Vindication and the Broken System
PoPNB Concerns Echoed in Advocate's Report
Kelly Lamrock, New Brunswick’s Child, Youth and Seniors' Advocate has published what could be considered a damning condemnation of Public Health's decision to remove masking in schools and in so doing, has publicly and officially acknowledged the reality of the current crisis in New Brunswick. The clear and critical review of Public Health’s baseless and negligent decisions are a veneration of the continued work of PoPNB.
In the report released today, Lamrock begins by clearly stating what has been obvious to readers of the legislation.
It would be the guidance of our office that, when a child or a member of their immediate family would be at risk of death or serious complications by the contraction of COVID even if fully vaccinated, and if the conditions in the common learning environment create a reasonable risk of that child contracting and communicating COVID, then the District is under a legal and ethical obligation to provide free services in an accommodated setting during the period of risk.
Lamrock further confirms what PoPNB advocates have been saying since the decision to remove masking in schools was announced on February 24, 2022; specifically that both the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Jennifer Russell and the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Dominic Cardy have legislated authority (through the Public Health Act and the Education Act respectively) to implement universal masking in schools, regardless of the presence of an emergency order.
Despite the legislated authority of both the CMOH and the Minister of EECD, each has been engaged in weeks of buck-passing on the topic of who is capable of making decisions on students’ wellbeing. Lamrock notes
There was mutual statutory responsibility, and decisionmakers were each stating that another office was free to revise or change the decision. Further, we could not see any signs that the hallmarks of a transparent decision - explanation, predictive benchmarks, measurement, and accountability- were being provided publicly. Given that part of the stated reason for the lifting of the mask mandate and other restrictions was that individuals would be empowered to make their own decisions and supported in their choices, this public sense of vagueness and confusion was not in the interests of children.
The report asks seven questions:
Why does Jennifer Russel suggest that masking was dropped due to vaccines being more effective? Russell has made this claim to the media before and reiterates it in her response to the Advocate (included in the report). Early in the pandemic, Russell preached the need for a layered approach. Where has this precautionary logic gone? Masking and vaccines are not mutually exclusive.
Why is Public Health conflating correlation with causation? The concerns Russell cites regarding children’s development are valid, yet neither her nor her office can offer any data supporting masks as a causal factor. In the past, Russell has bemoaned the mental health impacts of masks, citing studies that conclude the presence of a global pandemic is likely the cause of children’s anxiety.
Why is Public Health ignoring the established science around the vascular impacts of Covid? There is an abundance of research confirming the neurological and physiological harm caused by even mild Covid infections. Russell and her team have not even publicly acknowledged the existence of these impacts, let alone taken them into account in the decision to remove universal masking.
Why is Public Health ignoring the obvious subsequent effects on families when children bring Covid home? It appears that there has been no thought given to the families of children who cannot, by nature of their vulnerable conditions, partake in maskless schooling while a deadly virus runs rampant. The response of district officials has been particularly egregious, with some suggesting parents shut up and homeschool at their own expense; a suggestion which not only shows disregard for the wellbeing of students, but an ignorance of established law. In New Brunswick, the Education Act requires that any student who cannot be accommodated in a public classroom must be provided alternative access at the districts’ expense.
Why is the decision making process so broken? The passing of value decisions as scientific decisions is apparent throughout the entire ordeal surrounding this issue. Premier Blaine Higgs and Minister Cardy have consistently deflected any decision making responsibility onto Public Health, a group who should be informing decisions, not making them. There has also been a dearth of input from the arguable authority on education systems; the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Minister Cardy has repeated his just doing what we’re told speech ad nauseam.
Why are decision makers doggedly following other provinces and jurisdictions instead of basing decisions on New Brunswick context? We have constantly heard Higgs and Russell justify their decisions by a bizarre mob mentality ideology. We are told the decision suits New Brunswick because other places have made similar decisions. This statement ignores the fact that every neighbouring province has kept masks in schools; why aren’t we extolling these provinces as models to follow?
Why have children’s rights been ignored? While Russell opines on the unsubstantiated “harms of masking” there is no apparent consideration being given to children’s legislated rights to health, security and liberty (under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), all of which are impacted by the decision to remove masks from schools. It bears stating that the requirement to wear a mask, where one would exist, does not infringe on any of these rights.
It is simultaneously fortifying and disheartening to read these statements from a government office. Fortifying because we hear our voices echoed in the concerns of the Advocate. Disheartening because it has taken so long for any acknowledgement of what is so clearly a corrupt system operating against the citizenry of New Brunswick.
What we have been saying for so long is that decisions must be based on science, even as it evolves, and must explicitly consider the rights and needs of those most affected by the presence of Covid-19. Furthermore, decisions and the quantitative, factual data they are based on must be clearly communicated to all New Brunswickers. What we see from the Child, Youth and Seniors’ Advocate’s report is that there is no evidence any of this has happened.
The report concludes with the following eight recommendations provided here verbatim.
1. The lifting of mask mandates and other restrictions around testing, reporting and attendance in schools should be revisited de novo by Public Health, with a goal of issuing a proper decision by May 21, 2022. This process should co-ordinate with EECD and should explicitly consider all relevant factors and children's rights, linking its conclusions to evidence.
2. The Departments of Health and Education and Early Childhood Development should coordinate and issue a protocol for making and communicating regulations in schools and early learning facilities with regards to COVID, which co-ordinates their input and ensures both departments are accountable for decisions.
3. The Departments of Health and Education and Early Childhood Development should coordinate and issue clear protocols for school leaders regarding when a student must test, report and/or absent themselves from school due to exposure, symptoms or a positive test.
4. The Departments of Health and Education and Early Childhood Development should coordinate and issue a plan to make appropriate rapid tests available to schools.
5. Public Health, in consultation with EECD, should hone and clarify the health and pedagogical indicators it will be tracking to judge the impact of the removal of the mask mandate and elaborate clearly on what benchmarks would lead to a review of the decision.
6. Public Health should include long-term impacts of COVID upon youth to the areas which it is monitoring and weighing in making recommendations.
7. Public Health and EECD should develop a strategy, backed up with regulation if necessary, to raise the low vaccination rate of children age 5-11. Public Health, having opposed enforcement of vaccine rules through registration, should be clear as to what alternate steps it would recommend.
8. EECD should require that school districts meet their obligations at law to accommodate students with a need to protect vulnerable family members. The need for protection, as per our guidance, will be dependent upon medical advice and the monitored spread and risk of COVID within the school, as per the legal guidance at Appendix "C". Public Health can assist EECD with guidelines in this regard.
At this point it seems unlikely that any of the above recommendations will be implemented as the government continues its sunk-cost approach to managing this horrific policy failure.
We should comfortably expect that decisions impacting the health of the Province’s children would be made with competence and compassion. This comfort is denied us and each additional display of indifference and disregard for the pleas from doctors, educators, scientists and advocates clarifies the fact that it was never there.
If you would like to receive PoPNB posts in your email, please subscribe below. If you found this post helpful, please share it with your community.