Alberta
Open letter to Canada’s Premiers calling for pivot in response, end to lockdowns
Premiers,
It has been over one full year since the declaration of the Pandemic. SARS CoV-2 has been in Canada much longer than that, as you well know.
You are responsible for the response in each of your jurisdictions. While the Medical Officers of Health (MOH) are equally responsible for the advice they have given, you personally were elected to lead. They were not.
Your own statistics prove that for people under the age of 60, SARS CoV-2 is not something to be feared. In one full year, people under the age of 60 are twice as likely to die from a heart disease. For people 20 – 40 years old, they are five times more likely to die in a car accident. Worldwide 2.54 million people die from Pneumonic annually. SARS CoV-2 has killed under 2 Million in a year. The risk from SARS CoV-2 has been widely exaggerated, by you, your MOH and the media.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778/full
For people over 60, your approach has failed our seniors.
Canada has ranked last in the Organization of Economically Developed Countries (OECD) in care of those most at risk to SARS CoV-2. Over 96% of all reported SARS CoV-2 deaths were in our seniors. Even Canada’s Chief Medical Officer of Health admitted this is Canada’s shame.
Your use of “lockdowns” did not save over 21,000 of our seniors. It failed them.
The use of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) which we now call “lockdowns” was known to have little effect on the spread of infectious diseases long before SARS CoV-2 arrived. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) assembled the best infectious disease doctors in the world to write the 2019 version of “Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Measures”. If you read the document, for a Pandemic of the severity of SARS CoV-2, most of these measures were not recommended for use. Yet we used almost all of them.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf
Top infectious disease doctors in the world have proven in repeated detail peer reviewed research papers all over again that “lockdowns” do not have significant impacts on either the spread or deaths for SARS CoV-2. Yet you and the media constantly tell us they do. But one of the many in depth studies found: “While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions”.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
What is also know is that “lockdowns” cause terrible collateral damage. The damage to Canadians Mental Health, Societal Health, Children’s Education and Social Development, Patients with other Severe Illnesses and to our National Economy (Federal and Provincial/Territorial) will continue, until you remove and promise never to inflict “lockdowns again. These impacts and deaths seem not to be considered in any cost benefit analysis by you or your MOH.
Many of the world’s experts have tried to help target the response to SARS CoV-2 to save the most vulnerable, while minimizing the effects on the rest of our population. You have ignored these experts. In fact, most of these experts have been completely censored by you, your MOH and the media.
Please read the attached Paper, “One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada”. The Paper states what we had collectively planned to do in a Pandemic, what we have done, and how to pivot out of our failed response.
It is time to stop.
Listen to all expert voices.
Pivot.
Thank you for your time.
David Redman
Lieutenant Colonel (Retired)
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
Emergency Management
Pandemics happen continuously. Since 1955, this is the world’s fifth pandemic. In the next fifty-five years there is going to be five more. We have never responded to a pandemic like we responded to COVID-19.
It must be clear that a pandemic is not a Public Health Emergency, it is a Public Emergency because all areas of society are affected: public sector, private sector, not- for-profit sector, and all citizens.
In Canada, we have an Emergency Management Process that we normally use in a pandemic. We have pre-written Pandemic Response plans. These plans were written incorporating the hard lessons learned from previous pandemics.
Part of the lessons learned from previous pandemics is contained in the World Health Organization (WHO) “Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza” dated 2019.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf
This document included the world’s best studies and information on the use of 15 separate non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). The use of these NPIs was discussed in the development of the existing Provincial Plans.
The 2019 WHO document was known, or should have been known, by all Medical Officers of Health in Canada. The use of each of the NPIs was dependant on the severity of the pandemic. Even in a High or Extraordinary Pandemic the use of all or most of these NPIs at the same time was not envisioned.
Prior to the use of each NPI, the Federal and Provincial/Territorial governments needed to demonstrably justify how each NPI would protect the life of Canadians. Some of the NPIs were not recommended for use in any pandemic, including:
- Contact Tracing (not recommended after first two weeks)
- Quarantine of Exposed Individuals
- Entry and Exit Screening
- Border Closures
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
Some of the NPIs were recommended for use only as a last resort, including: • Workplace Measures and Closures
Despite this, they were used as a first resort.
Some NPIs were not recommended for a pandemic with the severity of COVID-19, including:
- School Measures and Closures
- Face Masks for Public These recommendations were ignored.The lack of any attempt to publicly demonstrate a cost benefit analysis based on life and impact on lives shows a complete disregard for “Due Diligence” by both our Medical Officers of Health (MOH) and our Premiers.
In summary on NPIs, the collateral damage from the use of each NPI needed to be justified in a cost benefit analysis, showing not only what life saving could be expected, but what the short-term and long-term impact on lives would be. Further, it needed to be demonstrably shown why the WHO recommendations were ignored. This was never done for any of the NPIs invoked.
The aim of the pre-written pandemic plans is to allow our leaders to rapidly minimize the impact of a new pandemic on our society. The four goals of the pandemic plans are clearly defined:
• Controlling the spread of influenza disease and reducing illness (morbidity) and death (mortality) by providing access to appropriate prevention measures, care, and treatment.
• Mitigating societal disruption in Alberta through ensuring the continuity and recovery of critical services.
• Minimizing adverse economic impact.
• Supporting an efficient and effective use of resources during response and recovery
https://www.alberta.ca/pandemic-influenza.aspx#toc-1
The purpose in writing these plans in advance is to ensure the government could rapidly advise the public of the scope of the new hazard and publicly issue a complete written plan to address it. That way the public can see the entire plan, see the phases of the plan, and all steps that will be taken. The public understands their role in the plan. The response to the pandemic would then be coherent.
This has not happened.
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
The Canadian Response – Not Based on Emergency Management
The Canadian response to COVID-19 has been incoherent, constantly changing, and with no plan. The sole focus on COVID-19 case counts led to a completely flawed response trying to deal only with the first pandemic goal, and failing.
In February and March 2020 we knew that over 95% of the deaths in China and Europe were in seniors, over the age of 60, with multiple co-morbidities.
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
We should have immediately developed options for the protection of concentrations of our seniors over 60 with co-morbidities. Our Long Term Care (LTC) homes should have developed and offered quarantine options, for both the residents and the staff.
In our first full year of COVID-19 in Canada, 96% of our over 22,800 deaths have been in seniors, over the age of 60, with multiple co-morbidities. See Figure 5 in link below, updated weekly by Health Canada.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19- cases.html
That is over 21,890 deaths. It is likely that thousands of these deaths could have been avoided, as over 80% of the deaths in the first wave occurred in LTC homes.
After one full year, we stand at 73% of the 22,880 deaths in LTC homes, 16,700 of our seniors. Our country ranked last in the OECD for protecting our seniors.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadas-nursing-homes-have-worst-record- for-covid-deaths-among-wealthy-nations-report/ar-BB1f76sw
This may have cost $2 billion, but could have saved over 16,700 lives as 73% of Canadian deaths have been in LTC homes in the first year of COVID-19. Instead we locked down healthy Canadians and our businesses and spent well over $240 billion to force over 8 million healthy Canadians to stay at home. The cost mounts daily.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tracking-unprecedented-federal-coronavirus-spending- 1.5827045
We did not need to follow the failed lock down practice of China or Europe. Lockdowns have not saved 21,890 of our Canadian seniors. We knew who was most at risk and had time to provide the option of quarantine for our seniors, both in LTC homes and in society. Instead, we sacrificed our seniors.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/world/elderly-care-homes-coronavirus-intl/index.html
In June 2020, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported that Canada had a higher
proportion of COVID-19 deaths within LTC settings than other OECD countries included in its
comparison. At that time, deaths in Canadian LTCs from COVID-19 were at 81% of the total, while
OECD countries reported LTC COVID-19 deaths of 10-66% (average of 38%) of their totals.
The CBC News analysis has tracked $105.66 billion in federal payments to individuals; $118.37
billion that has gone to businesses, non-profits and charitable organizations; and a further
$16.18 billion in transfers to provinces, territories, municipalities and government agencies.
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
Our leaders and doctors constantly tell us we are in danger of overwhelming our medical system. If we had acted to quarantine our seniors’ long term care facilities, our hospital capacity would not have been challenged, as 71% of our hospital beds and 64% of our ICU capacity continue to this day to be filled with seniors. See Figure 5 in link below, updated daily by Health Canada.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19- cases.html
We would not have needed to stop other medical procedures.
https://lfpress.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-canadas-medical-wait-times-longest- ever-because-of-covid-19
We should never have forced healthy medical staff to self-isolate. We should have made rapid testing a priority for all orders of government.
We ignored the other three goals of our pre-existing pandemic plans:
• Mitigating societal disruption in Alberta through ensuring the continuity and recovery of critical services.
• Minimizing adverse economic impact.
• Supporting an efficient and effective use of resources during response and recovery
Ignoring these three goals and following a failed lockdown response has caused massive collateral damage in terms of deaths and long-term effects on our population. Collateral damage, largely ignored by mainstream media, includes but is not limited to:
- Societal health,
- Mental health,
- Other health conditions,
- Children’s education and social development,
- Economic healthhttps://pandemicalternative.org/ https://collateralglobal.org/
We are told that lockdowns (i.e. the persistent use of NPIs) has decreased the spread and deaths from COVID-19. Therefore, it is assumed that the collateral deaths are somehow justified. Nothing could be further from the truth.
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
We knew from the WHO 2019 NPI document cited earlier that the use of most NPIs have little effect on the spread of a virus. It was a lesson learned. Unfortunately, it had to be proved again through studies by some of the best infectious disease doctors in the world. One such study on the spread of COVID-19 is quoted:
“European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of
COVID‐19
Methods
We first estimate COVID‐19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States. Using first‐difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, 2 countries that did not implement mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).
Conclusions
While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
Further comment on deaths from COVID-19 and non-lockdown countries compared to lockdown countries:
https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/23/lockdown-one-year-on-it-doesnt-work-it-never- worked-it-wasnt-supposed-to-work/
COVID-19 has followed the annual seasonal infection curve almost exactly, in spite of lockdowns in our country. Our MOH and Premiers take credit for the seasons when it is in their favour and blame their citizens when seasons dictate “exponential increases”. Our Premiers and MOHs continue to abandon our Emergency Management Process and give in to fear.
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
Conclusions – An Emergency Management and Science Based Way Ahead
Canadians deserve a confidence-based response to the COVID-19 pandemic and all future pandemics. An eight-point process is proposed for the immediate future:
|
1. Releaseacomprehensive,FourGoal-basedPandemicPlan,showingwhatis to be done phase by phase, and what the public’s role is in each phase. |
|
One Year of COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Canada March 31, 2021
David Redman
Former Head of Emergency Management Alberta
7. Geteveryoneunder65withoutpre-existingcompromisedimmune systems, who can and want to work, fully back to work.
8. Continuetovaccinateassafeandeffectivevaccinesbecomeavailable,for the current strain of COVID-19.
Canada’s Response to COVID-19 After One Year
2025 Federal Election
Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.
And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.
Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.
For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).
As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.
Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.
So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?
For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.
Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.
The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.
Alberta
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
Expanding urgent care across Alberta
If passed, Budget 2025 includes $17 million in planning funds to support the development of urgent care facilities across the province.
As Alberta’s population grows, so does the demand for health care. In response, the government is making significant investments to ensure every Albertan has access to high-quality care close to home. Currently, more than 35 per cent of emergency department visits are for non-life-threatening conditions that could be treated at urgent care centres. By expanding these centres, Alberta’s government is enhancing the health care system and improving access to timely care.
If passed, Budget 2025 includes $15 million to support plans for eight new urgent care centres and an additional $2 million in planning funds for an integrated primary and urgent care facility in Airdrie. These investments will help redirect up to 200,000 lower-acuity emergency department visits annually, freeing up capacity for life-threatening cases, reducing wait times and improving access to care for Albertans.
“More people are choosing to call Alberta home, which is why we are taking action to build capacity across the health care system. Urgent care centres help bridge the gap between primary care and emergency departments, providing timely care for non-life-threatening conditions.”
“Our team at Infrastructure is fully committed to leading the important task of planning these eight new urgent care facilities across the province. Investments into facilities like these help strengthen our communities by alleviating strains on emergency departments and enhance access to care. I am looking forward to the important work ahead.”
The locations for the eight new urgent care centres were selected based on current and projected increases in demand for lower-acuity care at emergency departments. The new facilities will be in west Edmonton, south Edmonton, Westview (Stony Plain/Spruce Grove), east Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Cold Lake and Fort McMurray.
“Too many Albertans, especially those living in rural communities, are travelling significant distances to receive care. Advancing plans for new urgent care centres will build capacity across the health care system.”
“Additional urgent care centres across Alberta will give Albertans more options for accessing the right level of care when it’s needed. This is a necessary and substantial investment that will eventually ease some of the pressures on our emergency departments.”
The remaining $2 million will support planning for One Health Airdrie’s integrated primary and urgent care facility. The operating model, approved last fall, will see One Health Airdrie as the primary care operator, while urgent care services will be publicly funded and operated by a provider selected through a competitive process.
“Our new Airdrie facility, offering integrated primary and urgent care, will provide same-day access to approximately 30,000 primary care patients and increase urgent care capacity by around 200 per cent, benefiting the entire community and surrounding areas. We are very excited.”
Alberta’s government will continue to make smart, strategic investments in health facilities to support the delivery of publicly funded health programs and services to ensure Albertans have access to the care they need, when and where they need it.
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts
- The $2 million in planning funds for One Health Airdrie are part of a total $24-million investment to advance planning on several health capital initiatives across the province through Budget 2025.
- Alberta’s population is growing, and visits to emergency departments are projected to increase by 27 per cent by 2038.
- Last year, Alberta’s government provided $8.4 million for renovations to the existing Airdrie Community Health Centre.
Related information
The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
Canadian officials warn Communist China ‘highly likely’ to interfere in 2025 election
Publicity Kills DEI: A Free Speech Solution to Woke Companies
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
Support local healthcare while winning amazing prizes!
Poilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago2025 Federal Election Interference from China! Carney Pressed to Remove Liberal MP Over CCP Bounty Remark
-
Uncategorized2 days agoPoilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoWelcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Joe Tay Says He Contacted RCMP for Protection, Demands Carney Fire MP Over “Bounty” Remark
-
Media2 days agoTop Five Huge Stories the Media Buried This Week
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoChinese Election Interference – NDP reaction to bounty on Conservative candidate