Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Dr. Deena Hinshaw acknowledged on the stand the “new normal” she referenced to Albertans on several occasions would include complying with restrictions on certain freedoms..Hinshaw is one of the main witnesses for the Alberta government in a lawsuit representing three people named as applicants, along with two Alberta churches..On day three of court proceedings in the lawsuit against the Alberta government’s public health orders and use of lockdown measures, Leighton Grey — a lawyer working on behalf of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) — walked through several of Hinshaw’s provincial updates to Albertans..Grey noted Hinshaw’s several references to “a new normal” and asked if that included the “expected compliance” of her CMOH orders by Albertans..Hinshaw said she acknowledged COVID-19 was something that “wasn’t going away” and people would need to “rethink their daily routines” moving forward. She also acknowledged that both COVID-19 and the public health restrictions were “reshaping peoples’ lives.”.“Part of the new normal, at that time, would be the acceptance of certain restrictions on liberties, freedoms that people were accustomed to enjoying. That was part of the new normal as well though, correct?” asked Grey..“When necessary to limit the risk of serious harms, then part of again what would be expected is that people would follow the legal requirements that were put in place to minimize the serious threat to the population,” said Hinshaw..Grey also noted the province was “adopting aggressive new public health measures” with few reported cases in mid-March 2020. At 97 cases on March 17, 2020, the province went into a state of emergency..Hinshaw said the decisions were being made based on what was happening in the province as well as other jurisdictions..Grey discussed Hinshaw’s comments in May 2020 around the “psychosocial impacts” on Albertans citing her statement about the growing concern of anxiety and depression and declining mental health..He asked if Hinshaw had been consulting with addictions and mental health experts when she made statements such as, “…anxiety and fear are normal feelings.”.Hinshaw said she couldn’t recall the frequency of meetings or personal interactions with mental health experts, but there were consultations with them..Grey highlighted a statement in November 2020 from Hinshaw where she indicated the “top priority is protecting the health system.”.Grey asked if this priority meant protecting the healthcare system was above the harms put on Albertans with lockdowns and restricting liberties and freedoms..Hinshaw said the province’s goal was to “seek a balance between the harms of COVID and the harms of restrictions.”.“I don’t agree that the entire burden of unemployment, bankruptcy and isolation would be related to solely the orders,” said Hinshaw..“Those costs would come as a result of both the pandemic as well as the measures, the orders that were in place.”.Grey also touched on a statement Hinshaw made in December 2020 referencing the death of 449 Albertans due to opioid poisoning. Hinshaw said her intention was to highlight that COVID-19 is not the only public health concern..Grey asked Hinshaw if she attributed any of those deaths to the lockdown measures and she said it would be difficult to know for sure all contributing factors in those opioid deaths..Grey then brought forward statements from Hinshaw made in January 2021 regarding the topic of misinformation and relying on reliable sources..Grey pointed to the Great Barrington Declaration — a document written by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff — with a focus on how the current COVID-19 strategies and response to the pandemic are imposing “enormous unnecessary health costs on people.”.Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Gupta is an Indian-born British infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and biostatistician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital..When asked whether she classified the Great Barrington Declaration as “misinformation” Hinshaw said she did not. She said she made clear what she agreed with and disagreed with from the document..Referencing a poll Hinshaw discusses in a provincial update in February 2021, Grey said results showed 70% of Albertans reported they were stressed out, 46% said they were experiencing loneliness and more than half said their mental health had declined..When asked if she would attribute this to the lockdown measures, Hinshaw said it would be difficult to determine if the measures would be a sole contributor and indicated the overall stress of the pandemic would have likely contributed to the poll results, as well..Lawyer Jeff Rath of Rath & Company, also representing the applicants, began his cross-examination of Hinshaw Wednesday afternoon..Rath confirmed Hinshaw was appointed to her position as Alberta’s CMOH by the Notley government to which she agreed and said she was appointed in January of 2019..Rath then asked Hinshaw if she could confirm she makes recommendations to cabinet but that it is cabinet that ultimately makes the policy decisions..At that point, Crown defence lawyer Nicholas Parker objected. Rath rephrased his question to Hinshaw and asked which recommendations cabinet ignored or rejected. Parker objected again claiming public interest immunity or cabinet privilege..The Crown said Hinshaw was engaged in “confidential high-level discussions with cabinet” and those conversations must be kept confidential..Rath, in addressing both public health and medical ethics, brought up an instance where Hinshaw had inaccurately reported the death of a 14-year-old due to COVID-19 when the child had Stage 4 brain cancer. Rath pointed out the death was reported within days of the approval of vaccination for children 12 to 17 years of age..Hinshaw acknowledged the error and said she “deeply regrets” the trauma she caused the family and, at the time, offered the family a public apology..Rath also pointed to another infant death Hinshaw reported in November just one day before the launch of Pfizer’s paediatric vaccine program for children aged five to 11..Although Hinshaw said COVID-19 was a “contributing factor” in the infant’s death, she said there were also, “complex pre-existing conditions that played a significant role,” but did not elaborate any further..Rath asked if Hinshaw was using the announcements of the two deaths around the times of vaccine rollouts to create fear in parents and coerce them into having their children vaccinated..Hinshaw denied the connection and said the timing of the announcements in comparison to the paediatric and childrens’ vaccine rollouts was “coincidental.”.With regard to the closure of fitness facilities during certain stages of the pandemic — one owned by Rebecca Ingram, a claimant in the lawsuit — Rath asked if different types of fitness facilities were considered when the province was shutting down gyms..Hinshaw said the level of transmission risk was taken into consideration when determining what was to be restricted, such as group fitness sessions versus individual workouts, to minimize risk..Hinshaw denied the province targeted fitness facilities that were “breaking the rules” as suggested by Rath and said the activities performed in the facilities created a higher transmission risk..One of Rath’s final questions centred around hospital capacity..He asked Hinshaw if she agreed that “smoking is bad for your health” to which she agreed it was..Rath then asked why Hinshaw didn’t use her “extraordinary powers” to outlaw tobacco sales in Alberta..The Crown objected on the basis of relevance..Rath said the relevance would be to free up hospital beds from “smokers suffering heart attacks and other smoking-related ailments.”.The judge agreed she did not see the relevance and upheld the Crown’s objection..The court was adjourned just before 5 p.m. MST and will resume at 10 a.m. on Thursday..Grey and Rath together are representing the applicants in the case and have been cross-examining Hinshaw since Monday..The Alberta government is in court to defend its public health measures in the civil trial arising from a constitutional challenge launched more than a year ago. The hearing is expected to continue through Thursday..During Monday’s testimony, Hinshaw refused to take responsibility for provincial lockdowns and mandates, repeatedly stating she made recommendations to cabinet and it was cabinet that made the orders..On Tuesday, Hinshaw confirmed her public health orders were a factor in negative outcomes for Albertans. She also again made a statement regarding the orders being “policy decisions of cabinet” after Rath questioned whether she had recommended AHS direct more money to deal with hospital capacity issues..“In the context of issuing your CMOH orders, did you have these very specific appointed discussions with [AHS] about putting more money into increasing capacity as opposed to stripping Albertans of their civil liberties?” said Rath..“It’s important to remember that the orders were the legal instrument to implement the policy decisions of cabinet and so there was a group of people who deliberated and who ensured again that everything that could possibly be done to expand acute care capacity was being done,” said Hinshaw..To request a link from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta for the proceedings, viewers are required to email communicationsofficer.qb@albertacourts.ca and include this subject line in the email: Request link for Action No. 2001 14300.Melanie Risdon is a reporter with the Western Standard.,.mrisdon@westernstandardonline.com
