‘New variant’ of coronavirus identified in England reports BBC

Published4 hours agoShareRelated Topics

Coronavirus

A new variant of coronavirus has been found which is growing faster in some parts of England, MPs have been told.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said at least 60 different local authorities had recorded Covid infections caused by the new variant.

He said the World Health Organization had been notified and UK scientists were doing detailed studies.

He said there was “nothing to suggest” it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work.https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.36.7/iframe.htmlmedia captionA new variant of Covid could be speeding up the spread of cases in parts of south east England, says Matt Hancock.

He told MPs in the House of Commons that over the last week, there had been sharp, exponential rises in coronavirus infections across London, Kent, parts of Essex and Hertfordshire.

“We’ve currently identified over 1,000 cases with this variant predominantly in the South of England although cases have been identified in nearly 60 different local authority areas.

“We do not know the extent to which this is because of the new variant but no matter its cause we have to take swift and decisive action which unfortunately is absolutely essential to control this deadly disease while the vaccine is rolled out.”ADVERTISEMENT

England’s Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Whitty said current coronavirus swab tests would detect the new variant that has been found predominantly in Kent and neighbouring areas in recent weeks.

The changes or mutations involve the spike protein of the virus – the part that helps it infect cells, and the target Covid vaccines are designed around.

It is too soon to know exactly what this will do to the behaviour of the virus.

Prof Alan McNally, an expert at the University of Birmingham, told the BBC: “Let’s not be hysterical. It doesn’t mean it’s more transmissible or more infectious or dangerous.

“It is something to keep an eye on.

“Huge efforts are ongoing at characterising the variant and understanding its emergence. It is important to keep a calm and rational perspective on the strain as this is normal virus evolution and we expect new variants to come and go and emerge over time.”

Dr Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome, said it was potentially serious. “The surveillance and research must continue and we must take the necessary steps to stay ahead of the virus.”

Analysis box by James Gallagher, health and science correspondent

There is a simple rule for understanding all “new strain” or “new variants”: Ask whether the behaviour of the virus has changed.

This is crucial as viruses mutate all the time, it’s just what they do. And so far we’ve been given the “scare” but not the “answer”.

Matt Hancock said the new variant of coronavirus “may be associated” with the faster spread in the south-east of England.

This is not the same as saying it “is causing” the rise and Mr Hancock did not say this virus has evolved to spread from person-to-person more readily.

New strains can become more common for reasons that have nothing to do with the virus.

One explanation for the emergence of the “Spanish strain” over the summer was tourism.

So at the moment there are scary headlines everywhere, but still no scientific detail to know how significant this is.

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology at Nottingham University, said: “The genetic information in many viruses can change very rapidly and sometimes these changes can benefit the virus – by allowing it to transmit more efficiently or to escape from vaccines or treatments – but many changes have no effect at all.

“Even though a new genetic variant of the virus has emerged and is spreading in many parts of the UK and across the world, this can happen purely by chance.

“Therefore, it is important that we study any genetic changes as they occur, to work out if they are affecting how the virus behaves, and until we have done that important work it is premature to make any claims about the potential impacts of virus mutation.”

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 12; (A serialized novel by Robert K. Stephen)

Chapter 12

Down and Up

Downsizing is a very unpleasant topic to discuss and painful to recount so let us stop it and budge a bit on that awful subject with this chapter.

Some of the terminated manage to land on their feet quickly. Some never land at all and are destroyed and may end up at Home Depot walking the floor instead of a “cushy” office job at largecorp.

Many just have a very long slog punctuated by near misses which are terribly morally deflationary. I had one of those long slogs. So long in fact my severance ran out and I ended up on Unemployment Insurance! Talk about a low blow!

My rock bottom was at a friend’s estate north of Toronto. A beautiful New Year’s Eve evening. I went out for a solitary walk along a dirt road walking in the fresh snow with the rays of the moon turning the white snow into a brilliant blue. Dinner had been wonderful with several glasses of good red wine. And in the afternoon a few beers watching college football. So with the alcohol and scenery it was a brief escape from my moral misery.

I arrived back in time for a joyous countdown and our hosts happily celebrating the arrival of the New Year. My spirits sunk so very quickly that all I wanted to do was cry. Pretending to be celebratory was a heroic acting feat but I was close to thinking about the best method of suicide. I had reached bottom.

And then several weeks later I was in the midst of cleaning the house and the telephone rang. It was from the head lawyer at an insurance company regulator I had had several interactions with none of which was particularly amicable. I could hardly believe what I heard and that was a contract offer for 6 months with this regulator.

“You have the job but please can you drop by today for a meeting so it looks like we had an interview.” So indeed, I did drop by for a chat which really was can you start on Monday!

This all happened without me ever applying for the job.

And it becomes even more bizarre. The head of this regulatory body, Mr. Stone, had once convened insurance companies to a meeting where he discussed proposed legislation that would affect how insurance companies were offering investment products to pension funds.

The proposed legislation was onerous and CRAP’s regulatory compliance area missed the boat on this proposed legislation so I was brought into the meeting at the last moment.

CRAP’s competitors started to present their plans on how to comply with this legislation and I halted their presentation by addressing the head regulator, Mr. Stone, and challenging his authority to enact such legislation. I asked for some time to consult with external legal counsel on his jurisdiction to enact such legislation.

Boy he looked very pissed!

I did consult with external legal counsel and he agreed about the lack of power of this regulator to enact this insurance company legislation. I managed to get the CRAP competitor capitulators onboard to offer to have our counsel draft some legislation that was far less onerous for insurance companies than that which had been proposed by the regulator. Stone accepted the draft and legislation was passed using our counsel’s draft. I helped insurance companies escape onerous obligations. I still look at this legislation and said to myself what I had done was courageous and brilliant.

I asked my contract offer saviour why you chose me without going through any interview process. Much to my surprise she said that Stone had recommended me! A big cheese regulator I had challenged personally recommended, if not ordered, I be hired for this contract position.

A perceived enemy being a big supporter blew me away. Somewhat like a Hollywood script. Stand up. Challenge and be rewarded.

Holy shit! Employed and back on my feet without even trying.

And being employed makes it so much easier to land another position.

This contract position really was rather boring but unlike largecorp it was 9-5. Not particularly challenging and I really couldn’t figure out what I was supposed to do but being the government, no one seemed to care!

However I was up on my feet and back on the hunt which is far better than crying on New Year’s Eve and contemplating suicide.

Robert K. Stephen’s Best White Wines of 2020: British Columbia rules

Robert K. Stephen’s Best White Wines for 2020

British Columbia cleans up in 2020. In fact this is the first time ever my best white list does not include non-Canadian wines. And the top rated white is;

Whites

Crescent Hill Winery Glennallyn Private Reserve Gewürztraminer 2017, British Columbia $16.99 (95)

Mayhem Wines 2018 Gewurztraminer 2018, British Columbia $15.65 (94)

Sperling 2017 Organic Chardonnay, British Columbia, $32, British Columbia (94)

Pentage 2015 Marsanne & Roussanne, $30.43, British Columbia (94)

Crescent Hill Winery Curvy Girl, $27.99, British Columbia (94)

Oak Bay Gewurztraminer 2015 $17.95, British Columbia (93)

Cave Spring 2019 Pinot Gris, $16.95, Ontario (93)

Pentage 2017 Gewurztraminer, $16.82, British Columbia (92)

 Pentage 2014 Chardonnay $24.35, British Columbia (92)

Tantalus Juveniles Chardonnay 2017, 29.95, British Columbia (92)

Stag’s Hollow 2019 Albariño Shuttleworth Creek, $24, British Columbia (92)

Cave Spring 2018 Estate Grown Riesling, $19.95, Ontario (92)

Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner does not rule out an employer asking if the employee has received a COVID-19 Vaccination

Advisory from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan on questions regarding vaccines for organizations, employers and health trustees

December 11, 2020

Announcements regarding the development of vaccines for COVID-19 has been greeted with excitement. There are still steps to go before the roll out of a vaccine, such as approval, delivery and administering the vaccine. As citizens receive the vaccine, questions arise as to how organizations, health trustees and employers will handle this new reality. In my Advisory from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan on questions, screening or testing by employers regarding COVID-19, I attempted to answer many of the questions surrounding the issue of employers asking questions about screening or testing for COVID-19. This Advisory attempts to answer similar questions in regard to getting the vaccination for COVID-19.

Can organizations ask whether a customer or employee has received a vaccination for COVID-19?

Private sector businesses and other organizations engaged in commercial activities in Saskatchewan are not covered by The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP), but are subject to orders made under The Public Health Act, 1994. Many organizations are covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). I note that PIPEDA only protects personal information of employees of federally regulated businesses, works and undertakings (FWUBs). Those organizations, if they have questions, may have to contact the Federal Privacy Commissioner . It should be noted that the federal government has introduced Bill C-11, which introduces significant changes to PIPEDA. In some cases, PIPEDA provides rules and protection for employee personal information and in others, it does not. Whether an employer in Saskatchewan fits any of the following definitions, the advice below can be considered best practice and an employer can choose to follow it.

What organizations are covered by PIPEDA?

PIPEDA defines an “organization” in Part 1, section 2(1) as follows:

  1. “organization” includes an association, a partnership, a person and a trade union.”

PIPEDA indicates that the “protection of personal information” applies as:

  1. (1) This Part applies to every organization in respect of personal information that

(a) the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; or

PIPEDA defines “commercial activity” as follows:

  1. “commercial activity” means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists.

As one can see, an “organization” is broad and includes a business, community based organization and charity, if that organization carries on commercial activity. In the rest of this Advisory I will refer to them as “organizations”.

Can an employer ask an employee whether they have received the vaccination for COVID-19?

Some employers may be considering whether they will require their employees to receive the vaccine or provide a vaccination certificate for COVID-19. Employers have an obligation to make a workplace safe to work in within reasonable limits. The Saskatchewan Employment Act provides:

General duties of employer

3‑8 Every employer shall:

(a) ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all of the employer’s workers;

…

(h) ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, that the activities of the employer’s workers at a place of employment do not negatively affect the health, safety or welfare at work of the employer, other workers or any self-employed person at the place of employment; and

…

Each employer will have to make a fundamental decision as to whether they need all employees to receive the vaccine or provide a vaccination certificate to make the workplace safer.

Prior to considering what privacy legislation might apply, employers need to seriously consider whether they want to require employees to receive the vaccine or provide a vaccination certificate. Because these vaccines are new, there will be many questions about their use and effectiveness. There may be workplaces where social distancing, wearing masks and washing hands may be determined to be sufficient protection. These are considerations for the employer. Requiring employees to receive the vaccine is a fundamental issue and can be controversial. Requiring proof an employee has received the vaccine is less controversial, but does have privacy implications. It gets us into the issue of whether employers can or should require medical tests in the workplace. There has been considerable debate and court challenges over testing for drugs in the workplace. This particularly is a challenging issue for hospitals, medical clinics, long-term care and group homes. Employers need to know that requiring employees to receive the vaccine or provide a vaccination certificate, might result in a court challenge.

The OPC in “A Matter of Trust: Integrating Privacy and Public Safety in the 21st Century” stated:

Following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada formulated a methodological test to determine whether the violation of a Charter right is nonetheless justifiable in a free and democratic society. Stemming from the case R. v. Oakes, this became known widely as the Oakes test. It requires:

  • Necessity: there must be a clearly defined necessity for the use of the measure, in relation to a pressing societal concern (in other words, some substantial, imminent problem that the security measure seeks to treat),
  • Proportionality: that the measure (or specific execution of an invasive power) be carefully targeted and suitably tailored, so as to be viewed as reasonably proportionate to the privacy (or any other rights) of the individual being curtailed,
  • Effectiveness: that the measure be shown to be empirically effective at treating the issue, and so clearly connected to solving the problem, and finally,
  • Minimal intrusiveness: that the measure be the least invasive alternative available (in other words, ensure that all other less intrusive avenues of investigation have been exhausted).

The balance of this Advisory presumes an employer has made the decision to require vaccinations and understands the legal risks of a challenge, but intends to proceed.

What questions might an employer ask?

If an employer decides to require vaccinations, what questions might the employer be asking? Possible questions include:

  • Are you planning to get vaccinated?
  • When will you receive your first injection?
  • Have your received your first injection?
  • When will you receive your second injection?
  • Have you received your second injection?
  • Will you provide me a vaccination certificate?

What privacy legislation might apply?

If an employer decides to require its employees to get vaccinated or provide a vaccination certificate, the employer needs to know what privacy legislation applies. FOIP applies to government institutions which include Crown corporations, boards, agencies and other prescribed organizations. Part IV of FOIP deals with the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal information.

LA FOIP applies to local authorities which include cities, towns, villages, municipalities, universities and the Saskatchewan Health Authority. Part IV of LA FOIP deals with the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal information.

The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) applies to health trustees which include government institutions, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, a licenced personal care home, a health professional licenced under an Act, a pharmacy, and licenced medical laboratories with custody or control of personal health information. Parts III and IV of HIPA deal with collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal health information.

If an employer falls into one of the above categories, then that particular statute will apply to the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal information/personal health information. To be sure, an employer should check each of the Acts to see if it has any application. If in doubt, the employer should obtain legal advice.

Regulations under each of the Acts can also prescribe the organizations that are government institutions, local authorities or health trustees.

The Privacy Act may allow a lawsuit where a business, community based organization, employer or health trustee has breached someone’s privacy.

A further issue is that after the employee has received the vaccine, is the employee required to show a proof of vaccination? Will the employer accept the employee’s word that the vaccination was taken? If the employee is required to provide proof, will the employer visually examine it or make a copy of it? If so, by whom and for what purpose? If a copy is made, the record may be accessible under HIPA, FOIP or LA FOIP.

If an employer is in doubt regarding requiring employees to get vaccinated or requiring a copy of the vaccination certificate, the employer should obtain legal advice.

What is the purpose of the employer asking whether an employee has gotten a vaccine or requiring a vaccination certificate?

Before embarking upon requiring vaccinations, the employer must determine the purpose for which it is requiring vaccinations and the purpose for requiring a copy of the vaccination certificate. Is it to keep the workplace safe? More specifically, is it to prevent transmission of COVID-19 being spread from employee to employee, customer or patient? It is important that the employer not expand the purpose after the fact.

How should employers notify its employees of the purpose?

Employers should be open and transparent. They should advise staff that they will be asking whether the employee has received the vaccine, has a vaccination certificate and inform them of the purpose. Later, at the time of collection of the vaccination certificate, tell employees the purpose of the collection, what will be collected, who it will be shared with and how long the information will be stored. Employees will particularly want to know if the employer is sharing the information with other third parties, why and under what legal authority.

The employer can provide other staff with statistical information, such as how many have been vaccinated. The employer should not give out names or identify the ones who were or were not vaccinated as this may be considered a privacy breach.

What information will the employer collect?

Asking an employee whether they have had the vaccination and requesting a vaccination certificate is a collection of personal information/personal health information. Employers should collect the least amount of information necessary to achieve the purpose. If the employer is comfortable, they could choose to accept the employee’s verbal statement that they have had the vaccination. Alternatively, the employer could ask the employee to show a vaccination certificate, but choose not to make a copy of the vaccination certificate. This is referred to as the data minimization principle, that is, only collect what is needed to achieve the purpose.

What if an employee refuses to be vaccinated?

If an employee refuses to get the vaccination, refuses to confirm that they had the vaccination or refuses to provide a vaccination certificate, employers will need to decide if it will require the employee to wear a mask at work, stay home and self-isolate, send the employee home without pay or end the employment relationship.

Can the employer use the information for any other purpose?

The employer must determine its authority to collect for a defined purpose, and only collect personal information/personal health information for that purpose. This may include the employee providing the information for that purpose (indicating they had a vaccination and provided a vaccination certificate). The employer should check the relevant legislation before using that information for any other purpose without getting the consent of the employee.

Who can the employer share the information with?

Since the employer has collected the information that the employee has received the vaccination or refused to get it, the employer needs to determine who in the organization needs to know. If the employee gets the vaccination, very few people need to know, but the employer can provide statistical information as to how many employees have received the vaccination. If the employee refuses to get the vaccination and is sent home, very few people need to know. Just like other sensitive health information, it is confidential, the employer should prohibit supervisors and HR employees from sharing the information with other staff. This does not prevent an individual employee from alerting others around them that they have been vaccinated (sticker, badge, lanyard, headband). An employer could promote this, but should not make it mandatory.

Where does an employer store this information?

The choices are storing on the employees HR personnel file or storing in a separate folder for all employees, containing all information regarding vaccination of employees or refusal to vaccinate. There is probably no need to store it anywhere else.

The information the employer has collected must be stored in a secure place. Once the employer collects personal information/personal health information about an employee, it is the employer’s obligation to ensure it is protected and only those with a need-to-know should be able to access it.

Is an employer obliged to secure the information?

Under privacy legislation, there is an obligation for an employer to protect and secure the information collected and stored. If an employer is not subject to privacy legislation, best practice would suggest the information be protected. Other resources have made suggestions on securing information and a few tips are given by the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Your organization must make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information in its custody or under its control. For example, if the collected information is in paper form, it should not be left in a publicly accessible area. Rather, it should be stored in a locked file cabinet. If you are storing the list on a computer, make sure the computer is password protected, encrypted, and on a secure network. Position computer monitors so that personal information displayed on them cannot be seen by visitors.

When should the employer destroy the information?

How long is an employer going to keep this information? Will it get destroyed in accordance with the destruction of documents policy? Should it have a special destruction period, shorter than the normal? Could it or should it be destroyed within six months? Employers need to decide whether they will develop a policy including destruction guidelines. Maybe the information collected can be destroyed earlier than an employer’s standard procedure.

Do employers need to develop a policy on COVID-19 vaccinations?

Once an employer has made a decision, the employer should consider developing a policy. In normal times, my office would recommend a privacy impact assessment (PIA). In these unique times, an employer might move very quickly and my office would still recommend either a shortened version of a PIA or a policy statement regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. Whatever the form of the document, it should contain:

  • authority for the collection;
  • a statement of the purpose;
  • a statement as to whether employees will be asked to show a vaccination certificate;
  • a statement on possible actions taken based on whether the employee has the vaccination or not;
  • a statement on where information will be stored;
  • a statement as to who it will be shared with (with public authorities or not); and
  • a statement on when the information will be destroyed.

Can a public body ask visitors whether they have had a vaccination for COVID-19?

Public bodies (government institutions and local authorities) have carried on their activities during the pandemic. As much as possible, communications have shifted to emails and telephone calls, but it is still possible that citizens or patients will attend at a public bodies’ front door or reception area. The question arises, can those public bodies ask questions about receipt of a vaccination for COVID-19? Secondly can public bodies insist on seeing the vaccination certificate? If a public body decides to ask the citizen or patient whether they had a vaccination, then many of the questions raised above would apply. Of course public bodies considering this issue should think about obtaining legal advice.

Can a health trustee ask whether patients or employees received a vaccination for COVID-19?

Health trustees are subject to HIPA. That Act contains principles similar to FOIP and LA FOIP when it comes to collection, use, protection or disclosure of information (in this case personal health information). Many of the questions posed and answered above will apply to health trustees.

Conclusion

The principles are simple: establish the purpose and authority, collect the least amount of information to meet the purpose, share it only with those who need-to-know, store it, keep it secure and destroy it when no longer needed. This is good advice whether a business, non profit, employer or health trustee is subject to privacy legislation or not.

The Information Commissioner’s Office in Great Britain has issued a document regarding “work testing – guidance for employers”. Although British legislation is different from the legislation in Saskatchewan, the principles set out are good ones and may have some application to public bodies and health trustees in Saskatchewan.

Ronald J. Kruzeniski, Q.C.
Information and Privacy Commissioner

Media contact:
Kara Philip
kphilip@oipc.sk.ca

IPC Advisory on questions regarding vaccines for organizations, employers and health trustees

Additional Resources 

UK Information Commissioner Office:
Data protection and coronavirus – advice for organizations
Data protection and coronavirus – six data protection steps for organizations
Health, social care organisations and coronavirus – what you need to know

Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner:
Pandemic FAQ:  Customer Lists

British Columbia Office of the information and Privacy Commissioner:
Collecting Personal Information at Food and Drink establishments, gatherings, and events during COVID-19

Ontario Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner:
COVID Alert and Your Privacy

In Saskatchewan may an employer require a COVID-19 Test? The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan does not prohibit but urges caution!

Advisory from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan on questions, screening or testing by employers regarding COVID-19

May 27, 2020 – Ron Kruzeniski, Information and Privacy Commissioner

Our province is gradually phasing in our economy. Businesses, organizations and government offices are gradually opening up. Employers are contemplating the return of their employees to the workplace. Employers and employees will have questions. This advisory attempts to answer a number of those questions.

Can an employer test for COVID-19?

Some employers may be considering whether they will require all employees to answer questions, be screened or be tested for COVID-19. Employers have an obligation to make a workplace safe to work in within reasonable limits. The Saskatchewan Employment Act provides:

General duties of employer

3‑8 Every employer shall:

(a) ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all of the employer’s workers;

…

(h) ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, that the activities of the employer’s workers at a place of employment do not negatively affect the health, safety or welfare at work of the employer, other workers or any self-employed person at the place of employment; and

…

Each employer will have to make a fundamental decision as to whether requiring all employees to answer questions, be screened or be tested would make the workplace safer.

Prior to considering what privacy legislation might apply, employers need to seriously consider whether they want to require employees to answer questions, be screened or be tested for COVID-19. This is a fundamental issue and can be controversial. It gets us into the issue of whether employers can or should require medical tests in the workplace. There has been considerable debate and court challenges over testing for drugs in the workplace. Employers need to know that requiring employees to answer questions, be screened or be tested for COVID-19 might result in a court challenge.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada in “A Matter of Trust: Integrating Privacy and Public Safety in the 21st Century” stated:

Following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada formulated a methodological test to determine whether the violation of a Charter right is nonetheless justifiable in a free and democratic society. Stemming from the case R. v. Oakes, this became known widely as the Oakes test. It requires:

  • Necessity: there must be a clearly defined necessity for the use of the measure, in relation to a pressing societal concern (in other words, some substantial, imminent problem that the security measure seeks to treat),
  • Proportionality: that the measure (or specific execution of an invasive power) be carefully targeted and suitably tailored, so as to be viewed as reasonably proportionate to the privacy (or any other rights) of the individual being curtailed,
  • Effectiveness: that the measure be shown to be empirically effective at treating the issue, and so clearly connected to solving the problem, and finally,
  • Minimal intrusiveness: that the measure be the least invasive alternative available (in other words, ensure that all other less intrusive avenues of investigation have been exhausted).

The balance of this advisory presumes an employer has made the decision and understands the legal risks of a challenge, but intends to proceed.

What privacy legislation might apply?

If an employer decides to ask questions, screen or test its employees for COVID-19, that employer needs to know what privacy legislation applies to that employer. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applies to government institutions which include Crown corporations, boards, agencies and other prescribed organizations. Part IV of FOIP deals with the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal information.

The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) applies to local authorities which include cities, towns, villages, municipalities, universities and the Saskatchewan Health Authority. Part IV of LA FOIP deals with the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal information.

The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) applies to health trustees which includes government institutions, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, a licenced personal care home, a health professional licenced under an Act, a pharmacy, and licenced medical laboratories. Parts III and IV of HIPA deal with collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of personal health information.

If an employer falls into one of the above categories, then that particular statute will apply to the collection, use, disclosure, storage and protection of information. To be sure, an employer should check each of the Acts to see if it has any application.

Regulations under each of the Acts can also prescribe government institutions, local authorities or health trustees.

A further issue is that after the questions are asked, are the responses recorded? If so, by whom and for what purpose? If recorded, the record may be accessible under HIPA, FOIP or LA FOIP.

If an employer continues to be in doubt, you may want to obtain legal advice. If an employer does not fall under any of the three Acts, it is possible you, as an organization, may be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act (PIPEDA). For information on this, an employer can check the website of the Federal Privacy Commissioner. In some cases, PIPEDA provides rules and protection for employee personal information and in others, it does not. Whether an employer in Saskatchewan fits any of the above definitions, the advice below can be considered best practice and an employer can choose to follow it.

What is the purpose of doing the tests for COVID-19?

Before embarking on questioning or a testing program, an employer needs to define the purpose for collecting the Q&A and test information. Is it to keep the workplace safe? More specifically is it to prevent workers who test positive or have had COVID-19 from being in the workplace? Is it to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to other workers in the workplace? It is important that the employer define the purpose at this early stage and not expand after the fact as would be function creep and may not be authorized.

How should employers notify its employees of the purpose of collection?

Employers should be open and transparent. They should advise staff that they will be asking questions, screening or testing employees as they arrive for work and inform them of the purpose. Later at the time of collection, tell employees the purpose of collection, what will be collected, who it will be shared with and how long the information will be stored. Employees will particularly want to know if the employer is sharing the information with other third parties and why. As discussed below, the employer should advise employees that positive tests for COVID-19 will be shared with the medical health officer.

If staff test positive or have COVID-19, the employer can provide other staff with statistical information, such as how many have been tested and how many tested positive. The employer should not give out names or identify the ones who tested positive as this may be considered a privacy breach. If very few employees test positive or have COVID-19, the employer needs to determine whether by giving the statistical information, the employee can be identified. If this might be the case, the employer can ask the consent of the employee affected, to release, postpone the release or provide less information that prevents identification.

What information will the employer collect?

Asking an employee a series of questions and obtaining the answers is collection of information. Screening by visual examination or temperature checks is collection of information. Requesting an employee to take a test and recording the results, is a collection of information. An employer needs to define the questions asked, the screening and the test required and ensure those questions, screening and test results are consistent with the purpose. Employers should collect the least amount of information necessary to achieve the purpose. This is referred to as the data minimization principle, that is, only collect what is needed to achieve the purpose.

For example, if an employee tests positive for COVID-19, what is an employer going to do? The assumption is an employer will require the employee to stay home and self-isolate. Thus, once an employer knows the person tested positive, there is no need to know anything more other than if the medical health officer’s follow up efforts will impact the employer. You are the employer, not the doctor. If the staff member indicates they already have COVID-19, an employer will need to consult the organization’s doctor to determine whether the staff member should be allowed to come to work or is required to stay home. Again, an employer should not collect more information, only tell the employee that they can or cannot work and they should go home. If the test comes back “negative” an employer still is obliged to comply with any requirements of the Chief Medical Health Officer in terms of taking protective procedures in the workplace.

The Information Commissioner (ICO) of Great Britain has stated:

In order to not collect too much data, you must ensure that it is:

adequate – enough to properly fulfil your stated purpose;

relevant – has a rational link to that purpose; and

limited to what is necessary – you do not hold more than you need for that purpose.

Can the employer use the information for any other purpose?

The employer has defined a purpose, authority to collect and has collected information for that purpose. The employee has provided the information for that purpose. The employer cannot use that information for any other purpose without getting the consent of the employee.

If an employee tests positive, who can the employer share the information with?

Since the employer has collected the information that the employee tested positive or has had COVID-19, the employer needs to determine who in the organization needs to know. If the employee is going home, very few people need to know. Just like other sensitive health information, it is confidential, the employer should prohibit the employee from sharing the information with other staff.

Where does an employer store this information?

The choices are storing on the employees HR personnel file or storing in a separate folder for all employees, containing all information regarding questions, screening and testing. There is probably no need to store it anywhere else.

The information the employer has collected, must be stored in a secure place. Once the employer collects personal information about an employee, it is the employer’s obligation to ensure it is protected.

Is an employer obliged to secure the information?

Under privacy legislation, there is an obligation for an employer to protect and secure the information collected and stored. If an employer is not subject to the privacy legislation, best practice would suggest the information be protected anyway. Other resources have made suggestions on securing information and a few tips are given by the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner:

Your organization must make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information in its custody or under its control. For example, if the collected information is in paper form, it should not be left in a publicly accessible area. Rather, it should be stored in a locked file cabinet. If you are storing the list on a computer, make sure the computer is password protected, encrypted, and on a secure network. Position computer monitors so that personal information displayed on them cannot be seen by visitors.

When should the employer destroy the information?

How long is an employer going to keep this information? Will it get destroyed in accordance with the destruction of documents policy? Should it have a special destruction period, shorter than the normal? Could it or should it be destroyed within 30 days? Employers need to decide whether they will develop a policy including destruction guidelines. There has been media coverage about people’s fear of having COVID-19 and the stigma that comes along with that. Maybe a year from now, there will be an approved treatment and vaccination, which might reduce the stigma and the fear. Maybe the information collected can be destroyed earlier than an employer’s standard procedure.

Should employers share information with the medical health officer?

The Public Health Act, 1994 provides:

Responsibility to report

32(1) The following persons shall report to a medical health officer any cases of category I communicable diseases in the circumstances set out in this section:

(a) a physician or nurse who, while providing professional services to a person, forms the opinion that the person is infected with or is a carrier of a category I communicable disease;

(b) the manager of a medical laboratory if the existence of a category I communicable disease is found or confirmed by examination of specimens submitted to the medical laboratory;

(c) a teacher or principal of a school who becomes aware that a pupil is infected with or is a carrier of a category I communicable disease;

(d) a person who operates or manages an establishment in which food is prepared or packaged for the purposes of sale, or is sold or offered for sale, for human consumption and who determines or suspects that a person in the establishment is infected with, or is a carrier of, a category I communicable disease.

…

(3) A report submitted pursuant to subsection (1) must include:

(a) the name, sex, age, address and telephone number of the person who has or is suspected to have, or who is or is suspected to be a carrier of, a category I communicable disease; and

(b) any prescribed information.

(4) In addition to the report required by subsection (1), the manager of a medical laboratory shall submit to the medical health officer or the co-ordinator of communicable disease control a copy of the laboratory report that identifies the disease.

The Disease Control Regulations lists COVID-19 as a category 1 communicable disease.

If an employer intends to ask a series of questions or do screening by a non-health professional section 32 above would not apply. In that case, if the questions result in their being indications of COVID-19, I would expect the employer would request that the employee be tested for COVID-19 at a nearby testing centre and the employee be advised to go home until testing is done and results are received.

If an employer has an examination done for a test taken by a doctor or nurse, it is clear that, pursuant to section 32, the doctor, nurse or manager of a medical lab must report a communicable disease such as COVID-19 to the medical health officer.

Thus, best practice would be for an employer to advise employees being examined or tested that if the test is positive for COVID-19, it will be reported to the medical health officer. The employer should indicate in their statement of purpose that they will comply with the requirements of The Public Health Act, 1994. Being transparent with staff and telling them at the beginning that their information will be shared with public health authorities is important.

Do employers need to document their questions and testing plan?

Once an employer has made a decision, the employer should consider some documentation of the plan. In normal times, my office would recommend a privacy impact assessment (PIA). In these unique times, an employer might move very quickly and my office would still recommend either a shortened version of a PIA or a policy statement regarding question asking, screening and testing plan. Whatever the form of the document, it should contain:

  • a statement of the purpose;
  • a listing of the questions to be asked;
  • a statement of the screening and the tests to be performed;
  • a statement on possible actions taken based on the test results;
  • a statement where information will be stored;
  • a statement as to who whom it will be shared with (with public authorities or not); and
  • a statement when the information will be destroyed.

Conclusion

The principles are simple, establish the purpose, authority, and collect the least amount of information to meet the purpose, share it only with those who need-to-know, store it, keep it secure and destroy it when no longer needed. This is good advice whether an employer is subject to access and privacy legislation or not.

The Information Commissioner’s Office in Great Britain has issued a document regarding “Work Testing – Guidance for Employers”. Although British legislation is different from the legislation in Saskatchewan, the principles set out are good ones and may have some application to public bodies and health trustees in Saskatchewan.

Ronald J. Kruzeniski
Information and Privacy Commissioner

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 11: (A serialized novel by Robert K. Stephen)

Chapter 11

Downsizing: Prospective employers: The toughest act to conquer

Perhaps the most important actor in the Theatre of the Downsized is the employer you must convince to hire you. Depending upon your reaction to the Blessed Event undertaking a job search is either the first or last activity you are in the mood for.

Almost inevitably you will have a tainted view of largecorp but of course, unless you are independently wealthy or close to achieving your retirement income savings, you have no choice but to plow on. Put on a happy grin and act your way into another job by convincing your prospective employers you are the ideal candidate. Do your research on the employer by reviewing annual reports and try to network into employees of that employer so you will have a better idea how to bait your hook. It is never how you really feel or think but how you are supposed to act and what you are expected to say that is your Yellow Brick Road.

Unfortunately, your first “official” stop in the hiring process ordinarily is the Human Resources Department whose job is to eliminate by screening out undesirables. The Human Resources Department plays a negative role in the hiring process. Tell them what they want to hear and that’s easy due to the skills you have picked up in self help books and in your outplacement sessions. The blind leading the blind in a big game.

You won’t get what you want by interpreting your greatest accomplishments. You must massage them so they best meet a prospective employer’s expectations and needs. Don’t falsify or invent accomplishments just manipulate them. You must become an expert at transforming your experience into a marketable commodity. You might even begin to believe what you are delivering as your own personal marketing message. Remember my allusion earlier that you are now a method actor. This means an ability to rise beyond yourself and deceive yourself by imagining what your prospective employer as your audience wants to hear.

You are quickly learning what an ideal employee is. What a rat won’t do for a piece of cheese. The winning character has an ability to exaggerate, manipulate, emphasize, flatter, convince and deceive. These are the “winning qualities” the ideal candidate needs.

Perhaps the most delicate question you’ll be asked is why you were terminated and how you feel about it. This is the most important line of your performance. What you and 99% of people would say is that your former largecorp boss and all the Senior Management Team of that largecorp were evil creatures and you are a victim of a great injustice. Do not say what you are really thinking. This is an example of the Theatre of the Downsized you are acting in. How absurd it is you are showing no bitterness!

Try and keep your explanation as to your termination as simple as neutral as possible. You really enjoyed working for your former largecorp. They offered you the opportunity to grow and develop however due to a restructuring your job was eliminated.

Show anger or bitterness and say anything derogatory like any ordinary human being and you are out the door. A cardinal rule of largecorp is love your largecorp and refrain from showing any true emotion or truth as that is antithetical and alien concept for largecorp. What it wants is a robot willing to bear, degradation, manipulation and demagoguery with a happy face. In fact, its goal is to eliminate human labour and replace it by artificial intelligence under the guise of cost cutting and “rationalization”. Despite the clear intention of largecorp to eliminate as many employees as possible facing this grim reality you are expected to smile and be so ever grateful to largecorp for employing you!

If you are not skilled at deception and manipulation and wish to escape the whole fetid and stinking mess of largecorp call it quits, write a book about largecorp and make a pile by going on the lecture circuit. Or start your own business.

As you are not a turfed member of the Senior Management Team you are going to have a tough slog landing that new job. SMT members who are turfed are in the golden elite and can glide from top ranks of one largecorp to another largecorp. Incredibly, SMT members who are turfed can be given “consulting contracts” by the terminating largecorp. No need to show up for work but these terminated SMT members can smile and say they are still employed by way of a consulting contract. This makes their termination very dignified and may aid in the perception they are still employed by largecorp when hunting for a new job. As they say it is better to be employed when looking for a new job than to be unemployed and job searching.

Believe it or not poison pills exist in largecorp land that obligate largecorp make automatic set payments to the SMT when largecorp is taken over! This obligation may even exist where the SMT member continues to work for the newly merged corporation. Many of the SMT that were in CRAP’s institutional division that I had worked for made millions this way despite the fact some of them continued to work for their new employer. The rank and file can be shed by the thousands with a measly severance packages. The taken over SMT escapes unscathed with cash far in excess of common law severance in their pockets. As a staggering example the head of CRAP’s segregated institutional fund business walked away with $20 million in his pockets simply because CRAP’s segregated institutional fund business was taken over! What conclusion can you draw from this other than the folks at the top rarely suffer! Now you know why these “takeover payments” to senior executives are called poison pills!

At times you’ll be terribly discouraged and disappointed particularly if you thought you were going to get that offer but it did not materialize. Keep your negativity sealed off as if your ruined ego is on display in the marketplace the maggots will fester and destroy your self esteem. Do not let largecorp have you believe you are a worthless toad. You are not a diseased leper. Don’t let frustration and anxiety cripple you!

Our minds are our biggest enemy and strongest ally. Don’t let your mind be a one-way ticket to self pity and a cheap bottle of sherry as you spend the night totally emotionally ruined in some dank hostel. Just picture your former boss snickering at you as he passes you on the street where you are taking your last swig of sherry. Do you believe me now that anger can be a powerfully managed force in your self reconstruction?

Canadian Government Lacks Transparency on Liability for Vaccine Manufacturers

Feds won’t disclose whether COVID-19 vaccine drug makers are liable for potentially serious side effects

BY CORMAC MAC SWEENEY, LUCAS CASALETTO

Posted Dec 8, 2020 12:58 pm EST

Last Updated Dec 8, 2020 at 4:17 pm ESThttps://www.680news.com/video/iframe/593482582001/SyxzIeNcgb/6214938826001?auto_play_switch=false

The federal government is refusing to say if drug makers behind potential COVID-19 vaccines have been given an exemption for any legal responsibility if there are serious side effects to their shots.

On Monday, Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will be receiving its first shipments of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the year.

Health officials say serious side effects from vaccines are rare, but in health emergencies, it’s not uncommon for countries to offer drug makers a legal exemption to liability; meaning if people experience severe unexpected health problems from the shots, the company is free of lawsuits.

RELATED: Ford government rolls out phase 1 of Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine plan

The U.K. has granted this exemption to Pfizer before approving its vaccine for use, and in the United States, drug makers have many protections from legal liability through years of legislation and court decisions.

But Health Canada won’t say if this is the case with Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine agreements. A spokesperson tells 680 NEWS the department can’t disclose those details “to respect confidentiality clauses in our vaccine agreements.”

The prime minister has only offered a vague assurance that Canadians will be protected, and stresses Health Canada has one of the most rigorous review processes in the world.

“There are no corners cut by Health Canada in terms of approving a vaccine for safe use by Canadians,” Justin Trudeau said.

“The contract signed, there were questions of liability and Canada has undertaken the necessary measures to ensure that everyone is protected,” the prime minister added.

The lack of detail from the federal government leaves a question mark around liability.

Currently, if there is an injury as a result of a vaccine, Canadians would have to launch a civil lawsuit against the physician delivering the shot, the public health authority, the government, or the manufacturer, depending on the circumstances.

“Which of course can be very long, is massively expensive, it’s very stressful, and the evidential burdens on the claimants are quite difficult and sometimes insurmountable,” says Shawn Harmon, a Research Associate at the IWK Health Centre and Part-Time Faculty with the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University.

Canada is the only G-7 country that does not have a vaccine compensation program, which offers cash in the unlikely scenario there is a health problem.

In the U.K. if someone suffers a serious disability as a result of a vaccine, they can receive a payment of roughly $205,000.

Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has such a program in place, which was set up in 1988. Since then only 284 claims have been submitted for compensation, and only 53 of those cases have led to financial compensation, totalling $6.5 million.

Harmon believes a national compensation system would help calm fears and hesitancy around receiving a vaccine.

“The existence of a system would assure you that there is some support if something happens. It also signals, I think, to people that the government is confident in the vaccines and medicines that they are providing,” Harmon tells 680 NEWS.

Canada’s Chief Medical Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, says so far there have been no serious side effects with potential COVID vaccines and federal and provincial health officials will be monitoring for any reactions. If any are flagged they will be rapidly investigated.

The first doses are expected to arrive sometime next week and up to 249,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine will hit Canadian soil by the end of 2020.

In the UK, health officials rolled out the first doses of a widely tested and independently reviewed COVID-19 vaccine, starting a global immunization program that is expected to gain momentum as more serums win approval.

The United States Grants Immunity from Liability For Manufacture, Development, Testing, Distribution, Administration and Use Of Certain COVID Medications Including COVID Vaccine

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary

HHS IS SUBMITTING THIS DOCUMENT TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER FOR PUBLICATION. THE FORMATTING MAY CHANGE. THE VERSION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER WILL BE THE OFFICIAL VERSION.

ACTION:  Notice of Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

SUMMARY:  The Secretary is issuing this Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d) to provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

DATES:  The Declaration is effective as of February 4, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; Telephone: 202-205-2882.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.  This Declaration is subject to amendment as circumstances warrant.  

The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, Section 2.  It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding Section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and Section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program.  These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, was enacted on March 13, 2013.  Among other things, PAHPRA added sections 564A and 564B to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act to provide new authorities for the emergency use of approved products in emergencies and products held for emergency use.  PAHPRA accordingly amended the definitions of “Covered Countermeasures” and “qualified pandemic and epidemic products” in Section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (PREP Act provisions), so that products made available under these new FD&C Act authorities could be covered under PREP Act Declarations.  PAHPRA also extended the definition of qualified pandemic and epidemic products that may be covered under a PREP Act Declaration to include products or technologies intended to enhance the use or effect of a drug, biological product, or device used against the pandemic or epidemic or against adverse events from these products.

COVID-19 is an acute respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 betacoronavirus or a virus mutating therefrom.  This virus is similar to other betacoronaviruses, such as Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Although the complete clinical picture regarding SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom is not fully understood, the virus has been known to cause severe respiratory illness and death in a subset of those people infected with such virus(es).

In December 2019, the novel coronavirus was detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. Today, over 101 countries, including the United States have reported multiple cases. Acknowledging that cases had been reported in five WHO regions in one month, on January 30, 2020, WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) following a second meeting of the Emergency Committee convened under the International Health Regulations (IHR). 

To date, United States traveler-associated cases have been identified in a number of States and community-based transmission is suspected.  On January 31, 2020, Secretary Azar declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, for the entire United States to aid in the nation’s health care community response to the COVID-19 outbreak.1 The outbreak remains a significant public health challenge that requires a sustained, coordinated proactive response by the Government in order to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. 2

Description of this Declaration by Section

Section I. Determination of Public Health Emergency or Credible Risk of Future Public Health Emergency

Before issuing a Declaration under the PREP Act, the Secretary is required to determine that a disease or other health condition or threat to health constitutes a public health emergency or that there is a credible risk that the disease, condition, or threat may constitute such an emergency.  This determination is separate and apart from the Declaration issued by the Secretary on January 31, 2020 under Section 319 of the PHS Act that a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency or that a public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists, or other Declarations or determinations made under other authorities of the Secretary.  Accordingly in Section I of the Declaration, the Secretary determines that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom and the resulting disease, COVID-19, constitutes a public health emergency for purposes of this Declaration under the PREP Act. 

Section II. Factors Considered by the Secretary

In deciding whether and under what circumstances to issue a Declaration with respect to a Covered Countermeasure, the Secretary must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the countermeasure. In Section II of the Declaration, the Secretary states that he has considered these factors.

Section III. Activities Covered by this Declaration Under the PREP Act’s Liability Immunity

The Secretary must delineate the activities for which the PREP Act’s liability immunity is in effect.  These activities may include, under conditions as the Secretary may specify, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more Covered Countermeasures (Recommended Activities).  In Section III of the Declaration, the Secretary sets out the activities for which the immunity is in effect.

Section IV. Limited Immunity

The Secretary must also state that liability protections available under the PREP Act are in effect with respect to the Recommended Activities.  These liability protections provide that, “[s]ubject to other provisions of [the PREP Act], a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a Declaration has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.”  In Section IV of the Declaration, the Secretary states that liability protections are in effect with respect to the Recommended Activities.

Section V. Covered Persons

Section V of the Declaration describes Covered Persons, including Qualified Persons.  The PREP Act defines Covered Persons to include, among others, the United States, and those that manufacturer, distribute, administer, prescribe or use Covered Countermeasures.  This Declaration includes all persons and entities defined as Covered Persons under the PREP Act (PHS Act 317F-3(i)(2)) as well as others set out in paragraphs (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (8)(B). 

The PREP Act’s liability immunity applies to “Covered Persons” with respect to administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure.  The term “Covered Persons” has a specific meaning and is defined in the PREP Act to include manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the United States.  The PREP Act further defines the terms “manufacturer,” “distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” as described below.

A manufacturer includes a contractor or subcontractor of a manufacturer; a supplier or licenser of any product, intellectual property, service, research tool or component or other article used in the design, development, clinical testing, investigation or manufacturing of a Covered Countermeasure; and any or all the parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns of a manufacturer.

A distributor means a person or entity engaged in the distribution of drugs, biologics, or devices , including but not limited to: manufacturers; re-packers; common carriers; contract carriers; air carriers; own-label distributors; private-label distributors; jobbers; brokers; warehouses and wholesale drug warehouses; independent wholesale drug traders; and retail pharmacies.

A program planner means a state or local government, including an Indian tribe; a person employed by the state or local government; or other person who supervises or administers a program with respect to the administration, dispensing, distribution, provision, or use of a Covered Countermeasure, including a person who establishes requirements, provides policy guidance, or supplies technical or scientific advice or assistance or provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure in accordance with the Secretary’s Declaration.  Under this definition, a private sector employer or community group or other “person” can be a program planner when it carries out the described activities.

A qualified person means a licensed health professional or other individual authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures under the law of the state in which the Covered Countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed; or a person within a category of persons identified as qualified in the Secretary’s Declaration.  Under this definition, the Secretary can describe in the Declaration other qualified persons, such as volunteers, who are Covered Persons. Section V describes other qualified persons covered by this Declaration.

The PREP Act also defines the word “person” as used in the Act: A person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, entity, or public or private corporation, including a federal, state, or local government agency or department.

Section VI. Covered Countermeasures

As noted above, Section III of the Declaration describes the activities (referred to as “Recommended Activities”) for which liability immunity is in effect.  Section VI of the Declaration identifies the Covered Countermeasures for which the Secretary has recommended such activities.  The PREP Act states that a “Covered Countermeasure” must be a “qualified pandemic or epidemic product,” or a “security countermeasure,” as described immediately below; or a drug, biological product or device authorized for emergency use in accordance with Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&C Act.

A qualified pandemic or epidemic product means a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that is (i) manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic or limit the harm such a pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause; (ii) manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by such a drug, biological product, or device; (iii) or a product or technology intended to enhance the use or effect of such a drug, biological product, or device.

A security countermeasure is a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that (i)(a) The Secretary determines to be a priority to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from any biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent identified as a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or (b) to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from a condition that may result in adverse health consequences or death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological product, or device against such an agent; and (ii) is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be a necessary countermeasure to protect public health.

To be a Covered Countermeasure, qualified pandemic or epidemic products or security countermeasures also must be approved or cleared under the FD&C Act; licensed under the PHS Act; or authorized for emergency use under Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&C Act.

A qualified pandemic or epidemic product also may be a Covered Countermeasure when it is subject to an exemption (that is, it is permitted to be used under an Investigational Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the FD&C Act and is the object of research for possible use for diagnosis, mitigation, prevention, treatment, or cure, or to limit harm of a pandemic or epidemic or serious or life-threatening condition caused by such a drug or device.

A security countermeasure also may be a Covered Countermeasure if it may reasonably be determined to qualify for approval or licensing within 10 years after the Department’s determination that procurement of the countermeasure is appropriate.

Section VI lists medical countermeasures against COVID-19 that are Covered Countermeasures under this declaration. 

Section VI also refers to the statutory definitions of Covered Countermeasures to make clear that these statutory definitions limit the scope of Covered Countermeasures.  Specifically, the Declaration notes that Covered Countermeasures must be “qualified pandemic or epidemic products,” or “security countermeasures,” or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act.

Section VII. Limitations on Distribution

The Secretary may specify that liability immunity is in effect only to Covered Countermeasures obtained through a particular means of distribution.  The Declaration states that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities related to (a) present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding or other federal agreements; or (b) activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of an emergency.

Section VII defines the terms “Authority Having Jurisdiction” and “Declaration of an emergency.”  We have specified in the definition that Authorities having jurisdiction include federal, state, local, and tribal authorities and institutions or organizations acting on behalf of those governmental entities.

For governmental program planners only, liability immunity is afforded only to the extent they obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (1) donation; (2) commercial sale; (3) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles; or (4) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles.  This last limitation on distribution is intended to deter program planners that are government entities from seizing privately held stockpiles of Covered Countermeasures.  It does not apply to any other Covered Persons, including other program planners who are not government entities.

Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat

The Secretary must identify in the Declaration, for each Covered Countermeasure, the categories of diseases, health conditions, or threats to health for which the Secretary recommends the administration or use of the countermeasure.  In Section VIII of the Declaration, the Secretary states that the disease threat for which he recommends administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is COVID -19 caused by SARS- CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom.

Section IX. Administration of Covered Countermeasures

The PREP Act does not explicitly define the term “administration” but does assign the Secretary the responsibility to provide relevant conditions in the Declaration.  In Section IX of the Declaration, the Secretary defines “Administration of a Covered Countermeasure,” as follows:

Administration of a Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution, and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients; management and operation of countermeasure programs; or management and operation of locations for purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures.

The definition of “administration” extends only to physical provision of a countermeasure to a recipient, such as vaccination or handing drugs to patients, and to activities related to management and operation of programs and locations for providing countermeasures to recipients, such as decisions and actions involving security and queuing, but only insofar as those activities directly relate to the countermeasure activities.  Claims for which Covered Persons are provided immunity under the Act are losses caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a Covered Countermeasure consistent with the terms of a Declaration issued under the Act.  Under the definition, these liability claims are precluded if they allege an injury caused by a countermeasure, or if the claims are due to manufacture, delivery, distribution, dispensing, or management and operation of countermeasure programs at distribution and dispensing sites.

Thus, it is the Secretary’s interpretation that, when a Declaration is in effect, the Act precludes, for example, liability claims alleging negligence by a manufacturer in creating a vaccine, or negligence by a health care provider in prescribing the wrong dose, absent willful misconduct. Likewise, the Act precludes a liability claim relating to the management and operation of a countermeasure distribution program or site, such as a slip-and-fall injury or vehicle collision by a recipient receiving a countermeasure at a retail store serving as an administration or dispensing location that alleges, for example, lax security or chaotic crowd control.  However, a liability claim alleging an injury occurring at the site that was not directly related to the countermeasure activities is not covered, such as a slip and fall with no direct connection to the countermeasure’s administration or use.  In each case, whether immunity is applicable will depend on the particular facts and circumstances.

Section X. Population

The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure specified in a Declaration, the population or populations of individuals for which liability immunity is in effect with respect to administration or use of the countermeasure.  Section X of the Declaration identifies which individuals should use the countermeasure or to whom the countermeasure should be administered–in short, those who should be vaccinated or take a drug or other countermeasure.  Section X provides that the population includes “any individual who uses or who is administered a Covered Countermeasure in accordance with the Declaration.”

It should be noted that under the PREP Act, liability protection extends beyond the Population specified in the Declaration.  Specifically, liability immunity is afforded (1) To manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population, and (2) to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is either used by or administered to this population or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in this population.  Section X of the Declaration includes these statutory conditions in the Declaration for clarity.

Section XI. Geographic Area

The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure specified in the Declaration, the geographic area or areas for which liability immunity is in effect, including, as appropriate, whether the Declaration applies only to individuals physically present in the area or, in addition, applies to individuals who have a described connection to the area.  Section XI of the Declaration provides that liability immunity is afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation.  This could include claims related to administration or use in countries outside the U.S. It is possible that claims may arise in regard to administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures outside the U.S. that may be resolved under U.S. law.

In addition, the PREP Act specifies that liability immunity is afforded (1) to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to individuals in the geographic areas, and (2) to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is either used or administered in the geographic areas or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the countermeasure was used or administered in the areas. Section XI of the Declaration includes these statutory conditions in the Declaration for clarity.

Section XII. Effective Time Period

The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure, the period or periods during which liability immunity is in effect, designated by dates, milestones, or other description of events, including factors specified in the PREP Act.  Section XII of the Declaration extends the effective period for different means of distribution of Covered Countermeasures through October 1, 2024.

Section XIII. Additional Time Period of Coverage

The Secretary must specify a date after the ending date of the effective time period of the Declaration that is reasonable for manufacturers to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including accepting returns of Covered Countermeasures, and for other Covered Persons to take appropriate actions to limit administration or use of the Covered Countermeasure.  In addition, the PREP Act specifies that, for Covered Countermeasures that are subject to a Declaration at the time they are obtained for the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(a), the effective period of the Declaration extends through the time the countermeasure is used or administered.  Liability immunity under the provisions of the PREP Act and the conditions of the Declaration continue during these additional time periods.  Thus, liability immunity is afforded during the “Effective Time Period,” described under Section XII of the Declaration, plus the “Additional Time Period” described under Section XIII of the Declaration.

Section XIII of the Declaration provides for 12 months as the Additional Time Period of coverage after expiration of the Declaration. Section XIII also explains the extended coverage that applies to any product obtained for the SNS during the effective period of the Declaration.

Section XIV. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program

Section 319F-4 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure.  Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute.  To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.”  The administrative rules for the Program further explain the necessary requirements for eligibility under the CICP.  Please note that, by statute, requirements for compensation under the CICP may not align with the requirements for liability immunity provided under the PREP Act. Section XIV of the Declaration, “Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program,” explains the types of injury and standard of evidence needed to be considered for compensation under the CICP.

Further, the administrative rules for the CICP specify that if countermeasures are administered or used outside the United States, only otherwise eligible individuals at United States embassies, military installations abroad (such as military bases, ships, and camps) or at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) installations (subject to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement) where American servicemen and servicewomen are stationed may be considered for CICP benefits.  Other individuals outside the United States may not be eligible for CICP benefits.

Section XV. Amendments

Section XV of the Declaration confirms that the Secretary may amend any portion of this Declaration through publication in the Federal Register.

Declaration

Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

I. Determination of Public Health Emergency

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1)

I have determined that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom and the resulting disease COVID -19 constitutes a public health emergency.

II. Factors Considered

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(6)

I have considered the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing, or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the Covered Countermeasures.

III. Recommended Activities

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1)

I recommend, under the conditions stated in this Declaration, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of the Covered Countermeasures.

IV. Liability Immunity

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a), 247d-6d(b)(1)

Liability immunity as prescribed in the PREP Act and conditions stated in this Declaration is in effect for the Recommended Activities described in Section III.

V. Covered Persons

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B)

Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States.

In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons: (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency; (b) any person
authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act; and (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the
FD&C Act.

VI. Covered Countermeasures

42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(c)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(1) and (7)

Covered Countermeasures are any antiviral, any other drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, or any vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19, or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, or any device used in the administration of any such product, and all components and constituent materials of any such product.

 Covered Countermeasures must be “qualified pandemic or epidemic products,” or “security countermeasures,” or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act.

VII. Limitations on Distribution

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(5) and (b)(2)(E)

I have determined that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities involving Covered Countermeasures that are related to:

  1. Present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other federal agreements; or
  2. Activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of an emergency.

As used in this Declaration, the terms Authority Having Jurisdiction and Declaration of Emergency have the following meanings:

  1. The Authority Having Jurisdiction means the public agency or its delegate that has legal responsibility and authority for responding to an incident, based on political or geographical (e.g., city, county, tribal, state, or federal boundary lines) or functional (e.g., law enforcement, public health) range or sphere of authority.
  2. A Declaration of Emergency means any Declaration by any authorized local, regional, state, or federal official of an emergency specific to events that indicate an immediate need to administer and use the Covered Countermeasures, with the exception of a federal Declaration in support of an Emergency Use Authorization under Section 564 of the FD&C Act unless such Declaration specifies otherwise;

I have also determined that, for governmental program planners only, liability immunity is afforded only to the extent such program planners obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (1) donation; (2) commercial sale; (3) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles; or (4) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles.

VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A)

The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom.

IX. Administration of Covered Countermeasures

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(2)(B)

Administration of the Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients, management and operation of countermeasure programs, or management and operation of locations for purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures.

X. Population

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(C)

The populations of individuals include any individual who uses or is administered the Covered Countermeasures in accordance with this Declaration.

Liability immunity is afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population; liability immunity is afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in this population.

XI. Geographic Area

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(D)

Liability immunity is afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation.

Liability immunity is afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area; liability immunity is afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in that geographic area.

XII. Effective Time Period

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(B)

Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures through means of distribution, as identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, other than in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction and extends through October 1, 2024.

Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction begins with a Declaration and lasts through (1) the final day the emergency Declaration is in effect, or (2) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

XIII. Additional Time Period of Coverage

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(3)(B) and (C)

I have determined that an additional 12 months of liability protection is reasonable to allow for the manufacturer(s) to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including return of the Covered Countermeasures to the manufacturer, and for Covered Persons to take such other actions as are appropriate to limit the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.

Covered Countermeasures obtained for the SNS during the effective period of this Declaration are covered through the date of administration or use pursuant to a distribution or release from the SNS.

XIV. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program

42 U.S.C 247d-6e

The PREP Act authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, and benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.  The causal connection between the countermeasure and the serious physical injury must be supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence in order for the individual to be considered for compensation.  The CICP is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, within the Department of Health and Human Services.  Information about the CICP is available at the toll-free number 1-855-266-2427 or http://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/.

XV.       Amendments

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(4)

Amendments to this Declaration will be published in the Federal Register, as warranted.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d.

Dated: March 10, 2020.

Alex M. Azar II

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

1

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 10: (A serialized novel by Robert K. Stephen)

Chapter 10

Downsizing: See who your friends are

As they say in times of trouble you will notice who your real friends are. Some whom you thought were your friends quickly scatter and avoid contact with a fired employee on the premise it is bad luck. Some are gloating as they feel they are in a better position than you assuming of course they are still employed.

Real friends offer empathy, compassion and help you in your job search by referring you to possible helpful networking contacts. Sympathy is not what the downsized person wants. Sympathy is feeling sorry for the victim but empathy goes further by trying to eliminate the victim’s distress and anguish by doing something for that person.

I’ll throw you examples your way of some negative experiences I had with “friends”.

Bile Mikeman was who I thought was a “family friend”. We had visited each other’s house several times and our children played together. Bile had worked with my wife at her largecorp for several years until he got wind of his upcoming Blessed Event and jumped ship just in time.

Keeping Bile in the loop I managed to network into the office of the President of Bile’s largecorp employer. The meeting went far better than I had expected. I had the skills and the attitude the President was looking for. The President consulted with Bile. You know what that prick said about me. I did not have the soft skills needed and would not “fit in”.

Later the truth filtered out through a third-party mutual friend. Bile felt threatened by me and was afraid of the potential competition. That asshole cut off my legs before I had the chance to go through a few perfunctory “you got the job” Human Resources Department interviews. How about that for a mistaken impression of friendship! Instead of empathy his reaction to me joining his largecorp employer was self-preservation and self-interest. The Blessed Event really sped up my evaluation of our “friendship”. I hope to repay the favour one day. My vendetta list was beginning to grow. By the way Bile went in a downsizing some 4 months later. I can say I felt neither sympathy nor empathy for him.

I turned to another family “friend”, Jenny Bark, a lawyer I had worked with at CRAP. She was general counsel of a less than largecorp and required another lawyer to assist her. “Need someone more junior” was her line. “You have too much experience”. Another real friend.

Finally, there was Jim Moonrush a very senior partner with the insurance practice group at a major law firm I had referred hundreds of thousands of dollars to in legal assignments. We had got along very well over the years and been out for many lunches and sporting events together. To get me on my feet and on the basis a contract position would have made me a much more attractive employment prospect would have been appreciated. The offer of a contract never happened despite my hints.

I had a whole host of colleagues at CRAP, all from the business unit I served as legal counsel for in the Legal Department, who contacted me the next day after my Blessed Event and we all went to a few bars to bitch and complain. One or two offered leads during my unemployment but for the rest I was yesterday’s meal soon to be forgotten

Perhaps the nicest experience of all was from Tommy Bland a colleague and a person who I had become to view as a friend from the ranks of the clients I had served. As a General Counsel of a large automobile manufacturing company located in Ontario he spent two hours with me on the phone “the day of” trying to get a handle on what had just happened. Had I been willing to relocate there was a job waiting for me. Unfortunately, Tommy was turfed in a Blessed Event several months later. Ah, such is the nature of largecorp. Rather like the dark days of Stalinism or Hitler where you were here today and gone tomorrow. Not that I am making any linkage between these nasty ideologies and largecorp!

There is nothing like the Blessed Event to help you decide who your friends are. Call me petty but do unto others what they have done to you. Isn’t that one of the Ten Commandments?

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 9: (A serialized novel by Robert K. Stephen)

Chapter 9

Downsizing: A dirty hit to your family

Your ego may be somewhat bruised after your firing. However, on top of that you must communicate the Blessed Event to your family. It is a difficult and often a humiliating endeavour. My teenage daughter Lexia was in shock wondering how “they” could do this to me. If there was anything positive she gained a glimpse of how brutal largecorp could be. I found it touching how she offered to turn over to me her savings account.

My spouse was shocked but also working for a largecorp was not completely bowled over. I had previously related to her my meeting with Brian Cochon of Ooze & Ooze months ago when he said to me “you’ll” be terminated if you don’t refund pension fund expenses to his client. It was becoming quite apparent it was not the termination of the business relationship between his client and CRAP but the termination of my employment relationship with CRAP. Poker and Cochon were working hand in hand on this one. And it was clear to me my conspiracy theory was right on the money.

Your spouse may be your strongest supporter of you as you struggle back to your feet like a deer hit by a car. Yet at times, due to your sensitivity, negative comments from family and friends can cut deep. Don’t expect a happy June or Ward Cleaver. Your blood from the corporate hit is splattered all over your spouse too. The insult to you is also an insult to your spouse. Your embarrassment and humiliation may become a family affair. This is a hard cross to bear.

I sense for many termination victims a deep distrust, hatred and cynicism concerning largecorp and its Senior Management Team is born. The SMT is the perpetrator of the shattered family. It isn’t in the Marxist textbooks or the in the pocket of largecorp MBA curriculums that will define the future of Canadian corporate life. It is in the vast collection of dirty little Blessed Events, the increasingly public disclosure of soaring executive compensation and the racist, sexist and homophobic composition of largecorp’s SMTs and boards of directors and that will shape perceptions of largecorp and possibly that of its very survival.

However, as employees fear of losing the next paycheque keeps employees in line there is silence in the ranks (at least publicly) concerning the butchery and mismanagement by largecorp of its employees. Hopefully in some distant time and place the private truthful cynicism about largecorp will outweigh the tons of largecorp propaganda and perhaps at that time the secret greed and manipulation of largecorp by the SMT will be in full public view. Apollo’s wings will be melted by the heat of securities regulators and crown prosecutors.

In the meantime, what more can you do but limp on and hope for a new job and of course a chance for revenge? Again, as for anger, control and manage your urge for revenge. Both these emotions can be powerful motivators in your job search if properly regulated.

Both you and your family have been hurt. Best that you do not get wound up in family embroilments if they bubble over. Better times are coming.