THREAD: One key message in Justice Kirker's decision today is that courts have no jurisdiction to assess the "effectiveness" of government health policies. This was in response to the argument made by the applicants that the latest @CMOH_Alberta orders were not going to work. /1

This argument and the court's response date back to early court challenges against vaccination policies. One of the best and earliest examples is from 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts. /2

In that case, a Lutheran pastor, Hennepin Jacobson, challenged a Massachusetts law that required mandatory vaccination for smallpox. In upholding the law, the Supreme Court addressed the argument made by Jacobson that the smallpox vaccine does not work. /3

Here's what the court said: "It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease." /4

Another example is from Ontario. On Dec 16, 1919, the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario took the Toronto City Council to court. The Board asked the court to compel the City to enforce compulsory vaccination for smallpox. /5

For months, the City had failed to do anything about a smallpox outbreak that was wrecking havoc in Toronto. The Mayor, a guy named Church, along with more than half of the councillors, were antivaxxers. /6

One of the arguments made by Toronto City Council was that the vaccine was neither safe nor effective against smallpox. /7

This argument was rejected by the court, noting that accepting it would amount to exercising jurisdiction that a court does not have. /8

All of this suggests that governments enjoy a very high level of deference when it comes to their health policies and orders. Which is why they have to get it right. And getting it right means, IMO, following the science. /fin