Opinion: COVID-19 report poses a threat to Alberta’s public health

Opinion: COVID-19 report poses a threat to Alberta’s public health

Article content

The recent report on Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic released by the Government of Alberta represents a threat to public health in the province. The threat comes in two forms, both direct medical harms and societal harms through erosion of public trust.

Specific recommendations made by the task force, such as halting the use of proven effective vaccines or promoting ineffective therapies like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, would cause harm and suffering if they were adopted. Second, and perhaps more concerning, are the repercussions of the anti-science and anti-evidence approach taken by the task force.  

Advertisement 2

Article content

This report promotes serious misinformation cloaked in the respectability of a formal government report. Supporting it elevates anti-science beliefs, sustains or promotes fringe theories and extreme perspectives, and puts the health of the population at risk. In support of public health, the government should reject this report and its recommendations. 

Article content

Extensive research has shown that vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective, and they have saved millions of lives around the world. On the other hand, studies of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 therapies have shown them to be ineffective, and they should not be used. When treatments are proven ineffective, their side effects clearly outweigh their benefits, particularly if they are used instead of proven effective treatments for high-risk people.  

Health professionals are encouraged and allowed to use their professional judgement in treating patients. But health professionals who advise against vaccination or who want to prescribe those treatments for this condition are demonstrating poor professional judgement, considering the strong evidence that has supported a consensus across multiple professional groups. 

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

Within the various chapters in this lengthy report, it is apparent that the task force approached their duty with an extremely biased view and a predetermined outcome. The report, and subsequent comments by at least one UCP MLA, suggests the task force, and the provincial government, had beliefs and an agenda, and they sought citations, many of shockingly low quality, to support those beliefs.

Selectively referring to single studies, social media-based data misinterpretations, and blog posts on a topic is not the accepted approach in science, and will not “take us one step closer to the truth.” Instead, a more thoughtful approach is to systematically explore the full extent of the evidence, and base decisions on the consensus, not the exceptions. 

The chair of the task force who authored this report, Dr. Gary Davidson, is reported to have said in a recent podcast that “there’s no such thing as consensus in science.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is a process of generating evidence to support or refute hypotheses or more simply put, gathering information to answer a question. And after repeated studies, done by different people in different places and times, when the weight of the evidence continues to give similar answers, we reach a consensus. And the process of science also allows us to re-examine that as the information evolves.  

Advertisement 4

Article content

Coming to consensus is also needed to translate evidence to decision-making, which is the process of how clinical practice guidelines are developed. This is typically a very thorough process by trained and experienced clinicians and scientists, taking into account all of the available evidence. This was the approach used by the Alberta COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group and by many organizations around the world that summarize evidence to support decision-making in a constantly evolving scientific landscape.

Consensus building also requires that people reviewing the evidence and making recommendations are credible. Credibility is based on expertise, experience and disclosure of potential biases that might influence the process. If individuals making recommendations are not recognized experts, or if they are known to have views or agendas that are contrary to the general consensus of recognized experts, the value of the recommendations should be questioned. 

Contrarian views do have a place and should not be silenced. But they also should not be prioritized, especially at the expense of excluding the full range of viewpoints. Consensus needs to be supported by the full weight of the evidence. If one person has a view or belief that is fully contrary to 100 people with expertise and experience, which view should guide our decisions?

Advertisement 5

Article content

When there is limited evidence to support decisions, such as when a new virus is threatening the world, we have to accept that actions need to be taken without all of the information we would like to have, based on the best evidence available at the time, and expert guidance. In these situations, the benefits and the risks need to be considered and balanced — as was explicitly done during the pandemic.

As more evidence accumulates, the strength of the consensus improves, and decisions may change. This is the scientific process at work. To say that interventions or vaccinations should not be used because they carry risks, as this task force’s report has suggested, is not helpful, as it takes potentially important tools out of the toolbox in the event of new public health threats. It also undermines the public’s trust in the scientific process. An effective report would help us know how best to use these tools. 

Prioritizing contrarian views over broad-based consensus based on the best available evidence amongst experienced clinicians and scientists is not in the best interest of the Albertans. This government-commissioned report promotes misinformation and distrust, fails to properly evaluate current evidence, and is a threat to the health of the population. We recommend the government withdraw this report and its recommendations in order to strengthen public health in the province. 

Jeffrey Johnson is a pharmacist, health services researcher and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta.

Lynora Saxinger is an infectious diseases specialist, physician and professor of medicine at the University of Alberta. Dr. Saxinger was co-chair of the Alberta COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group from March 2020 to December 2022. 

Dean Eurich is a pharmacist, clinical epidemiologist and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta. 

Article content

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *