagla:

May 13, 2022 - "Vaccines are important in the fight against COVID-19. I wholeheartedly believe individuals should be vaccinated to protect against severe complications. I have put in hundreds of volunteer hours to make sure that evidence-based communication is brought to communities, both locally and internationally. And as someone who also works in travel medicine, I expect that making sure vaccines are up-to-date, including the COVID-19 vaccine, to be part of normal counselling.

"But medicine is about recognizing what does and does not make sense based on the prevailing science. That’s why, in February, I questioned the paradigm that existed around stringent global testing and travel restrictions. And while there has been a significant transition away from those measures, we need to bring down the other limits to individual rights that don’t make medical sense. This is why we should reconsider our mandate requiring full vaccination for Canadians boarding a commercial plane or train for travel to domestic and international destinations.

"The justification behind vaccine mandates is that they help prevent transmission. But this does not seem to be the case any longer, with the Omicron variant. We know that vaccine efficacy in this regard wanes significantly: Data from the UK Health Security Agency shows the effectiveness of two or three doses of vaccine against spreading the Omicron-variant infection over time approaches zero. In Canada, the requirements to be deemed fully vaccinated include several World Health Organization-approved vaccines that have even lower efficacy than mRNA vaccines. 

"Furthermore, the efficacy of a prior infection against reinfection approaches that of two doses of vaccines; since many unvaccinated individuals have likely been infected, they may now have a similar level of immunity to their vaccinated peers. Additionally, since Canadians under the age of 12 are not currently required to be vaccinated, unvaccinated individuals have effectively been a part of travel all along – meaning that environments of exclusively vaccinated individuals do not exist. So current mandates are only creating environments in which people who can transmit the virus are alongside people who can transmit the virus, with minimal extra protection.

"The current vaccines do offer significant protection against severe disease or hospitalization and, certainly, individuals who are vaccinated are at a much lower risk of adverse outcomes.... But this minimizes the gradient of risk around age: A triple-vaccinated 70-year-old with diabetes, for instance, would still have a higher risk of hospitalization than an unvaccinated 30-year-old. Of course, discriminating against the ability to travel based on age would be unethical. So wouldn’t discriminating based on risk of severe disease be unethical, too?

"There has also been an argument that such mandates would incentivize vaccine uptake. However, the percentage of adults who have become fully vaccinated since Nov. 30, 2021, when the proof-of-vaccination became mandatory, has only increased by about 3 per cent.

"While lifting the mandate may seem unfair to those who were vaccinated, there are real equity issues with keeping it on the books. Many individuals may not be able to access essential life events, visit family or friends, or engage in employment opportunities, because of these regulations. While we may have beliefs around vaccination, denying an individual the ability to say goodbye at a funeral is not a part of our values as Canadians. If arriving from an international destination, an unvaccinated 12-year-old who had a prior infection would have to go into quarantine for 14 days and undergo repeated testing because of the current rules, when in reality they present little threat to their community.

"Enforcing the mandate is not cost-neutral, either. The 2022-2023 Canadian budget allots $25-million to the maintenance of the ArriveCan app, as well as to the cost of testing and the enforcement of border measures. These funds could instead go toward improving safety in transit in other ways. For example, improving staffing at airports to alleviate prolonged lineups in tightly enclosed spaces may reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission far more than ensuring all travellers are vaccinated....

"All levels of government took drastic steps in an unprecedented crisis in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians, including around travel, and they should all be praised for the actions taken to protect lives and navigate an uncertain time. But as the science evolves, so too should our response. That’s how we can ensure public trust is maintained moving ahead."

Zain Chagla is an infectious diseases physician and an associate professor at McMaster University.

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-logic-behind-vaccine-mandates-for-travellers-no-longer-holds/

"Political science" behind Canada's vax mandates

Court Documents Reveal Canada’s Travel Ban Had No Scientific Basis | Common Sense, Substack - Rupa Subramanya:

Aug 2. 2022 - "On August 13, 2021, the Canadian government announced that anyone who hadn’t been vaccinated against Covid would soon be barred from planes and trains. In many cases, [they] could no longer travel between provinces or leave the country. Jennifer Little, the director-general of COVID Recovery, the secretive government panel that crafted the mandate, called it 'one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travelers in the world.' It was draconian and sweeping, and it fit neatly with the public persona that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had cultivated — that of the sleek, progressive, forward-looking technocrat guided by fact and reason.... But recently released court documents — which capture the decision-making behind the travel mandate — indicate that, far from following the science, the prime minister and his Cabinet were focused on politics.... 

"Two days after announcing the mandate, Trudeau called a snap election — presumably expecting that his Liberal Party, which was in the minority in the House of Commons, would benefit from the announcement and be catapulted into the majority [8.00 in video - gd] .... In the meantime, roughly five million unvaccinated Canadians were barred from visiting loved ones, working or otherwise traveling. (Trudeau, for his part, stayed in power. Even though the Conservatives have won the popular vote in the past two elections, because of Canada’s parliamentary system, they have been denied the top job.)....

"The court documents are part of a lawsuit filed by two Canadian residents against the government. Until last month, they were under seal. Both plaintiffs ... have refused the vaccine on the grounds of bodily autonomy.... One plaintiff is Karl Harrison ... [who] has an 88-year-old mother in Britain.... The other plaintiff is Shaun Rickard, whose father, also in Britain, is suffering from late-stage Alzheimer’s.... [I]n the fall of 2021, Rickard launched a GoFundMe to do battle with his government. In November, Harrison, who had learned of Rickard on social media, reached out to him. In December, they jointly filed suit.... (In February of this year, when the Canadian government invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the truckers protesting a separate vaccine mandate in Ottawa, GoFundMe forced Rickard, like those raising money for the truckers, off the site.) Rickard and Harrison’s attorney, Sam Presvelos, said that all government decisions related to public health demanded transparency.... The whole point of the case was to lift that shroud and cast a spotlight on the unscientific basis of the mandate.

"Among other things, the court documents indicate:

1. No one in the COVID Recovery unit, including Jennifer Little, the director-general, had any formal education in epidemiology, medicine or public health. Little, who has an undergraduate degree in literature from the University of Toronto, testified that there were 20 people in the unit. When Presvelos asked her whether anyone in the unit had any professional experience in public health, she said there was one person, Monique St.-Laurent.... St.-Laurent is not a doctor, Little said....

2. Little suggested that a senior official in the prime minister’s Cabinet or possibly the prime minister himself had ordered COVID Recovery to impose the travel mandate.... But she refused to say who had given her team the order to impose the travel mandate. 'I’m not at liberty to disclose anything that is subject to cabinet confidence,' she said. The term 'cabinet confidence' ... refers to the prime minister’s Cabinet. Meaning that Little could not talk about who had directed the COVID Recovery unit to impose the travel mandate because someone at the very highest levels of government was apparently behind it.

3. In the days leading up to the implementation of the travel mandate, transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale for it. They came up short. That was made clear by an email exchange in the latter half of October 2021 between Aaron McCrorie and Dawn Lumley-Myllari. McCrorie is the associate assistant deputy minister for safety and security in Transport Canada, the department that houses COVID Recovery. Lumley-Myllari is an official in the Public Health Agency of Canada.... 'To the extent that updated data exist or that there is clearer evidence of the safety benefit of vaccination on the users or other stakeholders of the transportation system, it would be helpful to assist Transport Canada supporting its measures,” McCrorie wrote. Four days later, on October 22, McCrorie emailed Lumley-Myllari again: 'Our requirements come in on October 30 ... so need something fairly soon.' On October 28, Lumley-Myllari replied to McCrorie with a series of bullet points outlining the benefits, generally speaking, of the Covid vaccine. She did not address McCrorie’s question about the transportation system.... Two days later, on October 30, the travel mandate took effect. 

"Then, eight-and-a-half months later, on June 14, 2022, government officials announced that they were suspending the mandate — although they made it clear that they could bring it back at any time. Within days, government lawyers filed a motion seeking to shut down Harrison and Rickard’s suit on the grounds that it was now moot — and, Presvelos said, to make sure the public never saw the court documents....

"In September, a judge will decide whether to quash the lawsuit. So far, 16 government officials have testified. Even though this kind of case almost never goes anywhere — there have been several court challenges to the mandates, and all of them have been rejected—Harrison and Rickard, in a way, have already won: They have cast a spotlight on how the sausage gets made."

Read more: https://www.commonsense.news/p/court-documents-reveal-canadas-travel

Kansas voters reject anti-abortion initiative

Kansans Reject Anti-Abortion Ballot Measure — and It's Not Even Close | Reason - Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

August 3, 2022 - "Voters overwhelmingly voted against a measure that would have allowed abortion to be banned in Kansas in the first post-Roe test of abortion's legality put directly to the people. As of Wednesday morning — with 95 percent of precincts reporting — the vote was 58.8 percent against and 41.2 percent for, according to The New York Times.

"The ballot measure would have amended the Kansas constitution to state that it did not protect the right to have an abortion. Such an amendment would open the gates for state lawmakers to ban abortion—an option currently blocked by a 2019 state Supreme Court finding that the Kansas Constitution's guarantee of 'equal and inalienable rights' included a 'natural right of personal autonomy' that protected abortion access. But voters yesterday gave a resounding no to the question 'should the Kansas constitution be amended to remove protections of abortion rights?'

"The vote isn't the result of low turnout — Kansans voted on the abortion measure in numbers normally not seen in non-general elections. Nor is it a result of August elections typically favoring more liberal voters. 'When the Legislature's GOP supermajority placed the amendment on the ballot last year they picked the election most likely to favor the amendment,' notes The Kansas City Star. 'August primaries have disproportionately high Republican turnout because Democratic primaries in Kansas are often uncontested.'

"And it doesn't turn on results from more liberal urban areas or university towns alone. Suburban Johnson county overwhelmingly voted against it. Rural counties such as Franklin and Osage also voted against the amendment 'by significant margins," reports the Star....

"Whether Kansas is a good bellwether for the rest of the country on this issue is debatable. But Kansas is a relatively conservative and Republican state, and residents voting against an anti-abortion initiative at least suggests that conservative enthusiasm for banning abortion might not be as strong as many believe."

"Does this mean Democrats will benefit from calling out GOP extremism on abortion? Some think so.... I'm not as convinced. In my experience, few moderates and Republicans are single-mindedly attached to protecting abortion rights. They may oppose abortion bans, but they won't reject an otherwise simpatico candidate who supports them (or vote for a liberal candidate just because that candidate opposes them). 

"Meanwhile, Republican candidates are — probably now more than ever—under pressure from pro-life factions, who still make up much of their base. Which means Republican politicians and lawmakers still have a lot to gain and little to lose from opposing legal abortion. And Republican-controlled legislatures are likely to keep proposing and passing extreme abortion bans, even if these bans aren't universally popular among their constituents or wanted by a majority of their state's residents.

"That's why abortion ballot initiatives like this one in Kansas are a good way to actually leave the question of abortion's legality up to the residents of each state."

Read more: https://reason.com/2022/08/03/kansans-reject-anti-abortion-ballot-measure-and-its-not-even-close/

US Democrats spend to help Trump Republicans

Why Do Democrats Keep Backing the Trumpiest Candidate? | Reason - Joe Lancaster:

July 20, 2022 - "Yesterday was Maryland's primary election day. The winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary was supported by both former President Donald Trump and the Democratic Governors Association.... For not the first time this election season, Democrats decided to put their collective thumbs on the scale to encourage Republican voters to pick the most extreme candidate. They believe that .. will ultimately help Democratic candidates once general elections roll around....

"Maryland Republican Governor Larry Hogan is term-limited and unable to run again.... Hogan endorsed Kelly Schulz, another moderate Republican and the former head of the state's respective labor and commerce departments. But on election night, Schulz was defeated soundly by Maryland Delegate Dan Cox....

"Earlier this month, the DGA spent $1.2 million on an ad targeting Cox, more than twice what Cox had raised to that point. The ad highlighted Trump's endorsement, and claimed Cox was 'fighting to end abortion in Maryland" and 'will protect the Second Amendment at all costs, refusing to support any federal restrictions on guns, even pushing to put armed guards in every school'.... While likely horrifying Democrats, the ad goosed Cox's prospects among Republicans: He ultimately beat Schulz by more than 15 percentage points.... Cox participated in the January 6 Capitol riot, busing people to Washington ahead of time and tweeting '[Vice President Mike] Pence is a traitor' after protesters had already breached the building....

"Democrats clearly see Cox as an easier opponent in the general election. They may be right:... Maryland leans Democratic by 26 points over the national average. But in an election year expected to be highly favorable to Republicans, it's worth wondering why Democrats would elevate a candidate that other Maryland Republicans call 'unstable,' 'unfit for office,' and 'a Q-anon whack job.'"
Read more: https://reason.com/2022/07/20/why-do-democrats-keep-backing-the-trumpiest-candidate/

Rep. Peter Meijer's Trump-Backed Primary Challenger Got a $435,000 Gift From Democrats |Reason - Robby Soave:

Aug. 1, 2022 - "Rep. Peter Meijer is a Republican congressman from Michigan. His district was previously represented by Justin Amash, the first Libertarian member of Congress.... He has often channeled Amash's independent streak, most notably by voting to impeach President Donald Trump for inciting the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Meijer's defiance of the Trump wing has earned him a primary challenger: John Gibbs, an ardent Trump loyalist who has backed the former president's stolen-election claims (while also spreading conspiracy theories about John Podesta and Democrats in general).... 

"[T]he Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), an arm of the party that works to elect Democrats ... spent $435,000 on an ad campaign aimed at boosting Gibbs in the final days before the primary.... As Meijer pointed out in a recent article for Bari Weiss, it was far more money than Gibbs had raised on his own and 100 times as much money as Trump himself had donated to Gibbs....

"In his article for Weiss' Substack, Meijer pointed to several other examples [stress added - gd]:

It's not just my race in Michigan. While claiming the moral high ground, Democrats have been busy rewarding candidates like my opponent across the country:

Image: Brookings Institution, 2020

Colorado: Democrats have spent $4 million on TV and digital ads to elevate January 6th attendee Ron Hanks over moderate businessman Joe O'Dea in the GOP Senate primary.
Pennsylvania: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Josh Shapiro boosted the election-denying, January 6-attending GOP candidate Doug Mastriano in television ads, spending in one ad double what Mastriano had spent on his own campaign. Mastriano is now the gubernatorial nominee in a swing state.
Maryland: The Democratic Governors Association spent hundreds of thousands of dollars boosting Dan Cox, who not only attended the rally on January 6 but called Mike Pence a traitor as the violence unfolded.
Illinois: The Democratic Governors Association dropped $35 million on Super PAC ads targeting moderate Republican mayor of Aurora Richard Irvin and elevating his election-denying, Trump-endorsed opponent, Darren Bailey, who ultimately won the nomination.

"This strategy has backfired spectacularly on Democrats in the past. It was an open secret that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign was actively rooting for Trump to win the Republican presidential primary campaign; Clinton staffers reasoned that Trump would be easier for her to beat than the other candidates. We all know how that turned out. 

"Expecting political figures to be more forthright is obviously a hopeless endeavor. But there's something particularly craven about a political party cynically donating nearly half a million dollars to a stop-the-steal extremist ... — all while that party's members are collectively weeping at democracy's supposed grave."
Read more: https://reason.com/2022/08/01/peter-meijer-john-gibbs-primary-michigan-trump-election-pelosi-dccc/

DC council mandates Covid-vax for students 12+

D.C. schools expand covid vaccine mandate, unlike most other districts | Washington Post - Lauren Lumpkin & Perry Stein:

July 31, 2022 - "D.C. students who are 12 and older must be vaccinated against the coronavirus to attend school this upcoming academic year. The youth vaccine mandate in D.C. is among the strictest in the nation, according to health experts, and is being enacted in a city with wide disparities in vaccination rates between its White and Black children. 

"Overall, about 85 percent of students between the ages of 12 and 15 have been vaccinated against the virus, but the rate drops to 60 percent among Black children in this age range. If the city does not close this gap but does strictly enforce the vaccine mandate this fall, students of color — who experienced disproportionately large academic setbacks during the pandemic — could be at home in significant numbers next academic year.... School starts Aug. 29 in the D.C. system....

"D.C. is one of few districts to make coronavirus vaccination a requirement for attending school.... The requirement came from the 13-member D.C. Council, not from a school board. And because D.C. is a federal district rather than a state, there is no state health agency.... Elsewhere in the country, the New Orleans public school system in February added the coronavirus vaccine to its list of required immunizations for children 5 years and older. The rest of the state was scheduled to do the same for the upcoming school year, but changed course in May because the vaccines did not yet have full approval from the Food and Drug Administration for children under 16. Full approval for the vaccine for ages 12 to 15 was granted in early July....

Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

"Students in New York City public schools must be vaccinated against the coronavirus only if they plan to participate in certain sports, musical theater or other activities the district deems to be 'high-risk.' Los Angeles Unified School District delayed a mandate that was to take effect in the fall, pointing to the vaccination rates among older students and what the district’s superintendent said had been low transmission in schools.... 

"31 percent of children nationwide between the ages of 5 and 11 have been fully vaccinated.... 

"D.C. has a long-standing reputation of failing to enforce its immunization requirements in schools. But officials say that this year will be different and that they have an urgent plan to get students their shots this summer. They are mailing fliers, placing ads at bus stations, sending out mobile vaccine vans to communities and calling thousands of parents whose children’s vaccinations are out of date. Health clinics are opening up hundreds more appointments each weeks for youth vaccinations.

"In addition to coronavirus vaccines, students must receive their routine immunizations — including for measles, polio and whooping cough — to enroll in school. Students have 20 days from the first day of school to be in compliance with vaccine requirements before they are barred from attendance.... Because the FDA has fully authorized the coronavirus vaccine for children 12 to 15 years old this summer, students in this age group have until around the end of September to get that vaccine, according to city law. Children under 12 are not required to get the coronavirus vaccine because the shots for this age group have received only emergency-use authorization....

"D.C.’s youth vaccine mandate has been nearly a year in the making. In October, the D.C. Council introduced legislation calling for the coronavirus vaccine to be on the list of vaccines required for enrollment in school. The law stipulate[d] that the mandate goes into effect only when the shot has received full FDA authorization.... For all vaccines, students can seek religious and medical exemptions.

"In the Washington metro area, D.C. is unique in its student mandate. Montgomery County Public Schools — Maryland’s largest school district, with roughly 160,000 students — has no coronavirus vaccination requirement for students. Under a policy set by the board of education, school district employees are required to submit proof of vaccination or be tested weekly. Prince George’s County Public Schools, also in Maryland, has no coronavirus vaccination requirement for staffers or students.... Among Northern Virginia’s school systems, staff vaccinations against the coronavirus are required in Alexandria City and Arlington public schools. The school districts in Fairfax and Loudoun counties are not mandating employee vaccination."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/31/dc-schools-covid-vaccine-mandate/