Read on Twitter
On Friday night, I chatted with @CBCNews about independent public health leadership in emergencies. No surprise, I disagreed with the conservative strategist on the panel.
Their arguments might soundbite well, but they're wrong.
(Thread)
#cdnpoli #MedTwitter #COVID19
Their arguments might soundbite well, but they're wrong.
(Thread)
#cdnpoli #MedTwitter #COVID19
“Big decisions are made by elected officials. That’s how democracy works.”
That’s crudely reductionist. Civil society depends on un-elected institutions, too. e.g., an independent judiciary to deliver justice impartially and protect minority rights - sometimes *from* governments
That’s crudely reductionist. Civil society depends on un-elected institutions, too. e.g., an independent judiciary to deliver justice impartially and protect minority rights - sometimes *from* governments
We depend on unelected scholars/institutes to study health/social/environmental/economic issues because sometimes what’s true is more important than what’s popular (or what powerful interests want).
This keeps us from injecting bleach or putting hydroxychloroquine in kool aid.
This keeps us from injecting bleach or putting hydroxychloroquine in kool aid.
“Our elected representatives are the ones accountable for the pandemic response. The CMOH didn’t sign up for that.”
That argument is annoying for a number of reasons.
That argument is annoying for a number of reasons.
First, medical doctors must be (and are) accountable for mistakes, especially when they lead to preventable death. Second, as fascinated as we are with politics, losing an election is hardly proportional discipline for mistakes of this magnitude.
Third, the one thing *every single public health doctor* signed up for was to protect the public from a pandemic. We spend five years in Royal College training being grilled on pandemic management and in emergency response exercises so we are ready for it in real life.
The idea that elected officials will pay with their positions or even that today’s disapproval ratings on pandemic responses will translate into election results is also false. Trump won 25 states (yes, that’s all, Rudy) *during* the pandemic with a world's worst response.
How COVID-19 affects political outcomes might depend on how distant an election is, how libertarian the population is, which groups die most, what wedge issues you can exploit, gerrymandering, how many people still think “but the economy” parties are any good for the economy...
“Public health doctors were wrong about things like masks at the start of the pandemic. Good thing the politicians asked tough questions.”
Rubbish. It might be a cardinal rule to never change positions in politics, but it’s the opposite in science, especially with a new hazard.
Rubbish. It might be a cardinal rule to never change positions in politics, but it’s the opposite in science, especially with a new hazard.
Open, transparent communication (unobstructed by political filters) would start with “As we understand more and as the pandemic evolves, our advice will change. So will our measures. We tell you what we know and what we don’t know all along the way.”
“This is the most transparent provincial governments have been on any issue.” (He actually said that.)
Political strategists obviously hold themselves to a different standard of transparency.
Political strategists obviously hold themselves to a different standard of transparency.
To health professionals, informed consent means more than telling people what is expedient to tell, and the importance of fully informing is greater with more invasive interventions. We’re asking for a lot of sacrifice from Canadians. They deserve to know everything we know.
“But the Charter.”
Section 1 allows for reasonable exemptions. A global pandemic where temporarily curtailing some liberties will save permanent harm to many lives seems like a reasonable exemption.
Here’s a Constitutional lawyer saying so: https://twitter.com/Dave_Khan/status/1331401024574144515?s=20
Section 1 allows for reasonable exemptions. A global pandemic where temporarily curtailing some liberties will save permanent harm to many lives seems like a reasonable exemption.
Here’s a Constitutional lawyer saying so: https://twitter.com/Dave_Khan/status/1331401024574144515?s=20
And here’s a provincial Supreme Court saying so. (A case in which Newfoundland CMOH Dr. Janice Fitzgerald was named as a respondent. Because accountability.) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nl-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-1.5727549
“CMOH are concerned with COVID transmission, but governments care for lives *and* livelihoods.”
Ugh. Straw man.
Public health as a field is concerned with all aspects of population wellbeing, including socioeconomic ones, (and including for politically vulnerable minorities).
Ugh. Straw man.
Public health as a field is concerned with all aspects of population wellbeing, including socioeconomic ones, (and including for politically vulnerable minorities).
That’s why Dr. @ehyshka and I called for an independent pandemic response observatory (composed of experts in public health, acute/long term care, economics, public health law/ethics, etc) to guide and evaluate provincial responses in real time. https://twitter.com/hakique/status/1331765601027588099
Every public health expert is concerned about the impact of restrictions on workers and small businesses. But the “lives and livelihoods” line is oddly *most* used by govts who *haven’t* supported paid leave or compensation for restaurants and bars to close indoor operations.
The point is that a public health emergency is a time to keep people engaged, informed, invested and protected.
It's not a time to feed them bogus arguments about why you aren’t. (end)
It's not a time to feed them bogus arguments about why you aren’t. (end)
Here's the panel (after we sorted out most of the technical issues). https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1825863235867
