Task Force report offers a welcome second opinion on the Covid response
[Written as a newspaper op-ed but not (yet?) published elsewhere.]
“The Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Final Report” is a critical reassessment of the province’s management of the emergency situation, focusing on governance, data interpretation, and decision-making. It argues that Alberta’s response was overly reliant on international models, abandoned its pre-existing pandemic plans, and suppressed dissenting medical voices, leading to disproportionate societal harms. The report advocates for greater transparency, a return to evidence-based planning, and the discontinuation of Covid vaccination, reflecting a broad skepticism about mainstream public health policies.
To be precise, the Task Force recommends discontinuing the use of the mRNA vaccines unless individuals receive proper informed consent prior to the injection, which includes full disclosure of potential risks and uncertainties. This should be routine practice as with any medical intervention, yet anecdotal evidence suggests that little or no information was provided to recipients during mass Covid vaccination events. This is concerning as the manufacturers’ official product monographs contained warnings about limited data on long-term safety and unknown duration of protection. The wording of these labels was negotiated with public health agencies during the vaccines’ authorization processes.
In addition, our awareness of risks and uncertainties changed during the vaccination campaigns, with emerging information on “break-through cases”, waning protection, and a significantly increased risk of heart inflammation in teenagers and young men. Thus, truly informed consent remains necessary prior to any medical intervention, whether in a crisis or during routine care, and certainly including Covid boosters. Informed consent also involves the right to “do your own research”, which was disputed during the pandemic both directly in mainstream media hit pieces and indirectly through widespread suppression and censorship of dissenting opinions.
Among other “controversial” recommendations, the Task Force criticizes prolonged lockdowns as well as business and school closures, arguing they caused disproportionate harm to mental health, education, and the economy. They caution against future lockdowns unless there is clear, evidence-based justification that considers the collateral damage of restrictions alongside any benefits. The report also questions the effectiveness of mask mandates for the general public citing references to published studies. The Task Force recommends that masking remains voluntary, emphasizing that policies need to be based on high-quality evidence rather than a one-sided interpretation of the “precautionary principle” and political pressures. Last but not least, and in contrast to many European countries, the report points out that “infection-acquired immunity” (natural immunity) was greatly under-valued in public health decision-making in Canada; an entire chapter is dedicated to this important concern.
Premier Danielle Smith commissioned this work as a “data review”, and the panel around Dr. Gary Davidson did indeed critically examine the types and quality of the data that informed public health communications and decision-making, pointing out biases, gaps, and inconsistencies in how evidence was selected and applied. For example, the vaccine’s ability to reduce viral transmission was scrutinized much less strictly than were the possible benefits of alternative medications. In reviewing the regulatory bodies’ guidance, FAQs, and other communications, the Task Force generally found an overwhelming reliance on government sources and a lack of primary research, interpreted as “an indicator of due diligence by the Colleges [that] was exceedingly low.” This could be construed as a dereliction of the Colleges’ legal duty to update professional standards of practice.
It was both informative and frustrating to observe the response from the medical establishment over the last two weeks since the report was posted to Alberta’s open government database. Criticism ranged from “anti-science and anti-evidence” in a letter from the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) to Global News calling the report “an attempt to ‘rewrite history’” and the Globe and Mail labeling it as ”a dangerous affront to science.” The AMA is one of the professional and regulatory bodies heavily criticized by the Task Force for suppressing debate. Their unsubstantiated critique of the report is ironic and confirms that they misunderstand the scientific process, just as several of the other commenters do. The charge of “rewriting history” is equally ironic, as the numerous public health agencies around the world are attempting to do exactly that, by giving themselves a pass in internal evaluations of their pandemic response measures.
The Globe and Mail’s sequence of responses was particularly interesting. Their first piece from January 24 summarized a number of points from the report using a somewhat neutral stance, including the recommendation to “halt [the] COVID-19 vaccines”, which several other news organizations also highlighted, initially without qualification, in their titles or subtitles. The Globe then reported on a correction of the published report (Jan 27) and on Premier Smith’s defense of the Task Force (Jan 29). In two more recent opinion pieces, the writers, including the co-chairs of the Alberta Health Services’ COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group, actually engaged with the contents of the report and pointed out several contentious points. Yet, their own evidence was limited and showed no willingness to address valid critiques and uncertainties; instead a derogatory tone prevailed. This is not surprising as the Task Force explicitly reprimanded the Scientific Advisory Group for the lacking depth and objectivity in their rapid evidence reviews that informed Alberta’s public health policies.
Task Force Chair Davidson is an MD and retired chief of a hospital emergency department as well as associate professor at the University of Alberta. The other report authors and contributors are trained in a variety of relevant disciplines and bring a wealth of experience to the table, having been immersed in critically examining the Covid pandemic response. Paraphrasing the Globe’s “Albertans deserved a post-pandemic review,” I suggest that Albertans asked for a second opinion, and they certainly received one. Now is the time to compare and contrast different assessments of the pandemic response and decide which direction we want to take next time. Panic, fear, and groupthink led to sweeping restrictions with unaccounted side effects. Instead, we could have kept our calm, made common sense observations, and thought about long term consequences in order to make evidence-based, locally targeted public health recommendations with fewer negative consequences.
I have also written a shorter summary of the Task Force report for the Toronto Sun, see “Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic data review further evidence of mismanaged crisis.” If you are wondering what I have been doing since my last Substack post, check out RECOVER19.org.