North America

Friday February 9, 2023

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 9, 2023

Why wasn’t the suspected Chinese spy balloon shot down over Canada?

November 29, 2022

Critics say the U.S. and Canada had ample time to shoot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon as it drifted across North America for a week, although it’s unlikely Canadian jets could have done the job.

“This was an outrageous intrusion,” Conservative defence critic James Bezan told CTVNews.ca. “If we were tracking this from the time it entered Alaskan airspace, the question is, why didn’t Norad take action sooner?”

Two hundred feet tall, manoeuvrable and with a payload of sensors the size of three school buses, the alleged surveillance balloon initially approached North America near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands on Jan 28. According to officials, it crossed into Canadian airspace on Jan. 30, travelling above the Northwest Territories, Alberta and Saskatchewan before re-entering the U.S. on Jan 31.

November 19, 2015

The presence of the balloon was made public on Feb. 1 as it flew above Montana, home to one of three U.S. nuclear missile silo sites. On the afternoon of Feb. 4, an American F-22 fighter jet finally brought it down with an air-to-air Sidewinder missile over the Atlantic Ocean near South Carolina. U.S. President Joe Biden has said he wanted it shot down sooner, but was advised to wait until it was above water to minimize potential damage and injuries from debris.

In the U.S., Republican leaders have criticized the Biden administration for not downing the balloon as it traversed remote waters, vast tundra and sparsely-populated wilderness.

June 17, 2017

“It defies belief to suggest there was nowhere between the Aleutian Islands of Alaska and the coast of Carolina where this balloon could have been shot down right away without endangering Americans or Canadians,” U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Feb. 5 statement.

“What if it had been weaponized?” Bezan, a Manitoba member of Parliament, added. “I think they had an opportunity to take it down over the Pacific… Why wouldn’t we have shot it down there before it even got to any populated regions?”

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Norad commander Gen. Glen D. VanHerck offered his rationale.

“It was my assessment that this balloon did not present a physical military threat to North America, this is under my Norad hat,” VanHerck, who heads the joint Canada-U.S. air defence group, said. “And therefore, I could not take immediate action because it was not demonstrating hostile act or hostile intent.”

September 16, 2017

Bezan says the government has kept Canadians in the dark about the incident, who are relying instead on information from the U.S.

“I’m disappointed that the minister of defence, Anita Anand, and the prime minister have been both tight-lipped on this,” the opposition lawmaker told CTVNews.ca. “Why didn’t the Government of Canada tell Canadians what was in Canadian airspace, especially when Canadians could see it? Why did it wait until it was in Montana before this became public information?”

Charron from the University of Manitoba also wants to know more about how the incident was handled. (CTV News) 

 

Wednesday May 12, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 12, 2021

What happens when people get two different COVID-19 vaccines?

As some experts continue to warn of very rare side effects associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, Canadian health officials are now reviewing the research on mixing various COVID-19 shots.

May 6, 2020

A study of a “mismatched” vaccine regimen is underway in the U.K. — but some scientists say there’s reason to believe that administering two doses of different products could boost a person’s immune response beyond what can be achieved by giving the same shot twice.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) caused some confusion earlier this month when it said the viral vector shot from AstraZeneca is not the “preferred” product given its associated risk of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) — a condition that causes blood clots. That warning came out after hundreds of thousands of Canadians had received the AstraZeneca vaccine already.

According to the Ontario Science Table, estimates of the frequency of VITT in individuals who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine now range from 1 case in 26,000 to 1 case in 127,000 doses administered.

The risk of developing this side effect, combined with an uncertain delivery schedule for future supply, has prompted some provinces to consider pausing AstraZeneca vaccinations altogether.

Researchers at Oxford University in the U.K. launched a study in early February to explore the possible benefits of alternating different COVID-19 vaccines. According to the lead scientists, the study is “looking for clues as to how to increase the breadth of protection against new virus strains.”

March 31, 2021

The study — otherwise known as the COVID-19 Heterologous Prime Boost study, or “Com-COV” — is collecting data to determine whether receiving two different types of vaccine generates an immune response at least equal to the response that follows receiving the same product twice. (A “heterologous” vaccination regimen is one that uses more than one product.)

Dr. Helen Fletcher is a professor of immunology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K. She said a “mismatched” vaccine program would deliver some practical benefits — vaccine delivery logistics would be greatly simplified — but there could be another good reason to pursue a mixed-dose regimen.

“I’m excited about the study because I think it’s likely that the immune response will be even better if you mix and match vaccines,” Fletcher said in an interview with CBC News.

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, said last week the current guidance is for AstraZeneca recipients to get a second dose of the same product, but NACI is now reviewing the Oxford research on mixing AstraZeneca with an mRNA shot.

“There will be further advice forthcoming on that second dose based on the evolving science. We should watch this space,” Tam said. 

Will Canada shorten the time between shots? Possibly. NACI said in early March that, given the limited vaccine supply, provinces and territories may want to wait up to 16 weeks between first and second doses to give more people at least some level of protection.

The provinces have since followed this guidance, with a few exceptions. For example, many long-term care home residents have been fully vaccinated on the timeline recommended by the vaccine makers. Pfizer calls for a second dose 21 days after the first, while Moderna stipulates the second shot should come 28 days later. (CBC) 

 

 

Tuesday May 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday May 11, 2021

Poorer countries might not get vaccinated until 2023

High-income countries have purchased more than half of the Covid-19 vaccine supply to date, and low-income countries, just 9 percent, according to Duke University’s Global Health Innovation Center. This is why a country like the US is close to vaccinating half its population with one dose while the rate in a place like Guinea is less than 1 percent and not budging.

April 27, 2021

“That’s not just unconscionable, but it also is very much against the interests of high-income countries,” Georgetown global health law professor Lawrence Gostin told Vox in January. With the virus continuing to circulate, and variants picking up pace around the globe, outbreaks in the poorest countries will pose a threat to the world. 

It’s not an accident that many of the world’s first-approved Covid-19 vaccines — from companies like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna — were developed and rolled out in high-income countries. As the pandemic took hold last year, wealthier nations — including the US, UK, and EU block — began making deals with the pharmaceutical companies that were developing Covid-19 vaccines, which also happened to be headquartered within their borders.

January 28, 2021

These bilateral deals involved governments essentially giving the companies billions of dollars to speed up research and development in exchange for priority access to vaccines, should they prove to be effective. But the deals also pushed poorer countries, which didn’t have the resources to pre-purchase millions of doses of vaccines that might not even get approved for market, further down the access line.

Rich countries could donate more doses to poorer countries — a move global health groups have been calling for for months and one that’s starting to happen in response to the crisis in India. 

Rich countries could also simply start investing more in helping poorer countries respond to the crisis. They could answer Covax’s call for more donor funds, for example. Or Omer called for something akin to PEPFAR, America’s global health program to combat AIDS around the world. Launched under George W. Bush in 2003, to date, it’s provided $90 billion toward fighting AIDS. (Vox) 

 

Friday April 17, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday April 17, 2020

Canada to keep border restrictions with U.S. for long time: Trudeau

Coronavirus cartoons

Canada’s border restrictions with the United States will remain in place “for a significant time” as the two nations fight the coronavirus outbreak, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Thursday.

Washington and Ottawa agreed last month to clamp down on non-essential travel while allowing massive trade flows to continue across their long shared frontier.

“There’s a recognition that as we move forward there will be special thought given to this relationship. But at the same time we know that there is a significant amount of time, still, before we can talk about loosening such restrictions,” Trudeau told a daily briefing.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday told reporters the two nations were “doing well” and said, “It will be one of the early borders to be released.”

The two nations’ economies are highly integrated, and allowing trade to continue avoided major problems for the auto sector as well as the transportation of food and medicines.

 



Part of a Politico package featuring Canadian cartoonists

 

Although Trudeau’s government has enjoyed good relations with the Trump administration over the last 18 months, tensions still remain. Last month, Ottawa slammed a U.S. proposal to deploy troops along the border to fight the spread of the novel coronavirus, prompting Washington to drop the plan.

A total of 1,048 people in Canada had died from the coronavirus by 11 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT), slightly less than 10% higher than the death toll a day ago, official data posted by the public health agency showed.

The total number of those diagnosed with the coronavirus had climbed to 28,899. The respective figures at the same time on Wednesday were 954 deaths and 27,540 positive diagnoses.

Medical officials now expect the death toll to be between 1,200 and 1,620 by April 21, Theresa Tam, the chief public health officer, told a briefing.

She repeated comments she made on Wednesday about being cautiously optimistic the outbreak could be slowing down. (The Province) 


 

“Dear Leader’s latest initiative is to sign an executive order banning all immigration, and we can let the courts sort the legality of that out, but, in the meantime, those outside the US may be looking at it the way Canadian Graeme MacKay views living in a nation with intelligent leadership versus the one that is right across the border.”

Here’s an unauthorized version of the April 17, 2020 cartoon which found its way circulating through social media several months after originally posted. Obviously, it isn’t printable in mainstream media, and essentially puts words into the creator’s mouth which is never appreciated.  Whomever the mystery person is behind the re-adaptation gets a Social Media Jackass designation. Folks, remember, artistic work should never be manipulated, unless permission is granted by the artist.  

Thursday January 31, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday January 31, 2019

Trump is the most polarizing president on record — and almost nobody’s opinion of him is changing

Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones put things succinctly.

November 3, 2018

“Extreme partisan views of presidents are the new norm in politics,” he wrote in presenting new data on the partisan gulf in approval of President Trump. “The past 15 presidential years account for 14 of the top 15 most polarized years since Gallup began regularly measuring both job approval and party identification in the 1950s.”

The exception? 1996, when President Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 85 percent from Democrats and 24 percent from Republicans. To which the natural reaction is: His approval rating among Republicans was that high?

Since 2010, the average presidential approval rating from an opposing party in a year hasn’t topped 13 percent — and that was in 2010, when President Barack Obama’s approval rating was still slipping from his post-inauguration high.

The gap now is 79 points, 21 points shy of the maximum possible gap.

Who knows. Maybe we’ll get there.

But there’s another interesting aspect to Trump’s approval ratings that is worth isolating. The gap in 2017, according to Gallup, was only slightly narrower. Unlike Obama, Trump didn’t enjoy a period of broader support at the time of his inauguration. Views of Trump have been remarkably consistent by party since he took office.

There’s some movement, but not a lot. Data released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University make that clear. In Quinnipiac’s first poll of Trump’s favorability, taken less than a week after his inauguration, about a fifth of Americans had no opinion of his job performance. In the next poll, taken in early February 2017, 42 percent approved of his performance (including 88 percent of Republicans), and 51 percent disapproved (including 90 percent of Democrats). In Tuesday’s poll? Forty-one percent approve (including 86 percent of Republicans), and 55 percent disapprove (including 93 percent of Democrats).

Polar Vortex Animated Version!

What’s more, we’d normally expect some movement within those groups, as people who strongly supported the president became less enthusiastic or those who opposed him a bit grew more fervent. But while there are some isolated examples of shifts within each group in Quinnipiac’s polling, how strongly people view Trump has been steady over the course of the presidency. (Washington Post)