Two key documents, protected from the public so far, provide an insight into how the Alberta government eased COVID-19 public health measures earlier this year.
A judge at the Queen’s Bank Bank in Edmonton recently dismissed the government cabinet’s claim to confidentiality and ordered a PowerPoint presentation and cabinet committee proceedings to be disclosed. It stemmed from a case that challenged the decision to remove the mandate of the school mask from the province and prevent school boards from providing their own.
Lawyers from the Alberta Federation of Labor (AFL) and the parents of five immunocompromised children argue that Albertans have a right to know what led to the decision to lift the warrant.
The first of the long-awaited documents is a Feb. 8 PowerPoint presentation prepared by Alberta’s medical director of health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, which was presented by Health Minister Jason Copping, according to the province.
BREAKING – Tabs 13 and 14 are CMOH Hinshaw PowerPoint & Cabinet Committee Minutes. Now a public record. https://t.co/g5JQHtOkNv
– @Sharonadactyl
It offers three possible options for lifting restrictions, apparently designed within the parameters of the previous guidelines of the Priority Implementation Cabinet Committee (PICC).
“According to the previous PICC leadership, three-step approaches to relief are proposed, focusing on removing the exemption program and easing the masking requirements of young people,” the PowerPoint presentation said.
The first option proposed a significant relief in step 1, including the immediate elimination of school masking.
The second option suggested more moderate relief initially with the lifting of school masking in step 2.
The third option left the approach open to the cabinet committee.
“The options presented to the cabinet are very skewed in favor of lifting the restrictions,” said Lorian Hardcastle, who teaches health law and policy at the University of Calgary.
This summary of options for alleviating public health measures was included in the Feb. 8 PowerPoint presentation, prepared by Alberta’s medical director of health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw. (CBC)
“Interestingly, in what I would expect to be a scientific discussion there were considerations around political and economic concerns. And, to me, it’s very remarkable that one of the ‘professionals’ listed in this presentation was that Alberta was a leader in reopening. and that has nothing to do with science. that is politics. “
In its discussion of weather, the paper noted that certain unspecified metrics should be achieved before moving on to the next steps and that “Alberta will be a leader in entering endemic space, balancing risks and benefits of relief from other Canadian jurisdictions. “
Minutes of the cabinet committee
The provincial government was also ordered to deliver the minutes of the cabinet committee meeting beginning Feb. 8, the day it announced its plans to lift public health measures.
The minutes, which include the decision taken but not the documentation of any discussion, show that the second most moderate option has been chosen.
But the framework for easing the restrictions that was actually put in place differs from the second option presented to the cabinet and it appears the plan was modified.
The province lifted the masks in the schools two weeks after moving on to step 1 and before moving on to step 2. It also lifted the general mandate of provincial masks before the established scenario.
According to Hardcastle, without evidence of the cabinet discussion, it is impossible to know exactly what brought about the changes.
“We don’t have much information on how or why this decision was made, and I think it’s unfortunate from a responsibility perspective,” he said.
Lorian Hardcastle teaches law and medicine in the University of Calgary. (Colin Hall / CBC)
While PowerPoint presented a plan to eliminate public health measures, it also noted that Alberta was not yet in the endemic phase.
Any relaxation of the measures, he said, “should be based on lowering rates of new hospitalizations for COVID-19 over a sustained period of time.”
The PowerPoint noted that the COVID positivity rate at the time had been stable for several weeks and, although hospitalizations appeared to be on a “plateau”, they were still “high and straining the system”.
He also warned that once COVID’s infrastructure is “downed,” it would be difficult to quickly recover and that an increase in cases would be expected as restrictions were reduced.
“If the situation worsens and the continued transition to endemism is not possible due to the stress level of the acute care system, the re-establishment of public health measures may be recommended,” PowerPoint says.
The AFL, which is one of the applicants in the case, describes the disclosures in the documents as “disturbing.”
“They had their eyes clearly focused on politics and their own restricted political interest, rather than the broader public interest where their focus should have been,” AFL President Gil McGowan said.
“I find it very worrying that the government was making a decision that would affect the health and safety of so many people, including our children, just so they could say they are the first. What they should focus on is the interest public and public safety, not in the rights to boast. “
The Alberta government is defending the decision
The Alberta government said documents submitted to the courts show what they have argued all along.
“We moved forward with a plan to safely lift public health measures, in line with other provinces and other countries, based on the best available evidence and the advice of Alberta Health and the medical director of health,” Steve Buick, press secretary for Health Minister Copping, said in an emailed statement to CBC News.
“We retain our decision to lift public health measures, including ending the use of compulsory masks in schools. It was the right choice for children and did not pose an undue risk to our communities.” .
Buick said the documents show that the provincial government did not set aside the advice contained in the PowerPoint presentation.
The suggestions we ignored or overturned the recommendations are simply false.- Steve Buick, Press Secretary to the Minister of Health
“The health minister provided the cabinet with three options, presented uniformly without a recommended option. The cabinet chose between those options. The suggestions we ignored or overturned the recommendations are simply false,” Buick said, and he added that the provincial government is determined to prevent the disruption of schools. in the future as much as possible.
What these documents highlight, argues one expert, is the delimitation between public health and policymakers.
“It would not be uncommon for there to be some fairly strict general guidelines announced by the decision maker and after the public service worked within those guidelines to give options on the exact details of implementation,” said Dr. Michael Curry, a clinical associate professor in the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia who teaches on legal and ethical issues.
“So I think what the Albertans can deduce is that there was a discussion between the cabinet that put some limits on the options that the public health office would present and the public health office presented a number of recommendations. of experts in the cabinet. But the exact implementation seems to have been a decision that was made by the cabinet. “