Time for a little thread on the pending removal of Alberta's (and SK, and maybe ON etc) Vaxx Passport (Orwellianly known as the Restrictions Exemption Program) #REPnotRIP. 1/
The passport serves three purposes: 1) decrease transmission rates in the population (it is an important layer of swiss cheese). 2/
3) Improve safety in restaurants, so that people are more comfortable eating indoors, helping the restaurant industry (and protecting their staff). 4/ dailyhive.com/calgary/albert…
Now, they are going. the pretext for this is with Omicron, full vaccinations (2 vaxxs) no longer protect against transmission, so therefore: scrapped. They aren't wrong, we know that Omicron is relatively vaccine evasive, especially to two vaccines. 5/ news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/…
(worth noting altho not great for transmission, 2 does does substantiallly improve illness outcomes). 5a/
Ay, but there's the rub. 2 vaccines does not equal fully immunized. People need the 3rd dose to substantially decrease risk of transmission. (1/3 less like to have symptomatic disease than unvaxxed). 6/ jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
So what's a province to do? I think the analogy is like seatbelts. Back in the 50s and 60s lap belts were in most cars. Better than nothing, but still resulted in substantial damage (back fractures, face hitting steering wheel, etc). 7/
Not perfect. But we didn't scrap the seatbelt, we improved it, adding a shoulder belt. Ahhh safety. 8/
So, in my mind, with an inadequate vaxx passport, the solution is, not to scrap it, but improve it. Bring on that 3rd vaxx. Hits all three objectives: 1) decr transmission 2) improve 3rd dose uptake (currently at 42.8% for >18 y.o. in AB). 3) improves safety in restaurants 9/
Think I'm crazy? Won't ever happen? Maybe not in AB. But I'm not crazy. The smart policymakers are considering it. fin/ montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-to-requ…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think we need to talk about the Infection Prevention and Control- Canada organization (IPAC-Canada). @IPACCanada, who has their annual conference starting Sunday. 1/
I was lucky enough to present at last year's convention at the invite of @BarryHunt008, on environmental impact of masking policies, with a focus on airborne protection.
You can see my presentation here: 3/
It's out! The @WHO's new wordsmithing report on airborne transmission. I'm going to do a little dissection on the good and the bad, who wins and who loses. 1/ cdn.who.int/media/docs/def…
the TLDR is: "through the air" is the old "droplet" and "airborne" transmission modalities combined. "inhalation" is the new "airborne". "direct deposition" is the new "droplet" 2/
The great: finally an acknowledgment that short-range airborne transmission is an integral component of all (not just COVID) airborne transmission. This is huge. It means that workers esp. HCWs need respirator masks (FFP2/3, N95) when interacting with concerning patients. 3/
Apparently many in the Canadian ID community on this platform are weighing in that paxlovid should no longer be recommended to high-risk (elderly, immunocompromised) outpatients with confirmed covid.
I think we should take a look at the evidence they've presented.
(a thread) 1/
So far there has been no evidence presented, none, except for the blogpost posted in the first tweet.
No peer reviewed science. At all.
And a reminder that there are still >500 inpts in Alberta with covid, and 10-20 patients dying each week (all likely high risk patients).
2/
Another reminder is I reviewed the paxlovid evidence in a thread a few weeks ago, in response to a paxlovid-minimizing news story by @LaurenPelley of @CBCNews.
You can check out the thread here: 3/
At least @ChrisVarcoe mentioned the climate crisis concerns this time.
"The oil and gas industry is the largest emitting sector in Canada. The Liberal government has introduced a series of policies as concerns around climate change mount" 2/
But this is sloppy and "news release" journalism:
"CAPP noted emissions from the conventional oil and gas sector fell by 24 per cent, while production grew by 21 per cent between 2012 and 2021."
How many ways does this article anger me?
Let me count the ways...
#debunktionjunktion
(although, honestly, fighting @calgaryherald on climate issues is rather pointless, in the past @ChrisVarcoe has often been better than this)
Thread calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…
1) I realize I'm like a broken record. But having an article, on a climate issue, without mentioning the word "climate" once, is not cool. Of course people don't want to do hard things, unless they know why they need to do it. (see search in upper left corner)
2) Zero interviews from anyone, aside from the federal government, as to why this cap is necessary. All industry or industry-adjacent voices.