Face Coverings Bylaw Update (February 2022)
Almost every person has been impacted by COVID. In my household, my partner has a small business and it was essentially shut down for months at the start of the pandemic. She works with many seniors and understandably, minimizing interactions with those at higher risks was critical. My sister was out of work for about a year during the first year of the pandemic. One of my parents had their surgery delayed during the fourth wave because of the lack of capacity in the healthcare system. During the municipal campaign last year, I heard many similar stories and I also heard from many people who lost family members to COVID.
It’s been really tough on pretty much everyone.
With the recent decision to not proceed with a municipal version of the restrictions exemption program (REP), there is one public health measure currently in place through a City bylaw, the face coverings bylaw. As there have been a number of messages related to this, I want to spend some time addressing the feedback contained within those messages as there are some common themes.
If you haven’t had a chance to read my post from February 11th on the REP and the decision to not move forward with that while continuing with our face coverings bylaw, please visit this link before reading through the rest of this post.
The main theme I’d like to cover in this post is the feedback I’ve been receiving asking me to ‘follow the science’. This has been an interesting piece of feedback because people have very different opinions on what that actually entails.
When looking at complex issues, it's important to seek out many different opinions to see if there is a general consensus. For example, I'm definitely not an expert in climate change and so I put a lot of faith in the peer-reviewed studies that have been completed over the years.
In 2013, there was an analysis of all peer-reviewed studies from 1999 to 2012 that showed that 97% of all the studies supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. A similar review took place in 2021 for all peer-reviewed studies from 2012 to late 2020. That review showed that 99.9% of all studies supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate.
At this point, I feel quite confident in acknowledging the severity of climate change and I think it has helped inform our desire for all orders of government to take action to reverse the significant negative impacts.
I share that example because I think that when looking at public health measures related to COVID-19, we should consider both the feedback of the individual experts that we get to speak to as well as the peer-reviewed studies that have occurred to date.
In some of the messages I have received, people would mention that they have heard from a friend or family member who might be a medical professional or that they have heard a doctor on social media express a concern with a particular public health measure. I don't have the expertise of a nurse or doctor and so I take all of those comments seriously. I do the same with my friend who is an electrician when dealing with electrical issues. While I appreciate that my friend doesn't know everything related to electrical issues, he knows far more than I do and I will seriously consider any recommendations he makes. At the same time, I know I should not treat everything said by a single expert as the be all and end all. It’s important to learn from as many people as possible.
During our council meetings, we are fortunate to often have Alberta Health Services’ Edmonton Zone Chief Medical Officer of Health (Dr. Sikora). When we hear from him, we aren't just hearing the opinion of that one doctor, we are getting the advice from all the doctors and medical professionals who work at Alberta Health/AHS. Their advice is based on the analysis of the data that they review from within Alberta and in other jurisdictions.
Beyond the advice from Alberta Health/AHS, I have had the opportunity to engage with many different nurses and doctors over the last two years. Much of that engagement occurred as part of the recent municipal election where I had the chance to talk with around 100 medical professionals working in our hospitals on the frontline. Not every conversation was about public health measures like masks but when we did discuss them, every piece of feedback was expressing support for using public health measures to help address the impacts of COVID.
Since the election, some of these conversations have continued as we continue to learn more about this virus. While those that I met at the doors and spoke with via email have continued to hold the perspective that public health measures are still needed, I have heard from approximately 10 medical professionals working in our hospitals who expressed some concerns about the benefits of various public health measures. Most of those concerns didn't suggest they weren't effective but they were weighing the benefits of those public health measures against the potential impacts on areas like mental health. I think better understanding those impacts is critical and I'll come back to that point later in this post.
Earlier I referenced peer-reviewed studies. I think these are very important because they provide comfort that the conclusion has been verified by other experts. At a time where many people have their own opinions, ensuring those opinions can be backed up by science is a great way to ensure thoughtful decisions are being made.
While I appreciate people who share a YouTube video from a doctor, we know that the best way to prove a position when talking about health, science, climate, etc. is by completing a study that can then be peer-reviewed. While I do not believe Canadian society is nearly as polarized as it can appear, one of the best ways to combat polarization is by ensuring we have factual information to use to inform our actions. It's why I think most Canadians are generally united on action on climate change. Of course, there are a very small number of scientists who suggest that human activities are not altering the Earth's climate, but the peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that that human activities are altering Earth's climate and we are working together as a community to tackle this serious issue.
When I look for peer-reviewed studies on masks, the vast majority of the medical journals that have peer-reviewed studies (ex: The Lancet, The BMJ, etc.) suggest that masks have been an effective public health measure. The studies do vary in how much of an impact masks can have and that is often dependent on the type of mask being used. But what I haven’t seen are peer-reviewed studies suggesting that masks are completely ineffective.
This hopefully provides a more detailed breakdown of how I look at an issue like masks. I don't believe that I know what is best for everyone in this city. That would be an arrogant position for me to take and it would be impossible for me to ever reach a point where I know what is best for every single person. I work to engage as many different people as possible to help hear a variety of perspectives but I appreciate that I will never hear from every single person in the ward on every single issue.
Our current face coverings bylaw requires that council must review the bylaw within 30 days of the provincial government rescinding their current public health order related to masks AND once we have 28 consecutive days of cases being below 100/100,000 people as reported by Alberta Health. I supported that bylaw back in December and based on everything listed above, currently believe the bylaw is fair and reasonable.
As we go forward, I am hoping the provincial government will provide the recommendations from Dr. Hinshaw and any other data used to inform their decisions. Edmonton City Council made a motion to have the mayor formally request this information. Other municipalities and the Edmonton Public School Board have made similar requests. To date, those requests have been ignored which is troubling as it is hard to build trust when there is no transparency in the decision-making process.
I believe this information is critical so we can all understand what ‘living with COVID’ actually looks like. In my previous blog posts I mentioned that we don't yet know if the increase in deaths of seniors is expected to be the new normal or if we are hoping that over time, this ultimately comes down to the level of the regular flu. Just as a reminder, we have experienced approximately 24 times the number of COVID-related deaths in the last 120 days as we experience from the regular flu in an entire year (Approximately 1,400 people to 58 people). The vast majority of those deaths occur in those 60 and older.
I am sure I'm not alone in hoping that the substantial increase in deaths when compared to the regular flu is not the new normal because it's a significant change. But if it is the new normal, we should understand what public health measures, if any, could help reduce the number of people that lose their lives. We should also review those impacts against the impacts to areas such as mental health and the economy.
If by chance there is no way to reduce the increase in deaths, I think we at least need to talk about how that will change our society. If seniors will now be at a higher risk and we cannot change it, let’s at least acknowledge that. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it feels like some are ready to move on without publicly discussing that possible new world and I believe seniors deserve better.
As mentioned at the start, almost every person has been impacted in some way over the last two years. Maintaining empathy is important as we continue to work through a pandemic that has resulted in the death of 5.84 million people worldwide.
Every decision we make has some level of risk. Our goal should not be to eliminate all risks because that is usually impossible. Instead, our goal needs to be understanding the risks that could materialize and take steps to mitigate them as best as possible.
As we continue to move through this pandemic, we will continue to learn new information. COVID will continue to evolve, hopefully into a less serious virus. How we respond as a society will also have to evolve. Like most things in the past 2 years, this won’t be easy but I believe the approach listed above will allow us to make the most informed decision possible that considers the wide range of impacts.
