Author: shlf

‘Are people to be left to die?’ Canada pumps millions into COVID-19 vaccine-sharing effort, but fears persist for poorer nations

This story is part of an ongoing series — The Road to a Vaccine — that looks at Canada’s quest to secure a amid the global pandemic, as well as the hurdles and history it faces to do so.

As the race for a vaccine kicks into high gear, has announced that Canada will chip in $440 million to a global effort to share vaccines and make sure poorer countries aren’t left behind.

Trudeau told reporters Friday said the money for the COVAX Facility will be divided between the global procurement effort — which could mean as many as 15 million additional doses for Canadians — and the sharing program by which vaccines will be sent to countries that wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them.

“To eliminate the virus anywhere, we need to eliminate the virus everywhere,” Trudeau said. “That’s why Canada is helping ensure vaccines are distributed quickly and fairly around the world.”

There are now more than 100 teams around the world at work on potential vaccines, known as vaccine candidates, a handful of which are moving into the final stages of clinical testing. But it’s a competition some say is at risk of being overshadowed by the nation-versus-nation battle for doses, as a weakened global response has spurred richer countries to seek out vaccine deals of their own.

COVAX is the major global attempt to try to avoid having all the vaccines go to the highest bidders.

Launched this spring by, among others, the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Gavi alliance, it’s since emerged as the only real international effort to get countries to work together on both procuring, manufacturing and distributing vaccines. While Canada had officially signed on as of Monday, details of the financial commitment were unclear until now.

For a country such as Canada, which can afford to buy in, the benefits of the program are arguably twofold: Canada gets the option to share in any successful vaccines the group obtains access to, but is also able to support the sending of vaccines to poorer countries.

For countries that can’t afford vaccines any other way, it could be a lifeline.

The fear that countries with shallower pockets are going to be left out when the time comes was back in the spotlight this week at the UN Virtual Summit.

“Are people to be left to die?” asked Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a COVID-19 survivor, referring to the problems that may lie ahead.

If all goes to plan, COVAX is aiming to deliver two billion vaccine doses by the end of 2021 to countries around the world, distributing them based on population and need rather than ability to pay.

But that goal is highly dependent on the money they have yet to get from donor countries and philanthropists.

Half of Canada’s financial commitment, or $220 million, will go to COVAX’s financial arm, known as the COVAX Advance Market Commitment, which is in charge of funding vaccines for low and middle-income countries. But it has yet to meet its initial $2-billion goal, raising questions about who will be left out if the needed money isn’t raised.

The program was dealt some early blows, when major players such as the U.S., China and India all declined to sign on, choosing instead to focus on their own vaccine needs.

The United States, for example, has dubbed its own vaccine effort Operation Warp Speed and poured an estimated $10 billion into it while making clear that the fruits of its labour will be for Americans only.

Canada hasn’t escaped accusations of selfishness either.

A public letter signed by more than 100 health and policy experts and released last week accuses the federal government of undercutting efforts such as COVAX by participating in the global jockeying for vaccines.

In fact, before announcing the COVAX funding, Trudeau revealed Canada’s latest advance purchase agreement, this time with a company called AstraZeneca, which has been working with Oxford University on a potential vaccine. Should it pass clinical trials, Canada will be able to acquire as many as 20 million doses.

Canada now has agreements with six different biopharmaceutical companies, in addition to any doses obtained through COVAX. If every vaccine candidate ends up successful (which is admittedly unlikely) and Canada buys the maximum number of doses to which it’s entitled through these contracts, it could end up with almost 300 million vaccine doses.

What happens when COVAX bumps up against all those advance purchase agreements remains murky.

Early on in the pandemic, Canada got stung by a general lack of preparation when it came to acquiring personal protective equipment, notes Colin Furness, an infection-control epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto.

Now, he says, the government is moving hard to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen with vaccines: “Aggressively negotiating and throwing around the fact that we’ve got a currency that has purchasing power and throwing out elbows (to) get in line, that’s an understandable thing to do,” he said.

“Though the consequences to those who are then behind us in line, I mean, ethically, that can get a little bit complicated.”

For Jason Nickerson, a humanitarian affairs adviser with Doctors Without Borders, the litmus test for whether it’s possible to have these purchase agreements without jettisoning global responsibilities will be whether or not health-care workers and people who are high risk are able to get vaccinated first and in a timely manner — no matter where they are in the world.

“I think the major concern is that vaccines are going to be delivered to high-income countries to use before they are delivered to low-income countries to vaccinate their high risk populations,” he said.

Karina Gould, Canada’s minister of international development, says that vaccine companies have already committed certain doses to COVAX, so it’s not a matter of Canada’s orders bumping them out of the queue. The exact delivery timelines are still under discussion.

“Canada’s position is that we expect vaccines to be affordable, accessible and equitable around the world,” she said.

And if it looks like funding will be falling short?

“Well, then, we’ll be on the phone, trying to encourage partners around the world to step up and to make a contribution. I know that we’re still waiting on announcements from some of significant players, and I’m confident that they’re going to deliver.”

Last spring, Canada assembled a group of experts on everything from public health to pharmaceuticals and charged them with advising the government on how to lock down a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible.

But while members of this Vaccine Task Force maintain that their first job is to get a vaccine for Canadians, they believe in the need for global access, and for Canada to strike a balance between protecting its own while doing its part for the global community.

“We recognize that if the disease exists anywhere, it exists everywhere. So it’s also important, and our advice is around that, for Canada to support international global efforts,” says co-chair J. Mark Lievonen, who is also the former president of Sanofi Pasteur Ltd., the Canadian vaccine division of global biopharmaceutical company Sanofi.

How these vaccine deals start playing out is something that Nickerson, of Doctors Without Borders will be watching closely.

“If history is any indication of what can happen during a pandemic, I think that we ought to be concerned,” he said, nodding to the H1N1 pandemic, when a lot of the early vaccines, and only donated to other countries once their own needs were met.

In the same way that COVID has exposed the cracks in our education and health systems, he said that this pandemic risks underscoring how medication and health care are just easier to come by if you’re a richer country: “We need better systems of fair distribution and allocation, and pricing. It’s just not right.”

That said, he says COVAX, and Canada’s commitment, could be a meaningful step in the right direction.

“It’s clear that countries are striking these bilateral deals because they think that it’s the quickest way of gaining access, but there’s also a momentum behind COVAX that I don’t think that we’ve ever seen before,” he said.

“So if it’s properly funded, and if there is a fair, equitable allocation process, then I’m hopeful that this is the start of something good.”

With files from The Associated Press

Alex Boyd is a Calgary-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: .n.boyd

Why vaccine hesitancy may be the next big COVID-19 fight

This story is part of an ongoing series — The Road to a Vaccine — that looks at Canada’s quest to secure a amid the global pandemic, as well as the hurdles and history it faces to do so.

While most Canadians would likely wish a vaccine for into existence, oh, yesterday, if they could, there are many who won’t be rolling up their sleeve when one eventually arrives.

Vaccination is always an emotional topic. Though vaccines are considered one of the most successful public health stories of the past century, vehement anti-vaxxers have seeded doubt about their safety, while many more people just have a lot of questions about how they work and why.

The conversation has been dialed up by factors swirling during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are those worried about the safety of what would be a brand-new vaccine, as well as those who fear politics might push one into use before it’s been shown to be safe. Fewer than half of Canadians say they’d get a vaccine as soon as one became widely available, suggests a poll released by on Friday.

On the frontlines of this conversation is Dr. Cora Constantinescu.

If you find youself face to face with the Calgary pediatric infectious disease expert, two things are often true: You’re a parent, and you’re struggling with the decision to vaccinate your kids.

Constantinescu runs a public vaccine hesitancy clinic — one of the few of its kind in Canada. Other doctors refer to her people who want to talk the decision through. Her appointments are an hour, and can often go longer, she says.

“There is such an emotional tie to this decision.”

As Constantinescu sees it, walking into her clinic takes guts: “I think it takes a lot of courage to actually come in and talk about something that I know, based on the people we’ve seen, they’ve researched for so long.”

Experts say the coming months will require politicians, public health experts and even pharmaceutical companies to work together to convince people that a vaccine will be safe. While the decision to roll up your sleeve is personal, enough people are going to have to make that choice if Canada stands a chance of stopping community spread or achieving herd immunity.


While a poll in July found 46 per cent of people would get a vaccine right away, that number has since dropped seven percentage points, according to the survey results released Friday.

The online survey was conducted from Sept. 23 to 25, among 1,660 Canadian adults who are members of AngusReid Forum. A probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, the pollsters said.

Much of the reluctance seems to be spurred on by worries about side effects, which almost three quarters of respondents said were a concern.

Worries that U.S. President — who has now himself tested positive for COVID-19 — is putting pressure on pharmaceutical companies have also made their way across the border.

During the first presidential debate Wednesday, Trump said that we were “weeks away from a vaccine,” and said repeatedly that it was a “possibility” that a vaccine could be ready to deploy by early November — before , in other words.

He said that vaccine-making companies had told him they could go faster, but, “It’s a very political thing.”

That statement contradicts Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who has maintained that most Americans will have to wait until sometime next year for a vaccine.

The disconnect has stoked fears in some. There have also been competing headlines from China, about that country’s government rushing out a vaccine to front-line workers before it has completed clinical trials.

The biopharmaceutical companies working on vaccines have repeatedly stressed that clinical testing will not be rushed, and any potential vaccine used in Canda would have to be cleared by Health Canada first.

Vaccines have an established track record. According to , the reported cases of serious diseases such as rubella, diptheria and polio all dropped by 99 or even 100 per cent in the years after a vaccine was introduced.


Most experts recognize a difference between anti-vaxxers, who are adamantly against vaccines in any form, and people who are open, but feel uneasy, or need more information. It’s this second group that public health experts say are going to have a lot of questions in the coming months.

Canada has tapped a pool of experts, leaders in fields such as epidemiology and pharmaceuticals, to provide advice on locking down a vaccine as soon as possible, but even the Vaccine Task Force realizes that just securing a successful vaccine is not enough.

“Pretty early on, we realized we could find all the vaccines in the world, as safe and efficacious as they might be, but Canadians have to want to take them,” says co-chair Dr. Joanne Langley, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and community Health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

The issue of addressing hesitancy is something the task force has talked about a lot, added fellow co-chair J Mark Lievonen.

But despite allegations of political interference in the United States, he said, it’s imporant to note that Canada has a totally separate regulatory system.

In practice, that means that regardless of where a vaccine is developed, or by whom, it still has to pass Health Canada’s bar.

And while this vaccine is coming along very quickly — up until now, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, and it took a comparatively glacial four years — he says COVID-19 has also seen an unprecedented level of co-operation and collaboration.

even banded together earlier last month and vowed to uphold “the integrity of the scientific process,” and pushed back against the idea that their products could be rushed.

Lievonen, who is also a former president of Sanofi Pasteur Ltd., an arm of Sanofi, whose CEO signed the letter, said on the one hand, it’s positive that all these competing companies took a stand together, but on the other, it’s notable that they felt they had to.

“Up until now, that would have been the assumption that companies would (uphold the scientific process), it wouldn’t have been called into question,” he said.

He said that companies are taking steps to speed up the vaccine, but not by cutting corners on safety. For example, some are running multiple clinical trial stages at once, or scaling up manufacturing capacity before their vaccine candidates are approved so that if they get the green light, they’re ready to start pumping out doses.

In Canada, the regulator is also planning “rolling submissions” for COVID-19 vaccines, which means companies can submit the paperwork from their clinical trials for inspection as they go, rather than waiting until the end to hand in all their results, Lievonen said. Think of it as Health Canda looking over the shoulder of vaccine makers as they work.

“We are very comfortable and very confident that science will rule the day in Canada,” he said.


Still, if we don’t have the same legitimate concerns about political interference in Canada, the question becomes, how do you communicate that?

“The thing that alarmed me, was that even in the height of a pandemic, the likes of which we haven’t seen in a century, we didn’t see a major switch on vaccine hesitancy, we didn’t see people being swayed,” said Sarah Everts, the science journalism chair at Carleton University.

Everts has on Canadian attitudes toward an eventual COVID-19 vaccine. One survey of 2,000 Canadians, released in May, found that more than a quarter of people who responded either opposed a vaccine or were hesitant.

The survey also tested people’s beliefs in a series of myths and conspiracy theories, such as debunked claims that COVID-19 is a bioweapon birthed in a Chinese lab, or is being spread to cover up the harmful effects of 5G technology.

While almost half of Canadians believed at least one myth, Everts says they found that people who believed a false claim were more likely to say they were also skeptical of vaccines.

“At least in Canada, we found that there was a lot of trust in public health,” she said. “I think the reality is that we are, at least when we were in lockdown, spending an obscene amount of time in our homes looking at the internet, which is a firehose of information; good, bad and ugly.”

But there’s a message here, she argues, for public health communicators tasked with getting out the vaccine message.

She points out that being vaccine hesitant is not one size fits all. A lot of critics are dismissive of people who are skeptical of vaccines, and assume that any concerns stem from the debunked claim that they’re linked to autism.

But Everts argues that focusing messaging on that may cause people to shut down if they’re concerns are more around the role of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, or the use of live virus in some vaccines.

In fact, her study found that almost three quarters of those who weren’t sure they’d get a vaccine were interested in science-based news stories, and more than half said they were very or somewhat interested in stories that debunk conspiracy theories or unscentific arguments.

Especially in a conversation that has become so polarized, she says, it’s important that officials try to reach people where they’re at.

“More listening, and not talk down preaching an important way forward,” she said.

“Shame has never ever gotten anybody anywhere in terms of influencing opinion.”


At the vaccine hesitancy clinic, Constantinescu says those she meets just want to do what’s best for their kids.

It’s always a good thing when people want to be informed about their own health, and Constantinescu argues that the people who come to her are courageous: “I mean, bravery is doing something you’re afraid of, and they’re afraid to talk to health-care professionals about it, they’re afraid to expose their insecurity and their thinking about it, and they’re afraid to do it,” she said.

“It really is about their lack of trust, and their fears around this decision. And ultimately, and parents have actually said that this to me, is they take what they perceive as a leap of faith, towards protecting their children.”

As a result, correcting misinformation is a relatively small part of her job — it’s more about addressing the emotion tied to making the decision to vaccinate.

After all, smokers continue to light up despite knowing the cancer risk, she notes. Instead, anti-smoking campaigns target the way people feel about smoking in a bid to change their behaviour: think the graphic images of diseased lungs that have replaced branding on cigarette packaging.

There’s emotion here for medical providers, too, she notes, who realize that the need for information and guidance on vaccines will soon be greater than ever before.

“I’ve felt passionate about vaccine hesitancy for 10 years,” she said. It was a fire ignited when she became a parent herself. “You do feel this call to action, you know? That we have to use all of our abilities and knowledge and skills and will and dreams and put it into something that’s going to help the Canadian population.”

To that end, she’d like to see the conversation focus less on just feeding people information and more on recognizing that this will be a major personal decision for many people — but that there’s a major common goal here, too.

At the end of the day, everyone just wants the pandemic and the lockdown and the business restrictions to end, she said.

“Conversation needs to change around this vaccine. We need to stop talking about problems and concerns and worries and talk about this common goal of ending this. I’m not saying we’re not going to do the science, or saying we’re not going to be as rigorous as possible,” she said.

“But here’s our chance.”

is a Calgary-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter:

Don’t be fooled by fewer COVID-19 hospitalizations: epidemiologists

Ontario’s COVID-19 case numbers are the highest they’ve ever been, yet our hospitalization rates are lower than they were at the height of the first wave of the pandemic last spring.

At the peak of the first wave on April 25, there were 5,675 active cases and 925 people in hospital. Later, on May 5, the number of people in hospital peaked at 1,043, with 223 people in intensive care. As of Oct. 22, Ontario reported 6,930 active cases but only 270 hospitalized patients, and 74 in the ICU.

At a glance, might create the impression that the severity of infections this time is lower, that people are recovering more easily and that hospitals are not at as high a risk of becoming overburdened with COVID-19 patients.

But, say two public health and infectious disease experts, that would be a dangerous assumption to make. Not only are hospitalization numbers not capturing the full severity of the wave we’re currently in, but they tend to lag significantly.

Kednapa Thavorn is a senior scientist in the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s clinical epidemiology program, and an assistant professor in the University of Ottawa’s school of epidemiology and public health.

She warned that the proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients might appear lower as a share of the total caseload this time because the province’s increased capacity for testing means a broader sample of the population is being tested. So patients who are most vulnerable and most likely to require hospitalization are being eclipsed by the larger number of younger, less vulnerable people whose diagnoses were recorded by broader testing.

“charts” These charts updated daily by the provincial government plot the number of active COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and ICU admissions in Ontario from April 2 to Oct. 22, 2020. The numbers are not cumulative. — Government of Ontario graphic

“During the first time around, the prevalence or incidence of older people testing positive may have looked higher because we had fewer resources and we were targeting them specifically,” she said.

“Lately, because we have larger capacity and better access to testing, the people who have had access to this test are actually a wider part of the community.”

A lower share of people with serious infections compared to those with mild infections isn’t something Ontarians should let their guard down over, she said, since we know it’s common for hospitalization rates to lag behind infection rates in daily tracking. This is partly due to the fact that people typically aren’t admitted to hospitals at the onset of infection, but several days later. So while the number of people in hospital might be lower now than during the peak of Ontario’s first wave, it won’t necessarily stay that way, especially if people don’t follow public health guidelines.

“I want to put a caution on the message that we should have peace of mind because younger people are healthier,” she said. “I still emphasize the need for public health measures, social distancing and putting on a mask. Regardless of who gets infected with COVID-19 they still have a chance to infect other people.”

Dr. Curtis Cooper is a scientist in the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s clinical epidemiology program and a medical doctor working at the Ottawa Hospital’s general campus.

Based on his firsthand experience during the first wave of the pandemic, Cooper, like Thavorn, expects hospitalization rates to get worse before they get better.

“We’re still really early in the second wave and I’m unfortunately very confident our numbers in the hospital and the ICU are going to start to increase. I think we’re starting to see that already,” he said. “So just like in the first wave you saw a bit of a lag in case diagnosis and people in ICU, I think we’re seeing the same thing here.”

Cooper also said case, hospitalization and ICU numbers don’t necessarily capture the full COVID-19 caseload in seniors and people with comorbidity — the presence of more than one illness or condition simultaneously — if deaths are attributed to another cause, despite the actual cause being COVID-19. This can skew the numbers, too.

“They get sick and die and never end up going to the hospital and those numbers aren’t included,” he said. “For personal reasons and family reasons and other reasons, people sometimes just don’t go. They say ‘I’m going to die at home, or in my long-term-care facility.’”

Cooper said Ontarians should trust health-care professionals when they say the province’s COVID-19 situation is dire, and take action to avoid making it worse. In addition to following the usual public health guidelines around COVID-19, he said Ontarians should make getting this year’s flu vaccine a priority. Doing so can help save health-care resources for the care of patients with COVID-19, and protect elderly and immunocompromised people from dangerous flu infections.

“We have a vaccine for influenza and people really do need to go out and get it. It’s going to help protect them and it’s going to help protect the vulnerable in our community,” he said. “When we’re thinking about ‘What I can do as a citizen?’ and what governments can do, the focus needs to be on protecting our most vulnerable.”

It’s April all over again. A look at the numbers shows Ontario could be on the brink of another long-term-care catastrophe

Seniors advocates and medical professionals are warning we could be on the cusp of another long-term-care catastrophe as cases in Ontario homes hover around similar numbers seen in early April — just two weeks before a massive spike of infections tore through hundreds of facilities.

“I absolutely am very terrified and worried,” said Dr. Amit Arya, a palliative care physician specializing in long-term care who witnessed first-hand the devastation of the first wave in GTA facilities. “We have to really realize that long-term care is not a parallel universe. More spread of COVID-19 in the community increases the risk of an outbreak starting in long-term-care facilities.”

As of Thursday, there were 159 residents and 199 staff members of long-term-care homes with active cases of COVID-19, according to the provincial government. Compare that to 176 long-term-care residents and 141 staff members with COVID-19 as of April 7, according to data collected by the Ontario Health Coalition, a non-profit, non-partisan network of public health care advocates. The April numbers collected by the coalition are not scientific and likely didn’t capture all infections, but they are the best data available from that time because the province didn’t start publishing active home-by-home long-term-care outbreak figures until more than two weeks later.

Current provincial data is stark: active cases in long-term-care homes have more than quadrupled since Sept. 1, while the number of homes with outbreaks since then has risen from 13 to 71.

Outbreaks in some areas are severe. Two Toronto homes, Vermont Square and Fairview Nursing home, each have more than two dozen confirmed resident cases, with 27 and 13 confirmed staff cases, respectively. This past weekend, the federal government gave the go-ahead to the after the Ontario government reached out for help. Ottawa was recently declared a red zone, the most serious classification public health can assign for the presence of COVID-19, and was one of three regions, along with Toronto and Peel, to be last week.

And on Wednesday, the province announced that it was prohibiting long-term-care residents in these regions from taking short-term outings for social or personal reasons. That followed an earlier restriction on general visitors to long-term-care homes in these regions, with only essential visitors, including up to one caregiver per resident, being allowed.

But experts say such measures are not enough to stop what could become a in homes. They say addressing acute staffing shortages in homes is critical to preventing more infections and deaths.

“Homes are still desperately understaffed, many of them moreso than at the beginning of the first wave,” said Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition.

She pointed to a recent report in the Ottawa Citizen detailing comments of a worker at Extedicare’s West End Villa in Ottawa who said there have been times at the home when just two PSWs were caring for 60 residents infected with COVID-19.

“That would be impossible even if they weren’t sick with COVID-19. It’s just unspeakable,” said Mehra. “There is no possible way for that few PSWs to abide by PPE changing protocols and all the infection control measures. They can barely make it through the day.”

The staffing shortage has resulted in health workers from employment agencies working in multiple locations and even PSWs providing care to people in their homes as well as in long-term-care facilities, she said. The practice continues, despite a provincial order in April prohibiting health workers from working at more than one long-term-care facilitiy. The reason? The ban did not apply to temporary workers, a measure critics have labelled a “giant loophole.”

Mehra said Ontario should follow the ambitious response of its neighbour, Quebec, which launched a massive recruitment drive in June to not only hire, but also train, 10,000 orderlies (equivalent to PSWs in Ontario). Recruits were paid $760 a week during training and guaranteed full-time jobs paying $26 an hour upon completion. Quebec also hired some 400 managers — one for each long-term care home — to be responsible for each home’s response to COVID-19. Each manager was also paired with an infection-control specialist to ensure homes followed proper protocols.

“Where was the systemic intervention in the lull that happened from June right through to the beginning of September to get actual staffing up in the homes like Quebec did to build some resilience for the second wave that was inevitable?” said Mehra.

But finding enough people to take up the mantle is a challenge, said Miranda Ferrier, president of the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association.

“Right now this is not a profession that’s very attractive. You’re working in COVID-positive homes, you don’t have enough staff, you’re constantly burnt out, you don’t get the professional recognition,” she said, referring to the fact that PSWs are not regulated like other health professions, such as nurses and doctors.

Ferrier said there are about 135,000 trained PSWs in Ontario but only about 60,000 are actually working.

“It’s not a profession of choice right now, unfortunately, even though it is a very honourable position,” she said. “We are very much in crisis and we run an extremely high risk of catastrophic consequences.”

Donna Duncan, CEO of the Ontario Long Term Care Association, which represents 70 per cent of the province’s long-term-care homes, said her organization “has been clear” with the Ontario government and other stakeholders about the challenges homes face and what is required to keep them stabilized through a second wave of this global pandemic.

“Recent commitments of personal protective equipment, minor capital investments and infection prevention and control resources will begin to address some of the gaps in the system, but will only be successful if they are deployed quickly and enhanced to meet the outstanding system needs,” she said, adding that the number issue confronting homes continues to be the staffing crisis in long-term care.

“Ensuring the health and safety of our residents and staff in our homes is critical to our ability to recruit and retain a new work force in long-term care homes. These measures will help us in our recruiting efforts. We need to recruit an army of employees for long-term care,” she said.

“We need to be proactive,’ said Arya, saying there is no reason for Ontario not to have acted sooner to address staffing shortages. He pointed to British Columbia, which has a long-term-care sector about half the size of Ontario’s, but had one-tenth the deaths during the first wave.

This more favourable outcome is credited partly to the fact that the B.C. government hired all front-line long-term-care staff in March, ensuring they received decent living wages, and restricted their employment to one facility.

“If we protect the rights of health workers, if we improve their working conditions, we improve the conditions of care,” Arya said. In Ontario, he added, it appears as though we are “protecting the operators and we’re not protecting who we should be, which is the residents and their families.”

Kenyon Wallace is a Toronto-based investigative reporter for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @KenyonWallace or reach him via email:

How can Toronto enter the next decade a safer city? To fight crime, we must first fight poverty

The first year of the new decade has not been a promising one for gunplay in Toronto.

At some 409 incidents as of last Wednesday, the city had already surpassed last year’s shooting total by 39 — despite being in lockdown for months due to .

So as we look ahead to , how can we ensure this fresh, 10-year span won’t be remembered as the Decade of the Gun?

Maybe look to Einstein for help.

“He said, ‘the consciousness that created the problem cannot be expected to solve it,’ ” says crime expert and York University sociologist Livy Visano, paraphrasing the theoretical physicist. “That means the problem can’t be solved by the existing solutions.”

Those existing solutions are rooted in social and economic systems where wealth and power are cemented in unequal proportions — and indeed where the perceptions of crime itself are cast unfairly on the downtrodden, he says.

New solutions to tamp down crime in the city, many experts say, should focus on alleviating poverty — through new housing plans, equitable wealth distribution, better policing practices and even by striking some common, poverty-boosting crimes from the books.

But the link between impoverishment and crime is more complex than many imagine, Visano says.

“With crime and socioeconomic status there’s been a long historical relationship since the inception of criminology (in the 18th century),” he says.

“But the question that the more progressive criminologists would (ask) is, how strong is that correlation?”

Certainly, Visano says, gun and gang crimes are largely products of poverty — where the acquisition of goods, respect, education and power is limited by economic status.

“But we have a tendency to look at this (poverty-crime) relationship and not question what crime is,” he says.

Visano says there are three broad categories of crime — crimes of pathology (or mental illness) crimes of passion and those of profit.

And people of every economic class participate in all three types with equal proclivity.

“Crimes of pathology (such as) serial killers straddle all classes, crimes of passion staddle all classes,” Visano says.

“But crimes of profit — this also involves all classes — but the manifestations seem to be quite different.”

On white-collar Bay Street, crimes of profit would likely involve embezzlement or insider trading, he says. Keystroke crimes.

“But for the more disadvantaged communities we see more visible forms, more obvious forms … in the more public and visible space,” Visano says.

And that visibility — the guns, the gangs, the violence of the street — creates a general perception that crime is largely a province of the poor.

That doesn’t mean that street crime is not a serious problem, Visano says. (With a little more than two months left in the year, some 200 people have already been killed or injured by gunfire in Toronto.)

There’s also an obvious solution — a redistribution of wealth that creates more equal opportunities for social status and material comfort across society.

But such a redistribution is almost surely a pipe dream, Visano says.

“It’s not just the redistribution of wealth because that is just not in the mindsets (of people in power) given that we live in a capitalist society,” he says. “Are we prepared to eradicate poverty? Absolutely not. That will never happen.”

Instead, Visano says, crime solutions lie in a number of other areas.

Ryerson University criminologist Emily van der Meulen says one of these is to decriminalize common offences like prostitution and simple drug possession — crimes which themselves exacerbate poverty.

“Canada has a long history of criminalizing poverty,” van der Meulen said in an online interview.

“This is demonstrated particularly clearly by the ways in which police services target low-income and racialized people when enforcing certain laws, for example laws related to sex work and drug use,” she says.

Striking down current prostitution and drug laws, van der Meulen says, would also lower poverty rates significantly.

“To alleviate poverty, we need to consider how policing, laws, sentencing and the criminal justice system as a whole target and discriminate against low income people, in turn keeping them in precarious situations,” she says.

“To begin to address poverty, these activities need to be removed from the Criminal Code.”

A criminal record can be a barrier to accessing housing and employment, both vital to financial success, van der Muelen says. She says past records for such offences should be expunged.

At the city level, police could be encouraged to look the other way, even if the offences remained on the books, van der Muelen says.

“The police can adopt a policy of nonenforcement. This approach has been effective in other jurisdictions,” she says.

“Deciding to not enforce specific Criminal Code provisions can help rectify the highly problematic and disproportionate impacts that unjust laws — like those related to sex work and simple drug possession — have on marginalized and low income communities.”

Also locally, the provision of affordable and attractive housing for low-income and marginalized people would go a long way toward alleviating poverty and crime, says Anne Babcock, president and CEO of Toronto’s WoodGreen Community Services.

“Many populations are disproportionately engaged with the justice system because of their background, their race, their age and their socio-economic (situations),” says Babcock, whose agency is one of the city’s largest affordable housing providers. “Reducing poverty by offering housing-first programs is one way to intervene in the life of vulnerable groups in a way that brings stability and creates the space to then build new skills, strengthen connections with the community and improve physical and mental well-being.”

Babcock points to one particular group — youth who have aged-out of foster care programs — as a prime example of the link between housing, poverty and crime.

She says almost 60 per cent of these tossed-about kids are homeless within six months of leaving the system, while some 75 per cent of them are victims of crime within a year.

An American study showed that 42 per cent of young men who’d transitioned out of foster care had been arrested, while 23 per cent had been convicted of crimes, says Babcock, whose agency’s Free2Be program helps provide housing support and a range of other programs to such kids.

“While we don’t necessarily focus on crime, we do know that this is a particular group that is more likely to be … involved in the criminal justice system,” Babcock says.

“We (also) know that this moment in their life is important. By securing housing, we are able to support the youth with programming opportunities that set them on a more successful path,” she says.

Babcock says almost 75 per cent of the youth going through the agency’s post-foster-care program secured stable housing, and 94 per cent were in school or working.

Visano contends, however, that the most important tools for reducing violence and street crime may rest within disadvantaged communities themselves, where the vast majority of people have knowledge of street and gang life, but shun it.

“A question that is seldom asked is, ‘We have a lot of violence, but why wouldn’t we have more, what does this say about the communities?’ ” Visano says. “The majority of people in those communities don’t resort to violence.”

Yet when searching for solutions, politicians and committee leaders most often huddle within their own power structures — comfort zones that avoid the participation of others, or seek it in token portions.

“They’re cemented to privilege in many ways that prevent them from going beyond the hierarchies of power,” Visano says.

He says the views of people in underprivileged communities are often unsought, or rejected when they are.

As well, Visano says, politicians often turn to a list of usual suspects when seeking community involvement — people with a public profile but limited knowledge of the communities they are meant to represent.

“There’s a tendency to cherry pick members of the community to participate on some of these committees or counsels,” he says. “We don’t have the whole spectrum of community input.”

Visano also promotes something progressive members in his field describe as peacekeeping criminology.

“It’s trying to build within the community (to) collaborate and corroborate within the community,” he says.

And for this, Visano says, police reform is also a key — in particular, reform that would have police respect the privacy of underprivileged Malvern residents as much as those of wealthy Rosedale.

“It matters very little to the police when they go into certain highrise structures in disadvantaged communities and patrol the hallways, the stairwells looking for suspects,” he says.

“The … logistics of policing certainly targets the disadvantaged communities on a routine, regular basis.”

This targeting creates tensions that only heighten crime levels and amplify them by the sheer volume of surveillance.

“Compare Forest Hill, The Kingsway, the Bridle Path with Rexdale, Malvern, Regent Park,” Visano says, referring to some of the city’s wealthier and more disadvantaged neighbourhoods in turn. “The types of policing in terms of the vehicles that are used by the police and the aggressive style of profiling, (they’re) very, very different.”

And this style of aggressive policing pushed especially hard in 2005 — the so-called Year of the Gun in Toronto — has little lasting benefit.

“They had this program where they would enforce and aggressively pick up a lot of the street gangs,” Visano says. “But there was no direct commitment to looking at their own values, their own processes, to examine where this violence comes from.”

That program — the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy or TAVIS — did little to bring crime down long term, Visano says.

“It cleaned up the problem for a couple of months, but the underlying roots, the basis, the foundations of all this have never been talked about,” he says.

As well, Visano says, most of the information and data available to study gun and gang violence comes from the police — with all the institutional baggage and bias that entails.

“Why don’t we engage in the language of those who are involved?” he says.

“Why not do more self report studies, why not do more observational studies and understand what it is that compel these youth to get into these gangs and to don the mantle of violence?”

A watchful media, attuned to injustices in underprivileged communities, is also a key to crime reduction, as is the mass vigilance and peaceful resistance within the communities themselves, Visano says.

“We’re seeing it in the Black Lives Matter happening throughout North America that the media coverage and the participation of the community I think will stimulate solutions,” he says. “We’re not leaving it to politicians … we’re having the movement directed by spokespeople from the community and articulated by the media.”

But Yafet Tewelde, a Toronto community activist and PhD candidate at York, says the redistribution of wealth in this economic powerhouse of a city is essential in tamping down crime.

“When we talk about fighting crime, reducing crime, the response is traditionally of course police, prisons, courts,” says Tewelde, whose thesis centres on the relationship between multiculturalism and policing in Canada.

But Tewelde says reports dating back decades show that increases in these traditional, law-and-order responses only amplify crime, and that what’s really needed is the alleviation of poverty.

“The problem is that people think of these as two separated things; you fight poverty on one side and you fight crime on the other,” he says. “But poverty-fighting is crime-fighting. These things are intrinsically linked and you have to direct resources into that.”

As such, the job lies largely outside the city’s economic orbit and capacity, Tewelde says.

“We’re actually talking about a massive redistribution of wealth, it’s not a city issue,” he says.

He says that only the provincial and federal governments have the regulatory and financial powers to create large-scale poverty-fighting programs.

“When we talk about poverty reduction, it’s such a simple answer that requires a big cultural shift,” Tewelde says. “It’s a massive redistribution of wealth.”

Tewelde says the current COVID-19 crisis has created a new appreciation of lower-paid workers — who comprise a good percentage of the essential workforce that has kept the stricken city running.

And this could translate, he says, into a willingness to push wealth downwards across society.

“But the reality is there’s always been these opportunities … there’s been lots of crises,” he says.

“I’ve learned not to put too much stock into people’s response to a crisis.”

The city, however, isn’t bereft of crime reduction capabilities, Tewelde says.

For example, he says, it can initiate programs to bring down high school dropout rates and implement police reforms that add more social workers to its crime-control array.

“If we’re just focusing on policing for example, how do we redirect more resources into people who are first responders that aren’t people with guns?”

Joseph Hall is a Toronto-based contributor for the Star. A former Star reporter and feature writer, he is based in Toronto.

What you need to know about COVID-19 antibodies from someone who has them

May Warren is a Star reporter in the Health and Science unit to discuss her experience with a probable case of . At the time, she did not qualify for a test because she wasn’t in the priority list of people needing testing.

It was not until recently when Warren had a test to look for virus antibodies that she was able to confirm she had COVID in the spring. She returns to This Matters today to tell us about how that test went, what the results means, and what the importance of antibodies are in the fight against the pandemic.

Listen to this episode and more at or subscribe at , , or wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts.

Why Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine results represent more good news for Canada

A second company touting the results of its potential COVID-19 vaccine Monday represents particularly good news for Canada.

Citing early results, Massachusetts-based Moderna said its vaccine candidate could be as much as 94.5 per cent effective. The announcement follows results reported by that hinted at as much as 90 per cent immunity for that company’s vaccine candidate.

Canada already has a contract in place for 56 million doses of the Moderna vaccine and 20 million doses of Pfizer’s candidate, should they complete testing and receive Health Canada approval.

The new Moderna results are an early look at the final stage of human testing, but the trial isn’t done yet, so things could change. While results have been examined by an independent data safety monitoring board, they have yet to be published or peer reviewed.

At this point, the company says its results show no major safety concerns. Some volunteers reported mild or moderate symptoms, such as fatigue or headache.

“This is a pivotal moment in the development of our COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Since early January, we have chased this virus with the intent to protect as many people around the world as possible,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

Both Pfizer and Moderna are using a new technology that relies on mRNA to make their vaccines. Their doses include a tiny recipe for spike protein DNA, and, in theory, will prompt the recipient’s immune system to fight off future coronavirus infections. Because of the similarity in approaches, many experts were anticipating the two vaccines would see similar efficacy rates.

While RNA is a technology that has been considered promising for awhile, it has had one major drawback: the fact that doses have had to be stored at a temperature as cold as -80 C, which means an eventual distributor would need access to refrigerators and trucks .

But Moderna said Monday that its candidate remains stable at 2 to 8 C, which is about the same as a normal refrigerator, for 30 days.

“We believe that our investments in mRNA delivery technology and manufacturing process development will allow us to store and ship our COVID-19 vaccine candidate at temperatures commonly found in readily available pharmaceutical freezers and refrigerators,” chief technical operations and quality officer Juan Andres said in a release.

Pfizer’s and Moderna’s are two of the seven candidate vaccines for which the federal government has locked down advance purchase agreements. Most of the candidates are being developed by companies in the U.S. and Europe, but one Canadian company, , is expanding its trials on Canadian volunteers this week.

Canada’s vaccine-procurement strategy can be best described as putting . If all seven candidates were to be approved, Canada would be entitled to a minimum of 358 million doses of vaccine.

Most of the vaccine candidates will require two doses per person, but that is still almost enough to vaccinate everyone in the country five times.

That said, getting a working vaccine is only the first step. Once a vaccine has its final testing results, Health Canada must decide whether to approve it.

Then, millions of doses have to be manufactured — a process that is already scaling up — and the government will have to figure out how to distribute it across the country. The federal government is currently trying to find a to take on that task. Actual vaccination programs will be run by the provinces and territories.

After Pfizer announced promising results last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects the first vaccine doses to land as early as the beginning of next year.

Correction — Nov. 16, 2020 — This article has been updated to reflect new statements from Moderna on the storage requirements of its vaccine. As well, Canada would be entitled to a minimum of 358 million doses, not 358 doses, of vaccine if all seven vaccine candidates were to be approved.

Midland high school finding unique ways to adapt to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically impacted the school year, the show will go on.

Georgian Bay District Secondary School teachers and students have found interesting ways to adapt to the restrictions in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the majority of extracurricular activities have been cancelled, GBDSS will still have a school band and will still produce a school play.

“Last spring, our school musical was cancelled due to COVID-19. This year, we knew we needed to do something that was pandemic proof,” said Betony Main, a teacher in the arts department.

In March, students will be putting on a production of “The Brothers Grimm Spectaculathon,” a popular play that has been adapted for livestreaming.

“It will be done entirely via livestream, with each character in their own window,” said Main. “It won’t be on a stage with actors interacting in real space.”

Each actor will be set up separately in the school with a computer and webcam. The program StreamYard will allow for complete control of the show, including which windows appear and where they appear on screen.

“We have 35 actors. It is going to be tricky, but we are excited for the challenge,” said Main.

Auditions have wrapped up and students have started rehearsals. For now, they are just learning their lines and roles. The technical aspect will be tackled later.

“I’m glad we adapted to the current situation,” said Grade 12 student Chloe Winborne. “I am so excited that we still get to do a play this year.”

When students arrived back at school in September, many were unsure how the year would unfold. It wasn’t going to be normal, and extracurriculars weren’t a given.

“I thought we might somehow pull off a spring play, but knew we weren’t going to have other smaller productions,” said Grade 12 student Sarah Larmand. “I’m really happy we have a play we can all be a part of for our last year of high school.”

Students were also thrilled to discover that GBDSS would still have a band this school year. 

Due to the pandemic, students aren’t allowed to play any wind instruments. So, the school has invested in additional percussion instruments like chimes, marimbas, xylophones, bongos and kettledrums, and created a percussion ensemble.

Grade 12 student Daniel Farr, who normally plays the clarinet, is learning a number of new instruments.

“I am starting fresh on everything,” he said, noting he is now playing the keyboard and snare drum.  “I am glad there is a band. We are all excited and having a lot of fun.”

Jayneigh Hesler is learning how to play the bass drum, glockenspiel and tambourine.

“I didn’t think there was going to be a band,” said the Grade 11 student. “It’s nice to have that outlet, especially when there is not a lot else going on.”


STORY BEHIND THE STORY: Reporter Andrew Mendler reached out to GBDSS to see how COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were impacting extracurricular activities.

COVID-19 vaccine news: Britain’s ‘historic’ day, Facebook cracks down, and vaccination based on age? Here’s what you need to know this week

Considered one of the few ways to finally bring the pandemic under control, the push to roll out a fully tested vaccine is well underway.

This week, the U.K. approved the world’s first such COVID-19 vaccine. Canada is expected to make its decision on approval for the same Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine within weeks.

With the prospect of fully-tested vaccine doses looming ever larger, the spotlight has now shifted to issues of distribution, bringing to the fore questions of who should get a vaccine first; how shipments will travel to all regions of the country; and how governments can resassure the public about the safety of any vaccine.

From what the British news means for Canadians, to why experts say seniors should be first to be vaccinated, to Facebook’s crackdown on misinformation — here are the big stories from this past week.

The first COVID-19 vaccine is approved in Britain

On a day that is not-unfairly being heralded as “historic,” the United Kingdom officially approved the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine for use in the country this week.

That means their scientists finished reviewing the hundreds of thousands of pages of data on its safety and effectiveness generated from human testing, and officially greenlit it for use in their country. Officials say immunization will begin there next week.

This doesn’t mean anything for Canada in the short term, as each country must make its own the decision on whether to approve a vaccine for its citizen people. Federal scientists here aren’t quite finished their review of the evidence, but say a decision could be coming as early as next week.

But Dr. Earl Brown, a former member of Canada’s H1N1 vaccine task group, says that while each country’s regulator will do its own analysis, the fact that one has now reached a positive conclusion bodes well.

“They’re all looking at the same set of data,” says Brown, who is also a virologist at the University of Ottawa.

“So it will actually take the pressure off some, because when you aren’t the first one, you are the second one; that’s always reassuring.”

Here in Canada, officials say they’re continuing to work toward distribution as early as January, with first doses going to the most vulnerable.

Canadian seniors may be front of the line

Long-term care residents, workers and the elderly should be first in line for vaccination jabs, according to updated advice from Canada’s independent advisory panel.

The National Advisory Council on Immunization (NaCI) provided for immunization prioritization in early November, and has since narrowed down its advice. Its current list is based on the general idea that vaccines will be in short supply at first. Federal officials have said they hope to have enough for three million people in Canada by the end of March.

Who should be first continues to be a hot topic. While NaCI will provide guidelines, the final decision will be up to the provinces and territories, the leaders of many of which have said they intend to focus on the most vulnerable.

Most experts include health-care workers in that category, as well as people who work in essential services, those who have conditions that put them at high risk, or live in situations where infection would have outsized consequences, including First Nations.

However, these guidelines have not been without controversy.

In Manitoba, Premier Brian Pallister — who also went viral for his to obey health measures this week — drew fire for saying he wanted extra vaccines for his province because sending doses to First Nations communities first would “punish” non-Indigenous people.

“They have to step up and protect our Indigenous communities first … but not punish everyone else who lives in the same jurisdiction as Indigenous folks by shortchanging them on their share of vaccines,” he said, according to .

Proof of vaccination

Americans who receive a COVID-19 vaccine will get a card to prove it, their government said this week.

“When we sent out the ancillary kits, which have needles and syringes, we’ve included paper cards to be filled out and … given to the individuals, reminding them of their next vaccine due date,” quoted Army Gen. Gustave Perna, Operation Warp Speed’s chief operating officer, as saying at a briefing Wednesday.

A sample of the card shows places to write which vaccine a person received and when, as well as who administered it.

The cards will also serve as an important reminder, because the vaccines expected to roll out first in the new year — those made by Pfizer and Moderna — are two-dose regimes. In order for them to work, people will have to get both doses, spaced several weeks apart. You can’t mix and match, either, so it’ll be critical that people stick with the same company for both doses.

Presidential show of support

Many vaccine experts have long pointed out that a vaccine is only as good as the number of people who take it.

In the U.S., the shot may get a high-profile boost. According to , former American presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are all saying that, when the time comes, they’ll roll up their sleeves on camera in a show of support for the vaccine’s safety.

It was Bush who reportedly got the ball rolling, according to his chief of staff, who said the 43rd president had reached out to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Instittue of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the main face of the American coronavirus response, and asked how he could help get the word out.

“When the time is right, he wants to do what he can to help encourage his fellow citizens to get vaccinated,” Freddy Ford told CNN.

“First, the vaccines need to be deemed safe and administered to the priority populations. Then, president Bush will get in line for his, and will gladly do so on camera.”

Facebook cracks down on misinformation

Following in YouTube’s footsteps, Facebook said this week that it is cracking down on posts that spread misinformation about vaccines.

“Given the recent news that COVID-19 vaccines will soon be rolling out around the world, over the coming weeks we will start removing false claims about these vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts on Facebook and Instagram,” the social media behemoth said in a Thursday.

Examples of false claims? Incorrect statements about the vaccines’ safety, efficacy or side effects; claims that the vaccines contain microchips or anything that isn’t on the ingredient list; and conspiracy theories about why the vaccines were made, according the post.

The move expands its existing attempts to stamp down misinformation about the coronavirus that could lead to “imminent physical harm.”

The company notes it won’t be able to start enforcement right away, but will continue to update what counts as misinformation as more information about vaccines become available.

Alex Boyd is a Calgary-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter:

‘It does not fit’: Barrie council defers decision on ‘excessively tall’ SmartCentres four-tower waterfront proposal

Barrie council is taking a bit more time to decide whether to allow the largest development in the city’s history to proceed.

On Dec. 7, councillors deferred back to staff SmartCentres’ request for zoning bylaw and official-plan amendments for a large mixed-use project on the 3.5-hectare lot at 51-75 Bradford and 20 Checkley streets. Council wants staff to see whether the developer is willing to lower the height of the project.

The matter will likely be dealt with again by councillors early in the new year.

“This is a really important piece of property,” Coun. Clare Riepma said. “We are going to live with whatever our decision is for another century. It’s important we get it right.”

SmartCentres has pitched four buildings ranging from 25 to 46 storeys.

Riepma said he hopes the final design can more closely mirror a nearby development on Toronto Street, in terms of property line setbacks and staggered height. He also pushed for an ‘arbitrary’ 35-storey tower cap; though other councillors suggested that could lead to wider buildings.

“We’ve been working diligently with staff and the conservation authority to process the application; there’s been a lot of changes since the first submission,” SmartCentres representative Paula Bustard said. “We’re very pleased with the application before us now; the technical studies justify the height and density.”

About 1,700 residential units, 3,500 square metres of ground-floor commercial space and 145 hotel rooms would be built. Public corridors would link to natural features, such as the Bunker’s Creek eco-park and the Kempenfelt Bay shoreline.

This site is between Bradford and Lakeshore Drive.

Several people made deputations during the council meeting, mostly concerning building height.

“The (planning) process seems to be merely lip service,” resident Rod Burns said. “Residents (in) the area are not against high rises. However, in this case, the height and density is excessive. It does not fit within the context of the neighbourhood.”

This property was once owned by Fortress Real Developments. Fortress bought the Harmony Village land in November 2016. Initial plans had included six residential towers, townhouses and ground-floor retail.

However, Fortress ran into legal issues in recent years, mostly related to its syndicated mortgage investors.

“The majority of residents understand the need for growth,” resident Cathy Colebatch said. “These amendments clear the way for excessively tall buildings that would detract from out cohesive waterfront. This is the largest development in our history. This proposal has its merits, but Barrie’s waterfront is unique. We need to develop responsibly with the vision to protect our waterfront.”

Some councillors expressed disappointment at the delay, noting staff support the proposal.

“We need to let our staff do their job,” Coun. Sergio Morales said. “This is going to do nothing. It has no leverage. All the concerns I had about giving false hope … are just déjà vu. Our staff very politely said, ‘make a decision on this one’. Are we really going to ask (SmartCentres) nicely to go to 35 (storeys)? ‘Do you mind cutting off a couple million dollars’ profit, please?’”