A few other things worth noting here about the @610CKTB by Matt Holmes with Niagara Falls mayor @jimdiodati worth further fact checking. (fact check thread)
During the interview @jimdiodati claims there are "conflicting" orders between @mustafahirji from @NRPublicHealth and the provincial government's orange alert restrictions.
This is false.
As we reported in @StCatStandard, Hirji's order didn't impact occupancy numbers for restaurants/bars set by the now-previous version of the province's code yellow. What it did was require patrons to confirm they were eating with their immediate house hold or essential contacts.
The limit of six per table was an existing PROVINCIAL order at the time. Hirji's order would, presumably, limit the numbers of overlapping social circles dining out, but the limits were by provincial order.
At the time Hirji made the order, Niagara was at yellow alert, with rising #COVID19 infections, often in restaurants among groups of 20-somethings. Although the data suggested Niagara could move into code orange, the province made no noises that would happen, BUT...
Thanks to reporting by @TorontoStar, the province revised and lowered its #COVID19 thresholds which, the day before Hirji's order was to become active, pushed Niagara into orange alert, which reduced the occupancy and table numbers for restaurants and bars.
As we reported the Niagara Dailies, including @NiaFallsReview, parts of Hirji's orders were overridden by orange alert. Namely, the number of people allowed in a restaurant/bar (it is now 50) and max number of people at a table (now down to 4).
The core element of Hirji's @NRPublicHealth order, however, remains intact: The requirement for patrons to confirm they are dining with their immediate household or (up to two) essential contacts. (caregiver, partner of someone who lives alone, etc.)
We reported all of this. It was never, as @jimdiodati suggested, Hirji saying one thing and the province saying another. Hirji's order worked within existing provincial orders, which then changed, so parts of Hirji's order no longer apply. But they were never conflicting.
Moreover, during the interview with Matt Holmes, @jimdiodati falsely describes @mustafahirji's order as a "recommendation" that is "not a bylaw, it's not the law, it is not enforceable."
This is entirely incorrect on every score.
Medical officers of health are given the power to make orders to limit the spread of a communicable disease like #COVID19 under the provincial Health Protection and Promotion Act. This is a provincial statue. It is the law of the land.
Under the powers of the act, MOHs have fairly wide latitude to make specific orders. We have seen this recently in several other regions in Ontario where MOHs enforced stricter measures than the province to try and fight #COVID19.
Until now, @mustafahirji was unwilling to use his powers under the act. For instance, he would not use this power to enforce mask-wearing, leaving that decision to the politicians. But given what the data shows about where/how the virus spreads, he invoked his powers.
Again, we reported all of this in @StCatStandard. Orders made under section 22 of the act (the section that applies here) are not recommendations. They are binding orders. An MOH does not need political approval any more than a police chief needs approval for operational matters
What's more, violation of a sec. 22 order can come with a hefty fine: up to $25,000 a day, although that has to be decided by a judge, not by the health department. The point is a sec. 22 is entirely enforceable under the act which, again, is the law.
The rapid-fire changes of the last week left a lot of people on their heels, trying to sort out what is going on. That is why we devoted most of our news pages Friday and Saturday to rules, how they work and what they mean. Including this primer:
The Health Protection and Promotion Act has been on the books, again as a law, for years. Not common knowledge to the general public, perhaps, but should be to municipal leaders.
This entire affair demonstrates again, I submit, why we work so hard to bring you reliable, accurate information about the #COVID19 pandemic, because its information you need to know. It affects you, your family and your job.
Fact-checking political leaders like Mayor Diodati, when they misrepresent the facts, is an important part of that reporting. This issue is coming up again at @NiagaraRegion council Wednesday, and it will be interesting to see how many councillors understand the laws involved.
In summary: the @NRPublicHealth order requiring restaurants/bars to confirm who patrons are eating with stands. The province set the occupancy and table company limits.
Watch for more coverage in @StCatStandard through the week.
Be safe, be smart, and be kind.
-30-
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday we reported that in his call to action to fight #COVID19 St. Catharines mayor @WSendzik misrepresented how/where the virus is spreading. It turns out Niagara Falls mayor @jimdiodati has also made a misleading comment re: the pandemic and restaurants. (FactCheck thread)
In commentary on his Facebook page largely about Costco, Mayor Diodati talks about his view of the new #COVID19 measures imposed on Niagara restaurants:
Like Sendzik, Diodati is making a blanket comment about measures at restaurants to say further measures are unfair and will cause economic harm (certain the last part is true).
But the specific claim about the success of the pre-Saturday, pre-orange alert measures is misleading
.@WSendzik is calling for rigorous enforcement of #COVID19 bylaws in bars and restaurants, rather than more restrictions. Says the public will "hear from the media in a headline" bars/restaurants are unsafe and "kill them." and "cautions" PH their coms have to be "spot on."
The claim that news headlines are "killing" businesses is, at best, misleading. We are reporting the #COVID19, where cases are coming from, and what public health is doing. If cases are being generated by gatherings at a bar, or a picnic or house parties, we will report it.
St. Catharines councillor George Darte says "Education is done. It's time to do something. It's time to take action," about #COVID19 enforcement
Ok, Niagara I will be posting some stories with more comprehensive updates very shortly, but here is a snap shot because there is a lot happening on the local #COVID19 front today. (thread)
First, the big headline: Niagara hit's a pandemic high with 63 new #COVID19 cases confirmed today. The previous record was 40 in July with the Pioneer Flower Farm outbreak.
We don't know just yet where these cases are coming from, but @NRPublicHealth data does give us some clues as to the context. Unlike the flower farm case, this does not appear to the result of a new outbreak. Meaning they are community cases or from a known outbreak.
G'evenin' Niagara. Sorry this is a bit late today (working on a lot of stories) but here is your mid (or late I guess) week local #COVID19 snapshot. (thread)
Nine more cases in Niagara today, which is in keeping with the new, second wave baseline of daily cases. Seven day rolling average is 11. Well above the 1 to 3 cases we saw just a few weeks ago. The pandemic can move fast.
To that point, compare the last seven days to new cases per day in late April during the decline of the first wave. The current situation is basically the reverse. Cases are rising as fast as they fell at that point.
As we have reported, the anti-mask groups have present a number of false claims about pandemic safety measures, including claims about masks being a violation of human rights. The hyperbole recently hit a new height with this:
(I blacked the name of the young woman because she might be a teenager.)
This post, which compared being denied service for not wearing a mask to anti-black discrimination and the Holocaust, generated a lot of support from the members of the Hugs over Masks group.
I can't believe this needs to be said, but there is nothing even remotely similar to a masking bylaw to prevent the spread of a potentially lethal virus to Jim Crow laws, and systemic, legalized racism in the US that arose after the abolition of slavery.
It is true that after having survived the flesh-eating bacteria that claimed his leg, Bouchard's already high level of popularity in Quebec turned into a cult thing, and he was regarded nearly as a saviour figure by separatists. But, contextually, it doesn't compare to Trump.
For one thing, Bouchard was not leading the province or the country, he did not have a long track record of spectacular failures in his wake and was not regarded as an existential threat to democracy itself. Trump checks all these boxes for all kinds of reasons.