Reposted by David Elfstrom 🍁
An absolutely damning report on the unnecessary COVID deaths of workers at the Cargill plant in High River, AB, highlighting public health and infection control's mismanagement of the crisis, and failure to engage OHS or follow the precautionary principle.
albertapolitics.ca/wp-content/u...
![None of the evidence we reviewed showed any communication
or coordination between AHS EPH officials and Alberta OHS at
this time. In response to our freedom of information requests for
email correspondence between the manager for OHS in Calgary
and several AHS officials who were directly involved in the Cargill
response, we were informed by the Government of Alberta’s
access to information that “a thorough search […] did not yield any
records responsive to your request.”195
By April 16, the total number of known confirmed positive cases
had reached approximately 550. At this point, there had only
been one in-person inspection of the plant, that being AHS’ April
7 visit, which resulted in non-binding recommendations. And, as
mentioned, there was no epidemiological analysis of the outbreak
showing the temporal pattern of the spread within the plant and
in the community.
An internal AHS MOH update on April 17 noted that “84% of
new COVID-19 cases [in the province] are in Calgary Zone, ‘most
related to Cargill.”196 By this time, a Cargill worker and union shop
steward had been admitted to an ICU. On April 18, another worker
would need life support care in the ICU. Cargill, AHS, and OHS had
lost control of the outbreak.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ou6sjyhswn7s3qyfqhw7mbk6/bafkreievc5urg7ipxcuw4jug5bbwo4tro6fpdptwv4r4gsvwjbtxvm2pwa)
![Echoing Cargill’s response to the union’s April 12 letter, Dreeshen
cautioned workers not to listen to “inflammatory rhetoric” and
appealed to them to instead focus on information from public
health experts:
“…On this call are Alberta’s best medical minds and
they provide Alberta’s government with the best up
to date information on a daily basis and I would just
like to encourage everyone to not get distracted by
misleading noise or inflammatory rhetoric because
any government's primary goal — our core goal — is
to keep our people safe…”
Immediately after the town hall, Dreeshen posted on his social
media: “Directly communicated with [Cargill] workers to reassure
them that their worksite is safe.”217 Internal email messages
among senior officials with the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry suggest there was also “a request” to share some “key
messages” about the safety of Cargill’s plant through Hinshaw’s
Twitter account.218
Hours after the town hall, Dr. Nick Etches, acting lead medical
officer of health for the Calgary Zone, wrote to colleagues
requesting assistance with an epidemiological analysis of
the outbreak:
“[Hu] just spoke with [Hinshaw] and she wants us
to answer some questions that will likely require
additional epi support. Essentially we want to
determine the proportion of the Cargill-associated
cases that are due to:
1) Workplace transmission](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ou6sjyhswn7s3qyfqhw7mbk6/bafkreiducdnl5mzbehcbulfzcxrgndii3fjhezu7znkdstgpwd26gtcy2i)
![In reaching these conclusions, the application judge relied on evidence proffered by Dr. Shoshanna Saxe, whom he described as an expert on transportation infrastructure, including cycling. Dr. Saxe is a proponent of cycling. Her evidence, and that of the respondents’ experts more generally, was impugned by the appellants on this basis. I accept that Dr. Saxe was not biased in a legal sense but repeat what this court said in Fair Voting BC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 581, 177 O.R. (3d) 401, at paras. 19-20, leave to appeal refused, [2025] S.C.C.A. No. 384: academic expert evidence – social science research in particular – must be approached by courts with considerable caution. It is often geared towards supporting preferred policy outcomes rather than discovering the objective truth of a matter under investigation. And courts are prone to missing the normative and policy dimensions of issues if they present in purely technical terms, ostensibly resolvable on an objective and uncontroversial basis by technical experts.
[62] Dr. Saxe clearly favours bicycles. That was clear from the tenor of her evidence, which included the assertion that “investing in cycling infrastructure is one of the most powerful tools available to reduce congestion.” As the application judge noted, Dr. Saxe conceded that the removal of bicycle lanes might provide a benefit in the short term. But she expressed the opinion that, over the medium to long term, removing the bicycle lanes would make traffic congestion worse. She predicted that emergency response “will likely be worse” and that “gridlock becomes a possibility”.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bumu6s332o24fppobse7j3ms/bafkreicw42ewzfynylrmjybn7qsh5pm3kb6yq2lbhbmjccklfgefc5n77i)
