Connect with us

COVID-19

Public Health Agency of Canada “not recommending an additional bivalent booster for the general population this spring”

Published

5 minute read

The federal and provincial governments will have to figure out what to do with millions of COVID-19 vaccine boosters now that it appears they’ll go unused.  On Friday, the Public Health Agency of Canada announced through it’s twitter feed that booster shots should now only be considered for Canadians “at high risk of severe illness”.
Those considered at high risk are those over 80 years old, people between 65 and 79 who haven’t contracted COVID-19 yet, residents living in long-term care homes or with other seniors with complex medical needs, and adults 18 and over who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.
The vast majority of Canadians have already been avoiding the booster shots.  Almost 80% of Canadians haven’t taken a booster in the last 6 months.
It’s also been about 6 months since the Public Health Agency of Canada has reported on the likelihood of becoming ill with COVID-19, being hospitalized or dying while vaccinated and boosted. The last report was made public back at the end of September.

 

Below is the statement on the Public Health Agency of Canada website from Friday, March 3:

OVERVIEW

  • On March 3, 2023, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) released guidance from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) on an additional COVID-19 booster dose in the spring of 2023 for individuals at high risk of severe illness due to COVID-19. This guidance is based on current evidence, vaccine principles and NACI expert opinion.
  • NACI now recommends that: Starting in the spring of 2023, an additional booster dose may be offered 6 or more months from the last COVID-19 vaccine dose or infection to the following individuals who are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19: (Discretionary NACI recommendation)
    • Adults 80 years of age and older
    • Adults 65 to 79 years of age, particularly if they do not have a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection
    • Adult residents of long-term care homes and other congregate living settings for seniors or those with complex medical care needs
    • Adults 18 years of age and older who are moderately to severely immunocompromised due to an underlying condition or treatment
  • Bivalent Omicron-targeting mRNA COVID-19 vaccines continue to be the preferred booster products.
  • Individuals who have not received previously recommended doses, including a primary series or fall 2022 booster dose, are recommended to receive them now. For more information, please refer to Guidance on COVID-19 vaccine booster doses: Initial considerations for 2023.

QUOTES

“Bivalent booster dose uptake is still relatively low among the populations at risk of severe disease, and we hope to see this improve. Older adults, particularly those over 80 years, consistently have the highest risk of severe disease, especially if they are unvaccinated. We have historically seen patterns of waning protection against severe disease by 6 months after the last dose, particularly in older adults without prior infection. Because of this, as a precautionary measure, NACI is recommending this spring that an additional bivalent booster dose may be offered after 6 months for those at highest risk of severe disease, including older adults and persons who are moderately to severely immunocompromised. There may be a broader program in fall of 2023, depending on COVID-19 epidemiology.”

– Dr. Shelley Deeks, NACI Chair

“It remains important to stay up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines, including recommended booster doses, given the continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2 virus variants in Canada and elsewhere. Booster doses help to build back protection against severe disease that wanes over time after COVID-19 vaccination or infections. Given the current COVID-19 epidemiology, including the relatively stable disease activity we have observed in recent months, and generally high levels of antibodies against COVID-19 from vaccines and/or infection among Canadians, NACI is currently not recommending an additional bivalent booster for the general population this spring. However, individuals at highest risk of getting severely ill from COVID-19, including older adults and individuals considered immunocompromised, may be offered a spring bivalent booster dose. Regardless of risk factors, I encourage anyone who has not yet received their primary series or their fall 2022 bivalent booster to get these vaccinations now to reduce their risk of severe outcomes of COVID-19, including hospitalization.”

– Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Business

Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’

A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.

MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.

“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.

“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.

The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”

As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.

Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”

“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.

Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’

Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.

“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”

The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”

“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”

LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.

The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A jury ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan committed religious discrimination against 30-year IT specialist and Catholic Lisa Domski when it denied her a religious accommodation from the company’s COVID shot mandate.

A former IT specialist for Blue Cross Blue Shield has been awarded $12 million in damages and lost wages for her lawsuit over being fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot, in a major victory for religious liberty.

Newsweek reports that the insurance company fired 30-year employee Lisa Domski in 2021 after she sought a religious exemption to their jab mandate and was turned down. The insurer reportedly questioned the sincerity of her religious objections as a Catholic, but denied religious discrimination in the trial. 

Domski further maintained that the rationale behind mandating the shot didn’t apply in her case, as 75% of her work was remote before the pandemic and had shifted to fully remote during it, meaning she could not possibly have endangered others even if the shot did prevent transmission, which has since been admitted to not be the case.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion,” declared her attorney Jon Marko. “Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience. Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan] that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”

In response, the company said it was “disappointed” in the jury verdict and would be “reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”

Many religious and pro-life Americans like Lisa Domski have a moral objection to using medical products whose existence is owed in some way to abortion.

According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design and development and production phases. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science has admitted the same, and even the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes acknowledges the statement “that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate.”

Moral qualms are just one of the reasons for the ongoing controversy, next to a large body of evidence identifying significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed mandating them and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists favorably inclined to the rights of employees in similar lawsuits.

Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X