I cannot emphasize what Steve says strongly enough.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 11, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca> wrote:
James what are you comparing? Your arguments seem weak given current/upcoming realities. Did you know that in Florida and Texas, which simply might be a precursor to here and the world, especially if using your and others suggestions of freedom
( free choice not to mask or vaccine), now have cancelled major surgeries (which will deeply harm others) and more so, there is a
exponential uptick of ICU and deaths among children under 12. This is directly because of the supposed individual freedom of the unvaccinated / unmasked. So freedom to kill or cause severe illness in other people's children does not seem even
remotely close to what you have labelled freedom to be "unhygienic " or this is like the flu now. It instead is one of the most extreme examples of needing to be regulated for public good, similar to other regulations we already have in other areas less harmful.
(ie. the extreme example of killing other people's children through your recklessness, right up there or higher than, say heavy drinking and driving near a grade school) . "Then is not now" you say - we had no Delta then ( or the next variant which will also
be caused by the unvaccinated and the heavy reproduction of the virus). It is worse now -
children that can not get vaccinated are dying. I will repeat, children that have no way to get vaccinated are dying in ever increasing numbers, because of the covid spread of others. I do not want students returning to SFU (without mandates) to be part
of killing their younger siblings and other peoples children. Just news search: children spike covid, and read any one of the many articles here are some excerpts:
CNN this week : ( "Florida children's hospitals are overwhelmed with...")
In Florida, which has the second-highest rate of new cases per capita after Louisiana,
children's hospitals and staff are "overwhelmed," said Dr. Aileen Marty, an infectious disease expert at Florida International University.
" The numbers of cases in our hospitals in children and our children's hospitals are completely overwhelmed," Marty told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Friday evening."Our pediatricians, the nursing, the staff are exhausted, and the children are suffering.
And it is absolutely devastating ... our children are very much affected. We've never seen numbers like this before," she said. ...
In Texas, ... "We have not seen kids pile into pediatric ICUs across the South like we're seeing right now," Dr. Peter Hotez, at Baylor College of Medicine, told CNN on Friday. ... Returning to schools safely is possible if mitigation efforts, including
wearing masks, are implemented, said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who heads the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"The places where you see kids in the hospital, the places where you see footage of kids in the hospital, are all places that are not taking mitigation strategies to keep our children safe," Walensky said Friday.
The CDC recommends that everyone -- students, teachers, staff and visitors -- wear masks in schools.
NBC News this week: ("Kids sick with Covid are filling up children's hospitals in areas seeing spikes"):
Children’s hospitals in areas seeing a surge in Covid cases are experiencing the same pattern: More children are coming in with Covid symptoms just ahead of the start of the school year.
Bed shortages and overworked doctors and nurses in children’s hospitals are becoming commonplace. ...
At Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Covid positivity rates have risen from around 3 percent to above 10 percent among kids.
In one Hospital New Orleans Hospital, ... 13 children with severe COVID including six under the age of 2. Four children are in the ICU, including a
3-month-old boy, a 23-month-old girl, an 8-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy.
"Children in Louisiana have died of Covid and more unfortunately will die," said Dr. John Vanchiere, a pediatric infectious disease specialist, as he stood next to Bel Edwards at a news conference last week.
"This is not a time for politics, for fighting or threatening lawsuits about masks. Masks save lives.
And if you're a pro-life Louisiana resident like I am, wear your mask."
-steve
- Steve DiPaola, PhD - -
- Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT);
- Past Director: Cognitive Science Program;
- - Simon Fraser University - - -
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh
(Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
|
Hi Martin, indeed: And that was precisely the case 18 months ago. Viz.: preventing death and illness by wearing a piece of cloth--over one's face, while participating in society, which one tried not to do.
But then is not now. Due to vaccination, which I strongly support (and with which I and mine have eagerly complied).
Of course one can always argue that, in its residuum, a free society is always and by definition unhygienic and irresponsible.
But--if one prefers that kind of society--one needs in my opinion to be alive to the point at which such arguments become specious.
Every winter, for example, we are beset by a wave of influenza that threatens a small but significant portion of our people with grievous suffering and even death. We have reason to think that a universal and eternal masking mandate would mitigate flu.
Should we therefore implement one?
JDF
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby/Vancouver,
British Columbia,
Canada.
A grateful mind / By owing owes not
Amen to that. There is one thing that James has right, though. Covid19 is not restricting our freedoms. We are
choosing to restrict them in response to the pandemic.
But we make such choices routinely, I am not allowed to drive on the left, to do so without a seatbelt, to throw objects out of the widow as I drive (especially lit cigarettes) Some of these restrictions are purely paternalistic as they only prevent harm
to the would-be violator (seatbelt laws), some for public safety (lit cigarettes), some for coordination (driving on the right) some to solve prisoner's dilemma situations where the rational decision of each individual would lead to a worse outcome (littering
laws). These are choices, not circumstances.
Covid vaccine and mask mandates are partly paternalistic, but mostly public safety decisions. But there is nothing wrong with restricting freedoms for a good reason. Every law and regulation does this. The idea that a law would be unconstitutional simply
because it restricts our freedom will not fly. To complete the argument, James needs to show that the public good that comes from these mandates is not worth the restriction on freedom. When the good is preventing death and illness and the cost wearing a
piece of cloth for a few months, or getting a shot which also protects you, I just don't see the argument.
Like Lucas, I don't know what SFU is allowed to do, but am pretty sure the Ministry of Health could allow it to do what needs to be done, or even make it do this.
Martin
On 8/10/2021 9:26 AM, Lucas Herrenbrueck wrote:
Hi James,
Thanks for getting such an important discussion started!
I leave the legal question to others. David MacAlister and Steve DiPaola's emails have me convinced that a university mask mandate would be perfectly legal. But if you're not sure, James, you can sue and then we'll find out.
I want to talk about the ethics of a mask mandate here. (I'm not an ethics expert, but maybe you guys want to chime in?) Nobody will disagree that a mask mandate is a restriction on freedom. I'll also be the first to concede that seeing each other's faces
is quite an important component of human interaction, and it definitely sucks not to have that (indoors) right now.
But the fact is that "freedom" is a lot of things, and the total amount of freedom is a finite resource. (As an economist, I do claim to be an expert on finite resources.)
COVID-19 has reduced the total amount of freedom available to us, just like climate change has reduced the total amount of the ice pack in our glaciers. We want the freedom not to wear masks, we want the freedom to travel internationally, we want the
freedom to see elderly relatives in care homes, and we want the freedom to go to work/class each week without being forced to isolate after a positive test (which we would have to do even if we feel fine, which a good portion of the infected indeed do).
We simply can't have all of these things right now.
So then the question is how to apportion the remaining freedom. What is the "fair" way of doing that? James says "get vaccinated and mask up if you want, but don't force others to". It's a good ethical argument. But my
preferred ethical argument would be: let's try to apportion the loss of freedom as equally as we can. This means "prioritize immunocompromised people's ability to participate in society,
prioritize people being able to travel to see loved ones, prioritize children to get in-person schooling, prioritize nobody needing to isolate for 2 weeks at a random time in the middle of the semester" - roughly in that order - and
then prioritize "respect peoples' personal comfort zone around vaccinations and masking".
And right now, the epidemiology (not to mention the data) of Delta-COVID is screaming at us: we can't have all. We'll be lucky if we can have the first three or four even with universal vaccination and masking.
And, finally, if the law doesn't line up with the best combination of ethics and reality we can afford right now,
let's change the damn law.
Lucas
PS: Just saw Nilima's email who makes a similar point about going for the "least invasive measure". Totally agree.
I would be interested to see the SFU policy that says "no nakedness." If there is one, I doubt it would survive a Charter challenge. (The convention of wearing clothes is a diffuse anthropological norm, not a legal mandate.)
Meanwhile, and more importantly: the notion that wearing a mask just to participate in the university is the same as wearing a shirt just to enter Shoppers Drug Mart--this I think is the kind of notion of which we need to beware.
Let's take a step back. Covid-19 had the potential to kill perhaps 1% of the world's population (~80 million people). A horrendous prospect. It was in order to prevent the latter that we accepted unprecedented restrictions on our bodies and our lives. Now,
however, we are coming toward the completion of a vaccination program that is, by all accounts, extremely effective against this virus. Many of the hygienic practices people have taken on over the last 18 months, including widespread masking, will probably
continue for a long time on an inertial basis. But I don't think there is a strong case for continuing to make them mandatory.
And, in any case--to come back to my original point--I question whether the university can even do that, on its own authority.
Compare a public library. Bonnie Henry says "no more masks." But the librarian, out of an abundance of caution, etc., says you still need a mask to enter the library. Somebody refuses to comply. Can the librarian bar the door? I doubt it. JDF
From: Eirikur Palsson
<epalsson@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 9, 2021 10:19:35 PM
To: James Fleming
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
Yet you don’t seem to have any objection with the university requiring everyone to cover “sensitive” parts of their bodies. It seems banning people from walking around naked would also be a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_ (mostly for
prudish reasons).
The bottom line is no society is completely free as lots of restriction are put on individuals to “protect” the rest of society, whether it be for health reasons, religious reasons or puritanical reasons.
Even stores have policies that state “No shirt, no shoes, no service” or restaurants requiring ties and suits.
Eirikur
Very good! But I wd answer: An obligation to cover one's face, not in specific contexts, but in general social movement, is a clear restriction of free movement and _expression_. Probably (as per my previous), governments, even those committed to the protection
and conservation of such freedoms, can nonetheless validly restrict or suspend them under certain circumstances. But only governments can.
By that token: As long as government is saying "you guys don't have to wear masks all the time," I question whether SFU (e.g.) can legally say "you guys have to wear masks all the time." If not, then there is little point in calling on SFU to say that. JDF
From: Steve DiPaola <sdipaola@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 9, 2021 7:22:05 PM
To: James Fleming
Cc: Christopher Pavsek;
academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
Surely you have a point - but my general pushback is your term "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" as opposed to basic university safety rules and regulations. Can you smoke within a classroom - no - why because of a safety regulation? Must
you both be trained and use safety goggles and PPE in a univ. chemistry lab - yes - why because of a safety regulation. How different is it to be required to wear a mask during a pandemic to protect those around you? How different is a vaccine requirement
than the current requirement for MMR (measles ...) vaccines to attend school? These are safety rules not "constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms" in my view - ones that are very similar to what we already require throughout the university. Surely requiring
you to not smoke indoors because when you do dangerous secondhand smoke can move through the air and affect others, is so similar to you must wear a mask so COVID virus particles do not move through the air and affect others inside a building - they are about
the same in my view. I do not see these requested requirements much different from what we do for safety now - except of course that we need to enact them quickly and temporarily for this X-months covid event.
- Steve DiPaola, PhD - -
- Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT);
- Past Director: Cognitive Science Program;
- - Simon Fraser University - - -
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish),
and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
|
A legal question (with preamble). Over the last 18 months, our society has broadly accepted restrictions on basic rights (notably of free movement, and association) that have, quite clearly, been constitutionally extraordinary. We have, I think, tacitly
agreed that desperate times have called for desperate measures. To be sure, it has been disturbing that governments at both national and sub-national levels have temporarily suspended constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms *without,* as far as I am aware, any
attempt to articulate a legislative basis for so doing. (Compare the War Measures Act in October 1970.) Nonetheless, they probably could have, if they had wanted to. Which is to say that the restrictions were legal, if they were, only and precisely because
they were imposed by government.
Is it possible that a sub-governmental institution, such as a university, could legally impose, on its own authority, restrictions of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms?
I struggle to see how.
JD Fleming
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby/Vancouver,
British Columbia,
Canada.
A grateful mind / By owing owes not
-- Paradise Lost
From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 9, 2021 2:39:22 PM
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
Hi All—I thought I’d share this. UBC’s fac. association has taken this stance:
https://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/member_notice/message-president-update/
The salient point, in Rumsfeldian language: “In light of the known knowns, known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, and in the absence of any risk analysis brought forward by the University, we now believe that a robustly precautionary approach is most
appropriate. We therefore call upon UBC to adopt an indoor mask mandate in all its spaces and a vaccine mandate for all its employees and students (subject to the normal legal exemptions) in advance of the September reopening. This course of action will not
only do the most to alleviate well-founded anxiety but will also allow the most secure planning of teaching and research activities.”
So it would seem that pressure around this issue in the province continues to rise.
On Aug 4, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Martin Hahn < mhahn@sfu.ca> wrote:
That line: " you protect yourself by getting vaccinated" drives me bats! It shows such a profound misunderstanding of what vaccines are for in an epidemic.
How short is our memory? When Covid vaccines were being developed, epidemiologists were saying that anything over 60% effective would be really good. Why? For personal protection from disease, that is not much better than a coin-toss. But
it is enough to do what vaccines really need to do: bring down the R0 - the rate of transmission
Protecting your kid from measles is not the main reason to get them vaxxed, it's to stop the spread of an incredibly contagious disease which, like polio before it, does not have a devastating effect on most people who get it, but is deadly
to enough that letting it spread would be disastrous.
With Covid getting more transmissible, the percentage of fully vaccinated population needed to bring it under control keeps going up. Canada has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world. But it is not enough.
Making vaccines mandatory is probably too draconian, but the interim measure is to make the life of the unvaccinated not as free as of those who get the shot. Want to go to a cafe? Work at a certain company? Go to university? Get vaccinated.
Even Andrew Coyne, surely a man with stellar
libertarian credentials, thinks that is the way to go. US universities and companies are going that way and so are European countries.
But BC universities? Well, they are currently behind in their understanding, and more afraid of public backlash, not just than US universities and European governments. We have now fallen behind poultry processors in Arkansas!
Embarrassing.
Martin
On 8/4/2021 12:51 PM, Lyn Bartram wrote:
I asked a question in senate about the weakness of the plan, and the answer was “ you protect yourself by getting vaccinated”. But of course this is not the only answer - you protect others by getting vaccinated. I agree with universal masking. It may be the
only achievable solution - except for residences. And a number of schools are already mandating it. It’s the least e should do.
Sent from my iPad
Can I offer the simplicity of universal masking? The US CDC and others are back on that plate for medium term solutions.
Yes, something to work around in the context of lecturing, etc. but a few "Madonna" microphones (a mere $70 at your local London Drugs) could go some distance to mitigating the muffling. Masking would also provide a substantial degree of safety in small
group activities.
Even with the small "break through" rate of fully vaccinate people, our students' age cohort are at very high risk because they tend not to realize they are sick unless they're very sick, and then they afraid to affect their grades by taking a day at home.
Also given the relatively high number of our students who have their own (unvaccinated, off at day care) kiddies, I am really, really nervous about the kid-young adult vectors putting (grannie-aged) me in harms way.
I, too, wish I had confidence in our ventilation systems. But given that Dr. Bonnie and Health Canada denied that coronaviruses are airborne for a very very long time, all of our Universities are way behind any possibility of
mitigating that aspect of the problem.
In long, we're far from out of the woods.
From: Bernhard Riecke <ber1@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 4, 2021 8:22:13 AM
To: Sam Black; Behraad Bahreyni; Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi
Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
An increasing amount of universities in Canada and beyond are requiring vaccinations (at least when living in dorms), e.g., https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-grappling-with-whether-to-require-mandatory-vaccines-for-students & https://www.fierceeducation.com/best-practices/many-universities-requiring-students-to-get-vaccinated
so it can't be completely impossible. It's indeed a tricky balance between "personal freedom" and "safety", but certainly worth pushing for a safe work environment (I'm already thinking of bringing my own HEPA air purifier to lectures to protect students and
myself... something that imho SFU should more seriously consider providing)
cheers
Bernhard
On 2021-08-03 15:24, Sam Black wrote:
I too was puzzled by the response Chris received,
"there
is no requirement for
proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to
establish such a mandate"
For the record, there is a requirement for proof of immunization -- but not for covid immunization -- for incoming students in many Canadian Medical schools, including
UBC and the University of Ottawa:
http://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=12,209,374,340
https://med.uottawa.ca/undergraduate/immunization-requirements
The University Act neither requires, nor prohibits schools from demanding proof of immunization. Under the University Act it is permitted for schools to demand proof of immunization: as UBC's Medical School has done. So I believe that the question of whether
SFU should demand proof of immunization for covid should be debated on its merits by the SFU community. I very much doubt that debate is pre-empted by the jurisdictional argument Chris was given.
Best,
Sam
Sam Black
Assoc. Prof. Philosophy, SFU
I respectfully acknowledge that SFU is on the unceded ancestral and traditional territories of the səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish),
xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (Kwikwetlem) Nations.
From: Behraad Bahreyni <bba19@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 3, 2021 2:27:59 PM
To: Lyn Bartram; Baharak Yousefi
Cc: Christopher Pavsek; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: RE: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
Here is another article on the same subject:
__________________
|
Behraad Bahreyni, PhD, PEng
Associate Professor, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering
Associate Member, School of Engineering Science
SFU Simon Fraser University
|
|
|
Surrey campus: MSE 4176, 250-13450 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC, CANADA V3T 0A3
Burnaby campus: ASB 8855, 8888 University Dr, Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5A 1S6
|
I think there is a lot of bafflegab here. We know other Canadian universities are requiring more stringent ,measures. And I foresee a lawsuit where someone pits the safe workplace requirement against being made to go back to campus.
Hi Chris,
Thanks very much for following up on this and sharing the information with us.
What the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU is saying re the impossibility of a mandate seems to contradict what Dr. Henry said on July 27th:
“ . . . And universities are looking at what are the measures they need to take in their setting to make it as safe as possible . . . that may mean if you’re living in residence that you need to
have proof of immunization.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It1afVleAqA
Part about post sec is at about 42:12 to 43:12.
Baharak Yousefi (she/her)
Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science
Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4
Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish)
& Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories |
#LandBack
From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 3, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Baharak Yousefi
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: on another point: : Without mandatory vaccines, more campus shutdowns are inevitable
Hello--I was curious about this and queried the president's office/VPA. I specifically asked if the University or the Province had made the decision to forego a vaccine mandate.
I got a response from the Covid-19 Response Team at SFU.
"Regarding mandatory vaccinations, there is no requirement for proof of immunization under the University Act, making it impossible for the university to establish such a mandate, which would also be difficult to enforce. There
are no universities in British Columbia currently requiring proof of immunization. All post-secondary institutions continue to monitor the advice of the province and will take the Provincial Health Officer’s direction on this."
My reading of this is that the university could mandate more than the province is recommending--masks, or distancing, or other measures perhaps?--but not vaccines.
I thought this might clarify things a bit.
My understanding is that yesterday Dr. Henry said it is up to each university/college to set their standards above and beyond provincial health orders.
Baharak Yousefi (she/her)
Librarian for History, International Studies, Graduate Liberal Studies, & Political Science
Belzberg Library | Simon Fraser University | 515
West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1G4
Occupied Xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish)
& Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories | #LandBack
Regarding frustration with the university's lack of a vaccine requirement: my understanding, which might be incorrect, is that SFU must follow provincial direction on any vaccine mandate. That direction comes from the Ministry of
Health and the Min. of Adv. Education, or whatever it's called these days.
So if faculty and staff want to pressure the university to implement a vaccine requirement, pressure would have to be applied to the university and to the relevant levels of government.
Such requirements are common in the US.
On Jul 29, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Lyn Bartram <lyn@sfu.ca> wrote:
Dr. Lyn Bartram
Professor, School of Interactive Arts and Technology
Director, Vancouver Institute of Visual Analytics
Simon Fraser University | SRYC
250 – 13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T 0A3
v 778 782 7439 f 778 782 9422 m 604 908 9954
<OutlookEmoji-15753042296078dab3b27-0b5a-41a0-b6d6-ebe6e14c0dc9.png>
**************************************
Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning
Associate Professor of Film
Simon Fraser University
149 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4
Canada
cpavsek@sfu.ca
I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
**************************************
Christopher Pavsek, Ph.D., MRM-Planning
Associate Professor of Film
Simon Fraser University
149 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4
Canada
cpavsek@sfu.ca
I respectfully acknowledge that I work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
|