The first public health order is out (a full day after coming into effect...it is problematic to be bound by legal obligations that you don't yet have access to). This one doesn't address businesses, even though they will be bound by restrictions starting on the 27th. /1
So they have little time to understand their legal obligations and prepare. Notably, many people seemed to think that the business restrictions apply across the province. They don't. They apply in purple areas. /2
A person in a private residence can't permit a person who doesn't normally reside there to enter, with a bunch of reasonable exceptions (health care, co-parenting, housekeeping, child care, repairs, etc). /3
Another exception is people who live alone. There was tons of confusion about this, but here's the exact language in the order. They can have two contacts come over to their house (but it has to be the same for the entire duration of the order so choose wisely!). /4
Confusingly, it seems that while you can only have two people over, if those people host you, it doesn't specify that they must be the only people there. This is difficult to reconcile with some of the gov's messaging suggesting that you can only have two contacts. /5
There are also limits on gatherings. Funeral/wedding ceremonies 10 people. No receptions. It also limits private social gatherings (indoors=your household or solo person+2 pals; outdoors=10 people). /6
However, private social gatherings are defined as when people "come together and move freely around...rather than remaining seated or stationary." This suggests that you could have a large number of people over to hang out in your yard so long as everyone doesn't move. /7
In particular areas of the province (see above) churches must be at 1/3 capacity w/masks. Want to test out the Sweden immunity theory? Try attending a packed rural church. /8
Finally in Calgary/Edmonton and surrounding areas, masks must be worn in indoor public places (indoor locations where businesses or entities operate), subject to exceptions (eg kids under 2, eating, exercising, alone at a workstation, for medical purposes, etc). Fin. /9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Secret public health meeting recordings. Kenney & Shandro micromanaged civil servants, overruled expert advice, & pushed an early relaunch that focused on the economy & avoiding the appearance of curtailing freedoms over safeguarding public health: cbc.ca/news/canada/ed…
Kenney wanted "evidence-based thresholds for mandatory restrictions that [were] effectively impossible to meet."
"[W]e put our best public health advice forward" and Kenney is "more concerned about the economy."
The gov used Hinshaw "as a shield to deflect criticism."
Although AHS "is responsible for enforcing public health orders" and "is supposed to operate at arm's length from gov", Shandro exerted control over enforcement. He didn't want them to enforce anything, just to educate. 29,000 complaints and only 62 enforcement orders.
I'm seeing disturbing accounts of Shandro's appearance at a UCP meeting in Peace River yesterday. These accounts suggest that the province's strategy has very little to do with public health evidence and a reliance on discredited experts.
To summarize the privacy commissioner's thoughts re: bill 46. Netcare will now be managed and operated by the gov. This is not necessarily a concern but a "significant departure" with uncertain benefits. She wonders what consultation w/ health service providers occurred. 1/6
Rules around duties/responsibilities of gov will be elaborated on in regulations. She strongly advises consultation with her on this (which didn't happen pre-bill 46). This bill creates a situation where the gov has "the ability to significantly broaden access to Netcare" 2/6
This includes access out of AB or even CAN. Beyond drs in Lloydminster, she's unsure of the gov's intent but says this will make it difficult for her to "effectively investigate or hold accountable" those out of province and may limit the recourse available to Albertans 3/6
Some thoughts on Bill 46... This main changes are to the Hospitals Act, Health Information Act, and Health Professions Act. The Hospitals Act will be repealed and public hospitals will now be regulated in the Health Facilities Act (HFA) along with private surgical facilities.
Part 2 of the HFA addresses private facilities (both those who provide insured and those who provide uninsured services). This remains unchanged since the passage of bill 30.
There's a new Part 2.1 of the HFA. Basically, the gov plunked all of the old Hospitals Act (e.g. hospital bylaws, privileges, hospital foundations, etc) into the HFA.
We won't know the results of the vote until tomorrow, but the UCP is finished debating the policy to allow a two-tier health care system. Some thoughts... 1/8
We heard the usual rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom", which is all fine and good if you can afford those choices and those freedoms. Given the link between health and wealth, those who cannot afford those choices would often be those who most need health care services. 2/8
Brian Peterson says that other countries have both systems and perform well. Classic correlation/causation problem. Systems that outperform Canada do not outperform because of privatization. Evidence doesn't support that argument. Also, most of those countries spend more. 3/8
Contact your MLAs and people you know who are UCP members and encourage them to vote against this nonsense at the annual general meeting. The following (flawed) rationale is offered for the resolution to embrace private finance...
First, a reminder to the government that healthcare isn't merely an "expense". It is an investment in a healthy and productive workforce.