health

Friday February 28, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 28, 2020

If the coronavirus hits America, who’s responsible for protecting Americans?

The outbreak of the coronavirus — and Covid-19, the disease it causes — in mainland China has provoked a response the likes of which the world has never seen. Hundreds of millions of people in the country have had their travel restricted; many have not even been allowed to leave their homes. All of this is aided by the vast Chinese surveillance state.

Coronavirus cartoons

Meanwhile, though the number of new cases in China dropped to 406 on Wednesday, bringing the total to 78,000, China is ramping up capacity to treat tens of thousands of sick people, with new hospitals going up nearly overnight. Many people still haven’t returned to work, though some of the restrictions are being eased.

Draconian restrictions on movement and the intensive tracking of people potentially exposed to the virus are just some of the ways China — a centralized, authoritarian state — has responded to its outbreak.

April 30, 2009

What would have happened if the outbreak had started in the US — or if it comes here next?

The number of confirmed cases in the US is small: just 14, and 12 are related to travel. An additional 45 people who were sickened with Covid-19 abroad have returned to the US for treatment. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted its message on the likelihood of the coronavirus spreading in the United States. “Ultimately, we expect we will see community spread in this country,” Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters in a press call. She said it’s a matter of “when,” not “if,” and that “disruption to everyday life might be severe.”

October 14, 2014

There’s still a lot we don’t about the virus. It’s a novel, fast-spreading disease to which people have no known immunity. So far, no vaccines or drugs to treat it exist, though both are being developed. That said, many of the cases of Covid-19 are mild, as Vox’s Julia Belluz reports. The fatality rate — which remains an early estimate that could change — is hovering around 2 percent. A virus of these parameters could spread very quickly.

While there’s much we don’t know about how this could play out with regard to how many people will get sick and how sick they’ll get, what we do know is the United States has dealt with outbreaks — polio, tuberculosis, and H1N1 flu, for starters — before, and many health officials have been anticipating a new one. There are lots of professionals at the federal and local levels who stand ready to try to stymie the spread of coronavirus in the United States.

August 3, 2016

That’s not to say our system is perfect, or even necessarily prepared for this incoming novel virus. But it’s worth thinking through what responses are possible in the United States and how they might become politicized. There are a few really important things to know.

The biggest one: Public health is a power that’s largely left up to the states, which introduces flexibility into our system. But it also introduces inconsistencies, local politics, and laws, with varying protections for civil liberties. The biggest question remains: Can our health care infrastructure handle an influx of thousands of new patients? (Continued: Vox)

Wednesday January 29, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 29, 2020

Bigotry is the virus we should worry most about

Sadly, it didn’t take long for racism, xenophobia and social media idiocy to become part of the coronavirus story. Mere days after the first confirmed Canadian cases were identified, social media content from the wacky to the downright dangerous began making the rounds.

The virus is a U.S.-government patented germ warfare weapon. It can be treated with herbs and spices. It’s a global population reduction tool.

Coronavirus cartoons

But the worst, and the most offensive, social media poison blames Chinese (or Asian) people in general for the virus. It has been linked to hygiene and eating habits and other things that don’t bear repeating.

Viewed in isolation, most of this stuff is just stupid, some is downright laughable. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Thanks to social media, the cranks, trolls and plain evil people in the world live next to a fast-moving river. They can toss their garbage in, and watch it circulate all around the world in no time. Broken telephone syndrome sets in, and then even the most innocuous claims and commentary can get twisted into something much worse. They can even devolve into fomenting hatred.

Bigotry and xenophobia directed at Chinese Canadians is not new. In the 19th century, the racist term ‘yellow peril’ was used to describe the threat posed by the expansion of power and influence of people from Asia. Racism was legislated into Canadian immigration policy.

We might have hoped that Canada had evolved past those offensive views. But the SARS crisis of 2003 proved that’s not the case. Chinese people, and anyone who looked Asian, felt naked bigotry. Businesses went from busy to empty overnight. Toronto lost an estimated $1 billion as tourists avoided the city, especially areas with many Chinese businesses.

As the current coronavirus story gained prominence, some of the same people who experienced all that in 2003 worried publicly that the same thing could happen again in 2020. Amy Go, interim president of the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, put it this way in an interview in an interview with The Guardian: “I was hopeful it wasn’t going to be like 2003. But it is. It’s happening now and it’s just going to be amplified (by social media).”

A group of Chinese moms worried about the “inevitable wave of racism” that would arrive with the spreading virus. One of them, Terri Chu, said: “My Twitter has just exploded with vitriol since this morning.”

A popular Toronto blog reviewed a new Chinese restaurant on Instagram and the post was drowned in a sea of racist comments. Nine thousand parents at a school board north of Toronto called for kids who have been to China recently to be kept home from school.

Here we go, yet again.

This new coronavirus, like the last one, is a scary thing. But its relative risk to the general population remains very low. In the three cases reported so far, the victims have self-identified, and in two cases have isolated themselves to protect others.

Public health authorities have implemented measures they learned from the SARS crisis. It is too early to call them 100 per cent successful, but so far they’re working. The best advice as of now remains consistent: frequent hand washing, coughing and sneezing into sleeves, reporting symptoms when appropriate and stay tuned to legitimate news sources for the latest updates.

And if you hear or see bigotry or xenophobia directed at Chinese Canadians, or anyone else for that matter, consider saying something. Don’t just scroll by in silence. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

 

Media isn’t helping either… from r/Sino

 

Saturday July 27, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday July 27, 2019

Ontario’s health reforms loaded with risk and reward

This week The St. Catharines Standard and The Hamilton Spectator did something uncommon. The sister news organizations published a joint investigative feature on health-care reform in Ontario.

April 6, 2019

We did it together because the issues and challenges involved are shared by citizens of Hamilton and Niagara. The Local Health Integration Network, to be replaced by a new oversight body, covered both regions. It made sense to share our joint expertise, personified by Joanna Frketich of The Spectator and Grant LaFleche of The Standard.

We’re proud of the series, which is the most comprehensive reporting on the most significant reform to Ontario’s health system in recent history. We explained what we could, and were forthright about what we don’t know — which is a lot given the vagueness and lack of detail in the strategy.

March 19, 2019

That’s the worry. There is great potential in the reform plan. While we are not among those who describe the current system as broken, there’s no doubt it is underperforming, and too often failing health-care consumers. So you cannot fault the Ford government for wanting to improve the system, especially at a time when an aging population will increase use of and stress on health care.

There is also great risk, as there would be with any attempt to change something as vast, complex and critical as health care. If it’s not done right, the costs could be very high. Unfortunately, this government’s track record at getting things right is not stellar. The autism debacle. Public health cuts that had to be temporarily reversed. Breaking a beer company contract that will probably cost millions. Killing cap and trade for ideological reasons, forcing Ottawa to implement a carbon tax, and depriving towns and cities in millions from cap-and-trade revenue.

February 16, 2019

Can we trust the Ford government to get health reform right?

The government’s reform blueprint is called the Connecting Care Act. Read it and you’ll be surprised by the lack of detail. We know that an uncertain number of Ontario Health Teams (OHT) will be put in place. They will be made up of health-care stakeholders — hospitals, primary care (family docs and family health teams), community-based and long-term care providers. They will provide the local input on health care across the spectrum. They will report to a new super agency, called Ontario Health.

In and of itself, this structure is puzzling. Part of the province’s rationale is to reduce bureaucracy. But in the future, instead of having LHINs, we’ll have OHTs, reporting to the new super agency, which presumably reports to the ministry of health. This isn’t a smaller bureaucracy, it’s the opposite.

December 15, 2017

The new system also collapses previously independent health agencies, such as Cancer Care Ontario, under one umbrella. But CCO is recognized as a world leader. Does it really make sense to break what isn’t broken in cancer care?

It’s also the same model Alberta has had in place for years. And health-care costs in that province have not gone down under the super agency system, they’ve gone up to a point where Alberta has higher per patient costs than any other province.

It’s not all bad news. Innovative initiatives, liked Bundled Care, which was developed at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton, will be rolled out across the province, promising shorter hospital stays with remote support provided to patients at home.

Once it comes back from its extended summer holiday, health reform will be prominent in the news, and we’ll continue to cover and try to explain it. For Ontarians who care, and we all should, this wave of reform demands close scrutiny and robust public discussion. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Thursday June 13, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 13, 2019

Advisory council calls for $15B universal, single-payer pharmacare plan

An advisory council appointed by the Liberal government is recommending the establishment of a universal, single-payer public pharmacare system.

The council’s 171-page report, released Wednesday, calls for the creation of a new drug agency that would draft a national list of prescription medicines that would be covered by the taxpayer, beginning with an initial list of common and essential drugs, by Jan. 1, 2022.

The council recommends that initial list be expanded to a comprehensive plan by Jan. 2, 2027. When fully implemented, the total cost would be $15 billion a year.

Dr. Eric Hoskins, a former Ontario health minister and chair of the advisory council, acknowledged there are “significant incremental costs” to building pharmacare, but he noted that those costs are already being picked up by Canadians.

“We are confident that the implementation plan that we have put forward is one that meets the objectives and requirements that were handed to the council, of creating a program and implementation plan that is fair and sustainable and accessible to Canadians,” he said.

The council proposes a $2 co-payment for common drugs and $5 for less common ones. The fee would be waived for Canadians on social assistance or with low incomes.

The council spent the last year studying various pharmacare models and hearing from more than 32,000 Canadians and organizations sharing their views online and through letters, written submissions and meetings across the country.

Hoskins said it’s time to show “courage and boldness” and to do “some nation building” on a project that would benefit Canadians in “unimaginable ways.” (CBC) 

 

Tuesday March 19, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday March 19, 2019

Education changes are more and less than they seem

If you were among those who felt anxiety about the Ford government’s education reforms, you probably heaved a sigh of relief when they were finally rolled out last week.

March 13, 2019

The government made noises about changing or even killing all-day kindergarten, but ultimately ended up supporting it, at least so far. It didn’t mandate larger class sizes for early year students.

After vilifying and killing the previous government’s sex education curriculum, the government ended up restoring virtually all of the elements from the curriculum it professed to hate. The new-not-new curriculum covers most of the same ground, which is bound to make social conservatives angry, since they threw their support behind Ford’s PC party leadership in part because he pledged to kill sex-ed. But while that segment of Ford’s base must feel betrayed, students will be better served, and parents — most of whom supported the modern curriculum — will be happy with the outcome.

A “back to basics” math curriculum is also in the reforms. There are mixed opinions on that, but the fact is math scores were trending downward, so some changes are appropriate.

February 8, 2019

Then there’s the classroom cellphone ban, which is almost entirely symbolic since most school boards have local policies that are working. It’s also probably unenforceable, but if it does no real good, it also does no real harm.

Although maintaining current class size caps from kindergarten to Grade 3, Education Minister Lisa Thompson announced that an average of one student will be added to classes in Grades 4 to 8, which average high school class sizes increasing from 22 to 28. That sounds reasonable.

Not so fast. While Thompson said “Not one teacher — not one — will lose their job because of our class size strategy,” many education experts disagree. The government says any teacher reductions will be realized through retirement and attrition, but the fact remains that at the end of the rollout, there will be thousands fewer teachers in the system than there are today.

In fact, a Toronto District School Board document reveals the class sizes will mean the loss of approximately 800 high school teaching positions, along with 216 in Grades 4 through 8. The same report states that with the government’s earlier round of cuts — $25 million for special programs — 82 high school positions will disappear. Estimates are that total job losses through attrition will be between 16,000 and 18,000.

Then there’s the fact that class sizes aren’t what the seem. While the government funds for an average of 22 students, the reality is that classes often reach 30 or more to accommodate smaller specialized classes. Union officials are predicting these changes will mean class sizes of 40 in some cases.

Then there’s this. Arbitrarily increasing class sizes will lead to collective bargaining with teacher unions and boards getting off to a terrible start before negotiations even begin. In many cases local agreements include class size provisions, so unions will be fighting the provincial-controlled changes from the start.

These reforms may not be all bad, but they’re certainly not all good, and they open the door to stormy weather in our education system. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)