Connect with us

Alberta

Province of Alberta offering third dose of Covid-19 vaccine to seniors living in care facilities

Published

4 minute read

Third vaccine doses available Sept. 1

Starting Sept. 1, third doses of COVID-19 vaccine will be available for all seniors living in congregate care facilities and for immunocompromised Albertans.

Alberta’s government has always prioritized the care of our most vulnerable. Alberta was one of the first provinces to offer vaccines to seniors in congregate care facilities and to immunocompromised Albertans.

Receiving a third dose will boost immunity levels and improve protection for all seniors living in congregate care facilities and individuals with compromised immune systems.

In addition, mRNA doses will be made available to Albertans who are travelling to a jurisdiction that does not accept visitors who have been vaccinated with Covishield/AstraZeneca or mixed doses.

“We remain committed to protecting Albertans from COVID-19, and vaccinations are the safest and most effective way to offer this protection. We have always relied on the latest research to guide our decision-making, and now that evidence shows immunocompromised individuals and seniors in congregate care will benefit from getting a third dose, we are pleased to provide them.”

Tyler Shandro, Minister of Health

“The data shows that additional doses will offer stronger protection for immunocompromised individuals and older Albertans living in supportive living facilities. Just as we offered these individuals earlier access to COVID-19 vaccines and a shorter four-week interval between doses, we will continue to work to protect all Albertans as new data emerges. However, the best way for us to protect each other is still for as many people as possible to be fully immunized.”

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, chief medical officer of health

Seniors living in congregate care

Seniors living in congregate care facilities will be eligible to receive their third dose approximately five months after their second dose. Eligible residents will receive their third doses at their facilities.

Immunocompromising conditions

Immunocompromising conditions that qualify for an additional dose at least eight weeks after their second dose include:

  • Transplant recipients, including solid organ transplants and hematopoietic stem cell transplants.
  • Individuals with chronic kidney disease who are receiving regular dialysis.
  • Individuals in active cancer treatment (chemotherapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapies) excluding those receiving only hormonal therapy, radiation therapy or surgery.
  • Individuals on certain medications for autoimmune diseases, including rituximab, ocrelizumab and ofatumumab.

Travel vaccinations

Albertans with two valid doses of any vaccine used in Alberta are considered to have received a complete series.

However, some jurisdictions outside of Canada have indicated that they will not accept visitors who have been vaccinated with Covishield/AstraZeneca or mixed doses.

Additional mRNA doses will be made available at least 28 days after a second dose to Albertans who are travelling to a jurisdiction that does not accept visitors who have been vaccinated with Covishield/AstraZeneca or mixed doses.

Quick facts

  • There are 118,000 individuals who would be eligible for an additional COVID-19 vaccine dose based on being immunocompromised (approximately 60,000 Albertans) and those living in seniors supportive living (approximately 58,000 Albertans).
  • To date, 77.9 per cent of Albertans aged 12-plus have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 69.7 per cent have received two doses.
  • Immunizations records are available through MyHealth Records. Albertans who are travelling can also use their hard copy record that was provided at the time of vaccination.

This is a news release from the Government of Alberta.

Follow Author

Alberta

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Published on

Aristotle Foundation Home

 

 

By J. Edward Les, MD

 

Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.

But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.

And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.

Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.

Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.

And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.

Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.

The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.

But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”

It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.

Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.

Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:

“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”

Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”

As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.

The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.

Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.

Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

 

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

 

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children. 

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X