Inequality of Nations as to Vaccine Allocation

One-quarter of the world may not get a Covid-19 vaccine until 2022, experts warn

DECEMBER 15, 2020Reprints

Pfizer vaccine vial close — An example of a vial for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.ANDREW HARNIK/GETTY IMAGES

As wealthy governments race to lock in supplies of Covid-19 vaccines, nearly a quarter of the world’s population — mostly in low and middle-income countries — will not have access to a shot until 2022, according to a new analysis.

As of mid-November, high income countries, including the European Union bloc, reserved 51% of nearly 7.5 billion doses of different Covid-19 vaccines, although these countries comprise just 14% of the world’s population. Meanwhile, only six of the 13 manufacturers working on Covid-19 vaccine candidates have reached agreements to sell their shots to low and middle-income countries.

The analysis, which was published in the BMJ, noted that access “varies markedly” across these countries. For instance, the U.S. reserved 800 million doses, but accounted for one-fifth of all Covid-19 cases globally. By contrast, Japan, Australia, and Canada reserved more than one billion doses, though these three countries combined did not account for even 1% of all current cases.

ADVERTISEMENTSPONSOR CONTENTInnovating lung cancer treatment during a pandemicThe unprecedented challenges presented by Covid-19 has put a new spotlight on the importance of timely, uninterrupted care for patients with lung cancer.BY SANOFI

Looked at another way, the projected vaccine courses per capita by country show Canada, followed by Australia, the U.K., Japan, the European Union, and U.S., have reserved at least one vaccine course per person. Canada has reserved 9.5 doses, or well over four courses, per person. By contrast, low- to middle-income countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, reserved less than one course for every two people.NEWSLETTERS

Sign up for Pharmalot

Your daily update on the drug industry.Privacy Policy

Meanwhile, only high and upper-middle-income countries have been able to procure mRNA vaccines—notably from the Pfizer (PFE) and BioNTech (BNTX) partnership, as well as Moderna (MRNA). The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has secured emergency use in the U.S. and other countries. But both it and the Moderna vaccine require cold chain distribution and storage, which means they not be readily available in countries with limited infrastructure.

ADVERTISEMENThttps://bca2bb8d01ccdf1feb5a4a35934267a5.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

“High-income countries have sought to secure future supplies of Covid-19 vaccines, but have left much of the rest of the world with uncertain access. Those hopes are today focused on a handful of lead vaccine candidates, some of which might yet falter or fail,” wrote the authors.

However, some contracts have not been disclosed or are heavily redacted, making it difficult to pinpoint supply priorities. The authors argued that greater transparency is needed about manufacturer agreements as well as underlying R&D costs, public sector financing and pricing arrangements in order to achieve more equitable access.

“Such limited transparency will fuel concerns about vaccine nationalism, and planning and accountability for ensuring broader access to Covid-19 vaccines could be seriously encumbered,” the authors warned.Related:

Covid’s strange moment: Joy over vaccines coincides with new levels of deaths and hospitalizations in U.S.

The situation is compounded by the different priorities for allocation in each country and region, according to another analysis in the same issue of The BMJ. For instance, if vaccines are preferentially allocated to priority workers to help maintain societal functions, the global target population is 258.3 million people.

The analyses arrive amid increasing concern over access to affordable Covid-19 vaccines now that distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNTX) vaccine — the first to win regulatory authorization in the U.S. — has started. As anticipation builds that still more vaccines will become available over the next several months, there is a growing push by some governments and consumer groups for greater access.

For instance, 100 advocacy groups, academics, and health experts from around the world urged the chief executives at 15 vaccine makers in the U.S., Europe, China and Russia to commit some of their output to low and middle-income countries. They also asked the companies to disclose trial results, various costs, prices, advance purchase commitments, and resources received from public and charitable sources.

One reason for such missives is that an ambitious program organized by the World Health Organization called COVAX, which hopes to provide vaccines to 92 low and middle-income countries, has not met all its goals. As of last month, $2 billion was pledged by the European Commission, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. But another $5 billion is still needed to finance the targeted 2 billion doses by the end of 2021.

As the study authors noted, by pooling resources and candidate vaccines, COVAX can provide access to a diversified pool of potential vaccines and economies of scale. But there is concern some countries may “double dip,” or purchase supplies through both COVAX and individual agreements. COVAX, by the way, is jointly run with the Gavi Vaccine Alliance and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. So far, about 80 countries have committed to purchasing vaccines.Related:

What does success look like for the Covid-19 vaccine effort?

To date, the number of confirmed purchases of Covid-19 vaccines worldwide totaled 7.4 billion doses, according to the Duke Global Health Innovation Center. Of those, high-income countries purchased 3.9 billion doses, upper-middle-income countries secured 1 billion doses and lower-middle-income countries contracted for 1.8 billion doses. Low-income countries bought non. COVAX secured 700 million doses.

“Countries – not Covax – are purchasing nearly all the output that is being produced and is projected to be produced into 2021. Countries pay more per dose on their own than were they to procure collectively via Covax, but purchasing directly secures a space toward the front of the queue,” wrote Kenneth Shadlen a professor of international development at the London School of Economics, who studies pharmaceutical pricing, patents and access, in a recent blog.

The anxiety over access is something of a moving target, though.

Earlier this week, the Canadian government committed to provide $380 million to various global initiatives designed to provide equitable access to Covid-19 diagnostics, therapies, and vaccines. Canada has reportedly been in talks to donate excess vaccine doses as well, but no commitment or details have been made public.

“As the uncertainty diminishes over which vaccines will succeed and which will not, Canada’s commitment to ensuring an effective global response will be tested,” Anthony So, one of the study authors and a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, wrote us.

“How and at what point will it share effective Covid-19 vaccines it has procured with those faring worse in the pandemic or in greater need of receiving even the first round of doses? The same question may face a number of other high-income countries that have entered into bilateral agreements with vaccine manufacturers: scale-up at home or share abroad.

“Investing and coordinating globally through COVAX can help address this challenge, but the U.S. and Russia have declined to participate,” he continued. “So Canada’s commitment to developing a mechanism for equitably reallocating vaccine doses — through COVAX, by exchange or donation — sets an important first step for the global community to follow.”

About the AuthorReprints

Ed Silverman

Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 14 Welcome to the post-industrial revolution

Chapter 14

Welcome to the post-industrial revolution

Somewhere in your education you must have encountered those terrible stories of poor British children toiling in coal mines during the British Industrial Revolution subsisting in workhouses under horrific conditions. Poor dirty ragamuffins working for treacherous capitalists dying by the dozens in rockslides or in a myriad of industrial accidents or victims of consumption and disease caused by both horrible working and living conditions. Do you remember your outrage when reading about these poor defenceless children? Smugly then you reflected just how far society has progressed in improving working conditions so such terrible tragedies would never repeat themselves. You believed in continual enlightenment and progress until you finally understood Queen Victoria was one of the biggest dope dealers ever! You were wrong!

Working in largecorp is akin to child labour in those British coal mines except what kills is stress. Yes, the rags have been replaced by “office casual”. The office tower has replaced the coal mine. Paper has replaced chunks of coal. The owners of coal mines have been replaced by the Senior Management Team. Exploitation has “evolved” with the well fed and dressed largecorp office worker becoming the new coal miner child in the Post-Industrial Revolution.

Now there are worker bees in largecorp toiling on the shop floor, but they have the protection of the union to prevent flagrant workplace abuse by largecorp however the office worker is hanging out on a limb without much protection.

The office worker at largecorp rarely even thinks of unionization as that would be the quickest way out the door. That would make it so much more expensive for largecorp if it had to pay overtime for the excessive long hours the largecorp office employee logs. Largecorp silently demands unpaid overtime for job tenure. The employee is supposed to be grateful for this privilege and expected to find challenge and satisfaction working under abusive largecorp conditions. Being part of a “dynamic and winning team” does not tolerate a 9-5 culture. Family and community involvement are lauded if you are a SMT member but implicitly discouraged for everyone else where paper pushing and the bottom-line reign supreme.

The “employee playbook” of largecorp encourages community involvement and quality family time. Yet more doublespeak from the MBA theorists inspiring the Human Resources Department. Let’s face it after 8 hours who wouldn’t want to pack it in and head home to a family or any other form of personal life but this runs terribly afoul of corporate commitment. The reality is slavery with a smile and as a largecorp worker in the office tower there is no socially conscious reformer or union looking after their interests. At least those coal mining children seemed to have someone on their team seeking to reform their exploitation. The largecorp office tower employee has no reformer against abuse but rather a justifier and promoter of abuse being the largecorp Human Resources Department.

One of the most vicious and competitive largecorps around in Toronto are the large national law firms headquartered on Bay Street. Lawyers have billable hour requirements foistered upon them by the law firm’s management committee. The targets are excessive and assume a lawyer works late in the evening and on the week-end. These elite pieceworkers make a very nice salary but their family is held together by a Filipino nanny. Therefore it is no surprise Filipino immigration to Canada amounts to 60,000 people a year. To patch up a decaying family structure through hired help such immigration is required. How many times have I been at the park walking my dog on the week-end seeing nannies playing with the children. The parents have been sucked into the office towers of largecorp. But the Audi 6 runs so smoothly and the salary of Mom and Dad is enough to choke a boa constrictor!

While large law firms are perhaps the most abusive sort of largecorp the same conditions exist for much lower paid non-law firm largecorp office tower employees where the SMT trumpets praise to those who have gone “the extra mile” by working ruinously long hours. Geez I recall many an e-mail from management teams I supported praising me from going that “extra mile”. I used to go home, have dinner with the family then drive all the way downtown and work well past midnight for years at CRAP. Given the Blessed Event what a fool I had been. I recall one Christmas Eve morning being in the office at 5 a.m. finishing a project which I managed to complete late in the evening. I saved Christmas Day for my family! If I hadn’t delivered on that project I would have been thrown out the door.

Perhaps one of the most interesting and eye-opening events for me at CRAP occurred one Saturday morning while I was in the office. My manager, Manny Fister, approached me and said in a strangely frank way, “What the fuck are you doing here on a Saturday? Don’t you realize the more you deliver the more will be expected of you? Get the fuck out of here and spend some time with your family.” I ignored his rather strange and bombastic advice and kept on working but over the next few days increasingly gave thought to his advice. So I toned things down and became a 9-5 man even when transferred to Felicity Poker’s Legal Department. And I found it really didn’t seem to make a difference unless it was grounds for the Blessed Event that struck me.

Poor Manny Fister had a meltdown on a flight to Vancouver on business several days after his outburst to me. A crying baby sent him into a nervous breakdown and at 55 he was never heard from again. The prevailing thought was the poor man had suffered a nervous breakdown. The bowling ball of largecorp had just knocked down another pin!

A conclusion to be drawn here is that fear of termination for not slogging your brains and body out is a prime motivator for largecorp employee productivity. That is not a healthy motivator. Don’t let your full stomach, faux mahogany office furniture and well-made clothes make you think you are very much different from the British coal miner child. Don’t fall for the crock of bullshit fed your way by largecorp’s Human Resources Department gurgling how important your quality of life is to largecorp. If it was so important why the rise of mindfulness sessions, Employee Assistance and Wellness programmes? These programmes amount not to compassion but desperation.

If you stand up and attempt to challenge largecorp abuse you aren’t going to take largecorp down like Harvey Weinstein but more likely to end up in the workhouse like poor Oliver Twist. Most likely you are powerless against largecorp but hopefully you have your head screwed on tight and realized you are victim of largecorp. Perhaps in time a collective of victims can unite to press for social reform of largecorp. I am trending towards thinking that unionization of office tower largecorp employees just might be the answer. The “Me Too” hysterical outing approach may take down a bunch of predatory movie executives but it isn’t going to budge largecorp.

Presently it would seem we are under the thumb of largecorp and their Human Resource’s Department grinding out tons of propaganda. Our worst enemy is our fear.

“Girl Lost, A Hollywood Story”: Pure Evil

So the storyline is not exactly innovative. Young unhappy teen Hope (Moxie Owens) is lured to Hollywood by her former babysitter and sexual molester Paige (Cody Renee Cameron) so Paige can launch Hope into an “acting career”. Paige and Destiny (Serena Maffucci) are setting up an escort service and in essence are pimps but Hope is so juvenile and ignorant she doesn’t realize Paige and Destiny are marketing her as a prostitute. Paige and Destiny are also marketing single mom Baby Girl (Psalms Salazar). Both Hope and Baby Girl love their vodka.

Baby Girl is easily manipulated by her poverty and Hope by childlike gullibility. That Paige and Destiny are “grooming” Hope make Paige and Destiny vile and disgusting human beings manipulating poor Hope who discovers far along in the game exactly what the two pimp ladies are up to.

So basically the film is about sex trafficking which in the case of Hope and Baby Girl is about exploitation of primarily a psychological nature. Violence is not part of the pimp’s ploy which makes the storyline a bit flimsy. The acting, apart from Salazar, is weak and stilted but that could be caused by the weak writing. Page and Destiny are pure evil and their poor acting strangely makes them more evil due to their detachment from their roles.

However weak the acting and script may be the evil streak running through the film makes it worth watching. The smile by Hope at the conclusion of the film is a chilling . Yes some sex trade workers need to make a living and morals may be prudish by many but in the case of a minor like Hope the pimps Paige and Destiny have no morals and their evil nature is unfortunately a regular feature in a world where 80% of run away girls turn to prostitution. They are easy pickings to the pure evil of Paige and Destiny. As director, writer, producer and editor Robin Bain states,” Shot on location on the streets of Hollywood, Girl Lost, A Hollywood Story is a character study surrounding four women involved in the sex industry. The film explores the social, cultural and economic plights of these women as they struggle to survive in an unforgiving world. Far away from the perceived glamour of Beverly Hills, the film captures the darkest and most despairing elements of the city and the journey of the characters.”

You can watch the movie and see the trailer on these platforms https://www.bgpics.com/movies/girl-lost-a-hollywood-story/

From right to left Baby Girl, Paige, Hope and Destiny

Life at Up Up and Away Investment Management International: Chapter 13: “So how does largecorp hang on?”

Chapter 13

So how does largecorp hang on?

Largecorp is still out there despite a stream of Millennials and burnt-out Boomers threatening so many of its dear values. The Millennials have seen many of their parents burnt out and chewed up by largecorp. It is tempting to say they are spoilt and from an “entitlement” generation however that may be largecorp speaking. Call them what you may but as a minimum many of them are very wary of what largecorp can offer them.

Perhaps these Millennials are wiser than the Boomers who suffered through tough economic conditions and had to bear economic exploitation with a contrived smile? When times turn tough will the Millennials buckle down and beg for mercy from largecorp?

Now if there are exceptions to the lackadaisical Millennials there are always the large accounting and law firms where the thirst by Millennials for wealth and power remains. But in other sectors, particularly in the financial services sector, largecorp is running a bit scared. Hence the concept of keeping employees engaged and happy! Exploitation has been replaced by a more sophisticated type of exploitation going by the name of “employee engagement”. Chief Happiness Officers are now appearing in largecorp as desperate largecorps attempt to deal with a silent rebellion of “I do not want to be your slave Millennials” in their workplace.

One strategy they have devised is work from home (WFH) which connects employees to work through a home computer. This sounds liberating but personally I have found WFH to be more intense than driving into the office and making the return trip which amounts to two hours. Instead of that mindless driving I spent those two hours glued to the computer, so my productivity and stress is increased by two hours and add on to this the lack of personal interruptions, lunch and human face time! COVID-19 and WFH is making WFH more tedious than it ever was.

Although Millennials are a challenge for largecorp the expanding greed of the Senior Management Team dictates token concessions lest productivity be disrupted.

If you toil in the corporate offices of largecorp you may become immune to some of the outrageously abusive techniques employed by the SMT to increase productivity by squeezing employees. Many of these techniques have a gloss of being beneficial. Some of these techniques ooze compassion and care for employees. They are no more than cost saving ploys.

Witness the emphasis on “Wellness Programmes” which can range from bringing in dieticians, mindfulness meditation and employee assistance programmes offering assistance for psychological problems and substance abuse all of which arise from issues that threaten productivity and employee output. Care and concern for employees or an obvious goal of limiting short- and long-term disability claims by overworked and over-exploited employees at the hands of largecorp? If largecorp gives a shit about its employees it is always about their productivity and nothing more!

Look at the surging popularity of “corporate mindfulness programmes”. These Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programmes have as their goal the reduction of stress in the workplace most particularly through meditation and better enabling employees to learn techniques to manage stress through focusing on the body and breath with the message being that employee stress is the employee’s fault in becoming stressed out because they don’t have the correct mental mind set to deal with the stress. Nowhere is it admitted it is the possibility that workplace stress is not the fault of the employee, but the overwhelming amount of stress heaped on employees by a greedy largecorp more prone to outsourcing and downsizing than to some equitable and fair distribution of work.

Again, as mental illness like extreme stress stress is the leading cause of long-term disability claims for largecorp it has an interest in solving this as cheaply as possible while contemporaneously distancing itself from any ideological responsibility for the destructive tsunami of stress sweeping over its employees.

Most of these “Wellness” and MBSR programmes are peddled through largecorp’s Human Resources Department. Placate and accommodate the ideology of the day adopted by the SMT of largecorp. A truthful cause and effect analysis might reveal some validity for these two programmes but additionally one might very well point a finger at largecorp for terminating and outsourcing thousands of jobs then heaping the slack on paranoid and overworked domestic employees.

While many of the techniques used by largecorp to increase productivity and to project a positive public image are subtle and ostensibly beneficial to the employee there are a host of crude and demeaning Human Resources Department controlled programs. They are designed to augment productivity and the public image of largecorp. Through compulsion and extortion employees are compelled to participate.

One of the high-pressure tactics used to threaten employees and boost the image of CRAP was spearheaded by the United Way. For weeks there were mini putt contests, candy trolleys, auctions and countless other “United Way” contests designed to gouge employees to contribute to United Way. In fact, the President of CRAP and his compatriots in other insurance companies treated their United Way fund raising competitions as a private old boy’s contest to see which largecorp could raise the largest per capita contribution.

Imagine all senior managers and Assistant Vice-Presidents of CRAP being summoned to a “United Way Leadership Breakfast” at which they were subject to a miserably cheap breakfast and intense pressure to donate a minimum of $1,000 to United Way so their name could be published in in special United Way category the name which escapes me. So crude and primitive. Upon hearing about this circus, I never gave a penny to United Way despite being harassed by CRAP’s Human Resources Department to do so. A few years later CRAP dropped United Way and started a list of approved charities an employee could contribute to which would be matched by CRAP. Of course, the amount of paperwork required to obtain this matching contribution was accompanied by a wall of bureaucracy to the extent it was too time consuming to obtain the CRAP matching contribution.

I have previously described certain productivity programmes initiated by CRAP but before I forget there are a couple more I can remember.

The “Bee Smart Productive” programme where any employee that suggested a better way of accomplishing tasks that was chosen by the department’s manager would win a “Bee Productive” winner’s badge and would be forced to wear a bumble bee hat for a week. What idiots dreamt up this incentive for disproductivity? Can you imagine the humility of wearing such a hat? I was delighted never to have been a winner. I feared more from winning than being terminated for failing to actively participate in such a programme. Can you imagine the SMT wearing such hats for devising the best way of squeezing SMT incentive payments to themselves from largecorp revenues? The Bee Productive program lasted a mere month. No cash for employee winners, only a pair of movie tickets. Not only is the SMT insatiably greedy it was terribly stupid and ruthlessly cheap.

Although I can give you countless other brazen programs one which was very enlightening and continues to the present day in one form or the other occurred one year in the last two months of the Registered Retirement Savings Programme (RRSP) contribution season throughout CRAP’s retail insurance network.

RRSP’s are huge businesses for banks and insurance companies in Canada. Unobtainable targets are established, and immense pressure is placed on all retail branch employees to sell, sell and sell. Feeble seniors, welfare recipients, wife beaters, child molesters, illiterates and sexual abusers were all legitimate sources of RRSP contributions. The devil himself would have been welcomed! I suppose the incentive of free doughnuts and coffee was thought to be exceedingly generous even though the doughnuts were cut in quarters!

In any case retail branch employees were formed into RRSP selling teams compelled to wear baseball caps and T-Shirts denoting their team. Their daily results were posted in each retail branch totally visible to the public. Some MBA whiz kid had developed this program I heard and it was of course sanctioned by some Executive Vice-President in the retail side of CRAP. Of course, any team on the bottom of the competition or near the bottom was shamed. Also, any cash incentive for RRSP contribution increases to CRAP went to the SMT. The winning team received a $50 gift certificate each to some cheap chain restaurant.

Can the Millennials be bought off with such shallow and debasing contests? I would think they would be rightfully turned off.

2020 Wines: Mostly Blah or Consistently Acceptable

I have done my best this year to investigate a panoply of wines from a price point and geographic perspective. While there have been a few wines that are horrific the general rule I am finding is a sense of general acceptability and lack of daringness. Go for the safe offend nobody and keep sales attuned to the supermarket buyer in Europe or Canadian liquor monopolies and you’ll make a decent profit. It is as if these “flying winemakers” are not heroes but purveyors of sameness.

At year end I take a gander at my scores and most are in the 86-89 range. Drinkable wine and much of it at a reasonable price considering the Draculian governmental taxes but as savvy wine drinkers this is getting mundane.

We wine drinkers are somewhat captive to large supermarket chains or liquor monopolies making our wine choices their wine choices.

And there is not much we can do except to circumvent the monopoly and look to direct shipping from producers which is often strangled by governmental powers seeking to extract maximum tax revenues. For example, in Canada there is a federal freedom of inter-provincial shipment of liquors that in effect is up to control of provincial liquor monopiles. Contradiction? Indeed.

We are cut off here in Ontario from Liquor Control Board of Ontario decisions of what can be imported into LCBO outlets and it is blah blah blah sameness. California is safe and sure for revenue. Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Brazil, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, United Kingdom, Croatia all are risks to profit.

The huge bright light in the tunnel is British Columbia in Canada which astounds with innovation and risk but the state liquor monopolies play the game of prohibition for products that do not assure profit so hey as a resident of other than British Columbia you can private order and be welcomed into the yoke of expensive and paternalistic liquor monopoly.

The LCBO performs a huge disservice to Ontario and other Canadian wineries preferring the easy buck off California juice.

About the only exciting trend this year is the bravado and courage of British Columbia wineries that delightfully confound the taste buds. But they face the challenge of the SAQ/LCBO if they dare challenge the profit model of these liquor monopiles that don’t give a shit about consumers but always about their profit. The LCBO and SAQ are anti-Canadian wine forces.

Robert Stephen’s Best Red Wines of 2020

Robert K. Stephen’s Best Red Wines for 2020

Fogolar 2016 Picone Vineyard Cabernet Franc $44.20, Ontario (94)

Pentage Winery GSM 2015, $28.61, British Columbia (94)

Pentage Winery Gamay 2017, $20, British Columbia (94)

Crescent Hill Winery 2017 Mad Medusa Merlot, $29.95, British Columbia, (94)

Fogolar 2016 Cabernet Franc, $22.20, Ontario (93)

Mayhem Wines 2017 Cabernet Franc/Merlot, $21.74, British Columbia (93)

Meyer Family Vineyards Old Black Pinot Noir 2018, $43.48, British Columbia (93)

Mayhem 2018 Cabernet Franc/Merlot, $21.74, British Columbia (93)

Stags Hollow 2019 Simply Noir, $22, British Columbia (93)

Château du Chatelard Cuvèe Les Vieux Grantis Fleurie, $23.95, France (93)

Cave Spring 2018 Gamay, $16.95, Ontario (93)

Fiuza Eminente Reserva Tinto 2017, $15.95, Portugal (93)

Cabriz Colheita Selecionada 2018, $14.95, Portugal (92)

Villa Antinori Chianti Classico Riserva 2015, $29.95, Italy (92)

Meyer Family Vineyards Pinot Noir Okanagan Valley McClean Creek Road Vineyard, British Columbia, $40 (92)

Donnachira Irpina Aglianico 2017, $24.95, Italy (92)

Oak Bay Vineyards 2018 Pinot Noir, $20, British Columbia (92)

Oak Bay Vineyards 2017 Foch, $22, British Columbia (92)

Oak Bay Vineyards 2018 Pinot Noir, $19, British Columbia (92)

Pentage Winery Tempranillo 2015, $26, British Columbia (92)

Stobi 2017 Vranec, $14.95, Republic of North Macedonia (92)

Confidencial Reserva 2014, $13.95, Portugal (92)

Stags Hollow 2018 Pinot Noir, $27, British Columbia (92)

Godelia Mencia 2015, $24.95, Spain (92)

Marqués de Caceras Excellens Rioja Crianza 2016, $17.95, Spain (92)

‘New variant’ of coronavirus identified in England reports BBC

Published4 hours agoShareRelated Topics

Coronavirus pandemic

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:

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

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

(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:

“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 21^stCentury” 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