health

Wednesday June 17, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday June 17, 2020

Rosslyn residence was literally a house of horrors

The story of the Rosslyn Retirement Residence, as reported by Spectator journalist Steve Buist, is by turns sickening, heartbreaking and infuriating.

May 27, 2020

It is also, in a way, indicative of what is wrong with Ontario’s long-term-care system. But it is so egregious, so extreme, that it is in a class by itself. Buist’s series was entitled House of Horrors, and that’s not an overstatement, at least not for victims and their families.

Yes, victims is the right word. Rosslyn residents were subjected to chronic bedbug infestations. Photos showing the result of those infestations will make your stomach turn. Medication was often not administered properly. Residents wandered in unsafe conditions. There were mouse droppings and black mould in food storage areas.

Management and ownership of Rosslyn received repeated notices, from public health and the provincial oversight agency, and warnings about health and safety infractions. And these infractions were not all new and related to pandemic staffing. Between 2018 and 2020 public health inspections found bed bugs, mice and cleaning issues. According to former staff members, operators of the home portrayed it to residents’ families as having a “secure memory unit” that didn’t actually exist.

There’s more. You could fill this space three times over just with the disturbing findings and stories uncovered by Spectator reporting. Fourteen residents of the Rosslyn have died from COVID-19, 22 staff members became infected and more than 60 residents were hospitalized by the time the pandemic eventually emptied the facility last month.

Now let’s add insult to injury. The owners of this facility, and seven other retirement homes and residential care facilities in the Hamilton area, are no strangers to the business. The Martino family owned the Royal Crest Lifecare chain, which collapsed in bankruptcy in 2003. They cried poor at the time but were found to have access to four homes, five SUVs, three Mercedes, a Hummer and a 42-foot cabin cruiser. When the dust settled on the commercial and business bankruptcies, nearly $200 million in liabilities were left, and $18 million left owing to taxpayers.

April 1, 2020

And now, the questions. How was it that the Martino family was able to continue in the business of running retirement homes so easily given its terrible track record? Why would they be given a licence by the provincial oversight agency, the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA)?

In the past 18 months, the city’s bylaw enforcement department has registered 28 violations of property standards against the Martinos’ care homes in Hamilton. There is a litany of horror stories from former staff and families of former residents RHRA. Why did it take so long to act? The RHRA revoked the Rosslyn’s licence this week, but what took so long?

Then there’s the oversight agency itself. The RHRA is essentially a self-governing industry body charged with enforcing the provincial Retirement Homes Act. Given everything we now know about LTC in general and Rosslyn specifically, why should we trust an industry body to oversee the sector?

Last but not least is the prospect of criminal charges. Provincial NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has asked Hamilton police to conduct a complete investigation. Good for Horwath, but why didn’t the government do that first?

If an investigation finds the Rosslyn horror story involves criminal behaviour, charges must be laid and those responsible must be prosecuted. The Rosslyn travesty and others like it should be rallying cries in the call for complete reform of long-term care. Rosslyn’s victims deserve nothing less. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

 

Wednesday April 1, 2020

 

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 1, 2020

Breaking down the COVID-19 numbers

Coronavirus cartoons

In a little more than two months, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, raced around the world and turned a handful of known cases to more than three quarters of a million, with at least 36,000 lives lost – reported figures that the scientific and health communities widely agree are too low.

The spreading virus has pushed numerous countries to scramble to lock down cities, shutter non-essential businesses, and close their borders to all but their own citizens, adopting some of the extraordinary measures executed in China that might have previously been unthinkable elsewhere.

Researchers and armchair epidemiologists alike are analyzing the trove of data to create models, find patterns and clues on whether curves are being flattened, which country is on a faster or slower trajectory, why death rates and ages vary, what measures seemed to work, and when the pandemic might end.

The flood of numbers and questions they raise can be overwhelming for the average person trying to make sense of the data.

Epidemiologists and an infectious disease expert who spoke with CTVNews.ca said it was too early to make predictions or draw conclusions from the data, but stressed the importance of understanding the context surrounding the numbers. 

While most of the focus has been on the daily tally of new cases, epidemiologists say that other data points are more useful.

Cynthia Carr, a Winnipeg-based epidemiologist with two decades of experience interpreting and developing protocols for gathering and analyzing health data, said the daily focus on new cases can be a distraction and spark unnecessary panic.

“[The public was] not listening to the information. They were in a store with 1,000 people at Costco buying toilet paper” when that was the last place they should be, said Carr.

The total number of tests administered, infections, hospitalizations, intensive care patients, and deaths are all key indicators for different reasons, explained Erin Strumpf, an epidemiologist and associate professor at McGill University.

“It’s more about the rate of change in those numbers than it is about the actual numbers on a given day,” she said.

The mortality and hospitalization rates – and whether they are increasing or decreasing over time – gives more context and balance to the data, Carr noted.

“You should never just look at one piece of information,” Carr said.

“I have said from the beginning, when we increase our testing capacity, you would quickly see an increase in cases… we’re getting more of an accurate denominator, an accurate representation of the number of people with the illness.” (CTV) 

 

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)