The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Was It More Than "Cultural" Genocide

Episode Date: May 31, 2021

The Residential School issue doesn't go away. And nor should it.   Some serious thoughts on why we can't and shouldn't be put behind us.  And then Dr Zain Chagla joins us to talk second doses -- why we have to have them and why their delivery seems so slow.

Hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Today, was it more than just cultural genocide? Are you still trying to find ways to get into the world of crypto? Well, look no further. Bitbuy is Canada's number one platform for buying and selling Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Bitbuy has launched a brand new app and website with a new look, lower fees, and new coins. Bitbuy is your one-stop shop to get involved and super easy to use for beginners. Visit bitbuy.ca or download the Bitbuy app. Enter referral code podcast20 to get $20 free when you make your first deposit. And hello again, Peter Mansbridge here.

This is The Bridge. Today we have a number of topics of importance to discuss. But we're going to begin on the issue once again of residential schools. You've all heard the news from Kelowna. You've all seen the reaction, more than appropriate, across the country. Flags being lowered, demonstrations being conducted, people in their homes putting out children's shoes at their front door, just like a couple of years ago, we were placing hockey sticks. I don't think there's a comparison between these two issues.

They're very, very different. But nevertheless, Canadians are responding. Now, when you think back to Murray Sinclair's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you remember it. It was formed in 2009. Justice Sinclair traveled around the country over about six years. There were public hearings. There were private hearings. There were public hearings, there were private hearings,

there were incredibly emotional hearings. The commission documented over 6,000 statements of survivors, more than 200 from former staff of residential schools, all of which led to the commission's, you know, massive multi-volume final report. It was released on November 15th, 2015. And at its core was remembering why there was a system of residential schools across the country. For a long period of time, we tend to think of these as part of our deep history.

Actually, they didn't close until the late 1990s. So they had existed for a long time. And why did they exist at all? And this was the reason why they called it, in Murray Sinclair's final report, called it cultural genocide. They existed because Ottawa, the federal government, had decided on residential schools as a way of taking young Indigenous peoples away from their homes

and basically drumming out of them their Indigenousness, their language, their culture, and replacing it with kind of white culture. That was what it was all about. That's why he described it as cultural genocide. Now, throughout this time, throughout the hearings, and throughout the past history of residential schools, there had been a feeling, more than a feeling, a belief within the Indigenous community

that it had a much even darker side than that. That young Indigenous kids were dying in the residential schools and were being placed in unmarked graves at sites of the residential schools. That's what happened in Kamloops. 215 bodies have been recovered. And no one who's close to the story believes that was a one-off. This was happening in different parts of the country.

That's why it was a commission looking into missing Indigenous children, women and girls. And there is a belief that there are literally thousands, which leads to the awful, horrible question of, was it more as terrible as cultural genocide was? Was it more than that? Now, when Justice Sinclair released his report back in 2015, there were, I think, more than 90 recommendations.

He described it as the path to follow to encourage reconciliation and to make amends for the past, if that was even possible. And those recommendations weren't just for governments. They were for all of us. They were placed there for us to follow, a path for us to follow. And there was a great deal of agreement immediately after that 2015 release that, yes, we would follow this path. And I think there were honest attempts to do so initially.

But this is the way it goes in our life these days. Things change, and the focus of people and societies change, and things that they claimed they were going to follow, they kind of get put to the wayside. They walk off the path to reconciliation. And other things get in the way. Well, in his final speech at the final event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Murray Sinclair, then a senator, acknowledged that reconciliation was going to be difficult,

perhaps more difficult than getting at the truth behind residential schools. But it had to be done. He addressed all of Canada when he stated, quoting here, we have described for you a mountain. We have shown you the way to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.

Right? We call upon you, that's us, to do the climbing. Well, it seems there's still a lot of climbing to do. I don't even know whether we can see the summit yet. And we certainly will never get there with a lot more climbing. So will I applaud those who have ordered flags lowered, for those who look up and respect the lowered flag. And I applaud those who are conducting vigils and nighttime candlelit rallies, and those who are placing on their front porches, children's shoes. We're going to need to do more than that. You know, a couple of weeks ago we had Chief Murray Bellegarde on.

Sorry, Perry Bellegarde. The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, talking about the incredible work that had been done together with Indigenous peoples to deal with the pandemic in First Nations communities, especially across the country. Well, it's that kind of work and that kind of cooperation between cultures that's going to be needed here again.

And let's just hope, let's just hope that that happens. And as I said, it'll take more than hope. It'll take action for all of us. So perhaps think of what you can do individually to achieve the reconciliation that Murray St. Clair and the other commissioners had designed and recommended in what was now almost six years ago. Maybe it starts by going back and reading what they recommended. As I said, more than 90 recommendations.

How many? How many, if any, have been done? All right. I want to move to a uh a second topic a topic actually let's move to it after uh after a quick break okay how many of you have had um well, have had any form of vaccination at all? Most of you, I think. The national number is over 50%, and we're leading much of the world in that,

in terms of partially vaccinated residents, and that's something to be congratulated. We are way behind on second doses. I don't know what the, I should have known, but I don't know the actual number. I think it's still in single digits. for while we're more than 50% in partial vaccinations, we're less than 10% in second doses, in other words, fully vaccinated. And I fit myself in that category. I had a first dose of AstraZeneca, and I was all excited two weeks ago when,

at least in this province, it was announced it's okay for a second dose of AstraZeneca. And we have AstraZeneca stockpiled. We have a lot of it. And we're going to start releasing it. Well, I can't get it. I'm trying to get it. I'm trying to get my second dose.

I'm dealing with the drugstore, in my case, that gave me the first dose, and only they can give me the second dose, but they can't get any supply. So I don't know what's going on on the second dose thing. I look on, you know, social media, and I see people, you know, younger than me getting a second dose. Good for them.

I congratulate them. But I thought there was supposed to be some order to all this. It seems chaotic right now. At least it seems that way to me. Perhaps after I say this, I'll suddenly get a call showing that I was, you know, if I just waited a couple more minutes, it would have been fine. And, you know, I'll take the hit for that if that's what happens. But it's not just, you know, it's not about me. It's about you.

It's about all of us. And I don't quite understand. What also I don't understand is the changing nature of how soon you have to have that second dose. What happens if you don't have a second dose? Is there like an expiry to these things? And if so, when is it? I understand that the technology and the methodology and the science is constantly changing because we haven't been in this kind of a situation before.

But I'm a bit confused. So what do I do when I'm confused? It's Monday. I talk to somebody who knows this stuff. And as you know, Mondays through the pandemic, I've been talking to one of four epidemiologists, people who are working on this. It's Lisa Barrett out of Halifax. These are all doctors.

There's Eleonora Saxinger in Edmonton. There's Isaac Bogoch in Toronto. And there's Zane Chaglin in Hamilton, Ontario. They all work at universities, Dalhousie, U of T, McMaster, University of Alberta. You can place the university with the people I mentioned. It's pretty easy. It depends where they are.

And they're all involved in some fashion with their provincial rollout schemes on the vaccine side and advice to politicians and premiers on what should be going on. Sometimes they're listened to. Frustratingly, sometimes they are not. And you can tell when they're frustrated. Anyway, today's turn on the wheel, on the bridge, is Zane Shacklett, Dr. Zane Shacklett from McMaster University. And I wanted to get to this whole issue around second doses. And who do you call?

You call Zane. And here's our conversation. Let's listen for a little advice here we go i want to talk about second doses um first of all just how important is a second dose and when does one have to have it because i'm getting confused you know at one point it was two months and it was four months. Now it's like maybe three months. And then there's the whole issue about supply and distribution. Let's begin at the beginning.

How important is the second dose? Yeah, absolutely. These were all studied as second dose vaccines. And, you know, the reality of the situation is the first dose is there to trigger the immune system the second there is to boost it to get to that long-term natural immunity in that sense and and really there is a gap between first and second dose um the astrazeneca vaccine is the only one that's a little bit different in terms of the timing they actually were able to model out their

data to suggest waiting for that second dose makes the whole regimen a whole lot better um you know you take the efficacy from 67 percent closer to 80 percent with with waiting 12 or longer weeks with that second dose but the mrna vaccines pfizer and moderna were trialed at 21 and 28 days they had people as long as six weeks in the trials but afterwards there wasn't really any data there and that's where our strategy with the delayed first dose strategy just to get as many doses into people recognizing there was some benefit there there was some benefit obviously to hospitalization death and, and disability, which is probably, you know, the major issue on the hierarchy of needs right now. But recognizing that this is, you know, to get full immunity,

you still need that second dose. And right now, you know, as we're getting people to three and four months, especially those vulnerable groups that got their first dose, it's probably time to get second doses into people, you know, as their supply gets better. And what is the situation if they don't? Does the effectiveness of that first dose start to wear off? Yeah, I mean, I think that the data we've seen from the United Kingdom, even some of the data from Ontario, is that you likely get a plateauing of protection. We don't know how long that's going to be, but we know, you know, you see 70 to 80% protection against COVID-19.

You see significant protection against severe COVID-19 that seems to get better over time. And then around day 50 kind of stalls out and, and doesn't go backwards, but it doesn't go forwards any more than that. And then with the second dose, you still get that additive effect on top. We don't know if it's day 50, day 70, day 90, day 120, that things start trailing off at that point. But there is probably a point in time where things start trailing off.

Give or take from the data from the United Kingdom, it doesn't seem to be around day 90. It seems to be a bit longer than that. But yeah, there is a natural set point where things probably do start phasing out, and you need that second dose to really boost that date of immune response again. What about the issue of expiry dates? Because there's been an interesting, you know, discussion over this weekend about that because there's a good chunk of AstraZeneca, which is in Canada now,

and specifically in Ontario is supposed to have an expiry date of, you know, I think it's, I think it's today, May 31st, or it's very soon. And, you know, and then suddenly it's you know is it like like your milk that goes sour in the fridge or is it like your yogurt that actually gets better if you let it run yeah i mean i would say it's probably like the uh the yogurt more than the milk um you know the the manufacturer has a responsibility to say when do we think this product is active until? The likelihood is that it is active a bit further than there.

And really, these specific lots that were due to expire, Health Canada put a request out to AstraZeneca and said, because they have, you know, certain lots of that saved in their plant too as well, saying, can you study these vials and say how much do you think is still active in these vials and is it well above what would be considered an effective dose for a human and when they came back looking at the data and modeling the decay or just seeing how much is lost over time it seemed like even there's still a month worth of protection still left in the vaccine that the dose would be effective as it was a month ago um that was a specific circumstance for this dose and i think that the point was to make sure that it wasn't lost obviously because we still need people vaccinated people need second vaccines but also looks terrible to the rest of the world if we throw out vaccines that could have been used

effectively um and so yeah i mean that was a special request again regulators and health agencies can work together to get this type of stuff done um but you know this isn't the norm clearly companies want quality control and so things should likely be used more on time this was a special case given the scenario that these were wasted doses if they weren't to be used effectively where are you on on basically on the state of vaccines right now i mean in terms of um first vaccines in canadian arms uh the numbers are pretty you know pretty impressive we're up over 50 percent and we're ahead of i think we're even ahead of the americans on that on that front second vaccines, fully vaccinated,

we're way behind. Like, we're way behind. And these issues of, you know, expiry dates and, you know, time between first and second doses starts to play into the equation. So are you concerned about that? Are you worried about that? Or do we have time here still on our side? I mean, I think there are certainly some positive things. I think the enthusiasm to get a vaccine in Canada has been incredible, right?

I don't think there's a G7 country that's had enough enthusiasm as Canada has to get it um and that really was developed over the last few months so so you know the people's initiative to go get vaccinated is starting to get better and better and better by the day we have more supply um and you know i think recognizing that first so still has significant effects in terms of getting us out of the health care complications of this wave you know there is something very profound about what's happened in the last few months but you know i think there there certainly is a need to get people vaccinated to the second dose it's gonna be a huge logistical issue right because you still have a lot of 18 to 40 year olds across the country that likely haven't gotten their first dose. Even in Ontario, as much as we say 65% of the population is at a first dose, the other 35 are overrepresented in that

18 to 40 year old group. And their kids are in school. They're the workforce that's going back with the reopening plan in the service industry. And so, you know, you do have a big vulnerable section that's still there. So it's going to be a logistical challenge, right? You have to have different models. You have to have people coming in in different streams, you know, those over 80, those over 70, but still making sure those who are 18 to 40, particularly in service industries are also getting out there and getting

vaccinated. And, you know, as we're starting the childhood vaccine that that part keeps up and, you know, there's just so many balls to balance here with the supply um you know it's really the one concern i have is that these mass facts you know type of clinic models are probably not going to meet a long-term way that this is going to be able to be sustainable that you're likely going to see pop-ups family doctors pharmacies you know that being the point of care to balance and try to get people in that are that are being missed or shunted through the system or don't have the resources to get to these mass vaccine clinics. So, you know, I think you definitely a second doses are

needed. We do need a better model with more supply to get people into it. And I think, you know, again, with some of the issues with our first dose rollout with equity, you know, they could very well be issues with the second dose. And we really have to make sure that the right 80 year olds, the right 70 year olds are being vaccinated. And as we start opening it up to everyone, that the right communities are getting access to vaccine, preferentially who have been hardest by COVID-19. I want to switch topics for a second. And first of all, I need to know topics for a second. And first of all, I need to know whether you're comfortable even talking about it.

I want to talk about the Wuhan issue that has come up again last week. And this is, you know, we've talked about it here on this podcast for the last week or 10 days. And that's this issue of whether or not there was a leak in the wuhan lab you know a recognized international lab actually has a pretty good track record and and a lot of international respect for it however there's you know everyone knows that this pandemic started in wuhan it's never been absolutely 100 clear where whether it was in the live market or whether there was an accident or whether it had deliberately been leaked i don't think anybody believes in the deliberate leak thing but there are you know there seems to be new evidence on the table from u.s intelligence sources unnamed that there were three cases of sickness in the Wuhan lab in November of 2019

which is basically a few weeks before it was kind of made public that there was an issue what do you make of that do you think we do you think we're ever going to know how this started? It's hard. You know, these types of things require a lot of openness in terms of transparency, in terms of what happened. Right. And, you know, even the case of the three individuals that were sick in the Wuhan lab, it's important to recognize that places like china with very poor primary care networks even mild illnesses a lot of people go to the hospital to get treated for right so you know is it was it that they got covet 19 and started the ripple effect there um or was it that they were you know suffering from typical influenza and that was what what took them in but you know just because the health care system that that was just a normal finding in that sense that you're looking too highly at you know i think at the end of the

day there is probably some animal to human interface that led to this transmission event um the question is is was it within the walls of that for that facility which was working with coronaviruses and bats um or was it a natural human or the wet market or something along those lines where that human-to-animal interface allowed for that transmission of that. If there was transparency and openness, you could probably rule out the scenario

that it happened in the lab. There's theories going back to genetics and evolution and people that were doing coordinating work with the lab that are suggested for or against the theory that had happened there. But I don't think we'll, without that transparency and without that record keeping, we'll ever have an answer to this.

Unless someone is able to find the smoking gun of some sort of genetic evidence or something along those lines, you know, I think we won't get an answer to this because there's just too much muddiness in the genetic theories and evolution this does it does it matter if we never know i mean i think we we are always worried about the animal to human interface right there was you know well before this pandemic we knew that that was where pandemics were going to come from that's where sars one came from that's where h1N1 came from that's where we watch for avian influenza

you know but we always have to recognize where they're happening right yes we we have this huge outrage at wet markets because we thought that was the source of SARS-1 and the source of this one um but if that's not the cause and it is lab safety and how we deal with these and protocols for labs dealing with human pathogens, at that point, the efforts have to go there, right? As an international biosecurity, the efforts have to go there. So yeah, absolutely, it matters because the need to prevent the next pandemic depends on how this pandemic started. And I guess we should always keep in mind that we have labs like the Wuhan lab in Canada. Yeah, NML, the Winnipeg lab, you know, is a level four lab.

I mean, it's worked with level four pathogens. It was one of the labs that was the development of the ebola vaccine which meant live ebola was on site right so you know there are safety protocols that's one of the probably heavily monitored labs from a biosafety standpoint in canada um but um but yeah i mean you know if really a pathogen could escape from the lab it caused an international pandemic you know the the regulation and even the, the, the, yeah, the prioritization of these labs globally really has to be reconsidered, right. You know, for, for the sake of what this has done. Well, you've given us a lot to think of on, uh, on all these friends, uh, Dr. Chagla and as always, we, uh, we really appreciate your time. Thanks so much. No problem. Chagla. And as always, we really appreciate your time.

Thanks so much. No problem. All the best. Dr. Zane Chagla from McMaster University in Hamilton. You know, we are so lucky, not just this podcast, but so many journalists in Canada are lucky that they have had the help and advice from epidemiologists. You know, we couldn't even pronounce that word before this started, and some of us can't today. But we've had their help throughout this, and their advice, and their commentary at a time where they're unbelievably busy. You know, I usually talk to one of the four that I deal with usually on Sunday nights

because I know how busy they're going to be on Monday mornings. But more than often, they're busy on Sunday nights too. And they're, you know, either at the hospital, they're at their offices, or sometimes they're at home and then trying to juggle home life as well. And, uh, they've never, ever said no to me. And Hey, I'm just a little podcast guy. Um, uh, they've been great. They've been terrific. And, uh, and I know you appreciate them because every week I get mail talking about the Monday edition with one of the four doctors and how they seem to be addressing many of the questions

that are really on their minds at this time. And I hope we did that again today with Dr. Jagla. All right. It's been a pretty heavy day so i'm going to leave you with something um well it's heavy too but it's it's you know it's what we call in the business a bright you know it's like we always used to say at the national and my my friend mark bulgach always used to say you know it, and my friend Mark Bulgich always used to say, it would be great if every night we can leave people with some kind of good thought, some kind of nice story. Some days you just don't have room for that because there's so much negativity

around many of the stories that we have to deal with. But as Mark used to say, listen, the sun is going to come up tomorrow. As bad as this day has been, the sun will rise tomorrow. And let's give people something that they can go to sleep on that's a little different. Well, I know that you don't go to sleep after the bridge, or at least those of you who listen to it on Sirius certainly don't, because it's at noon hour, at least in the Eastern time zone. But some of you do listen to it at night, and I've had some of you say that

you love the sound of the bridge so much because it puts you to sleep. And you listen to it, and you kind of doze off, and in the middle of the night you find that you know you're still wearing your headset or whatever anyway here's my little nice story my bright my little bit of sunshine to close this one off do you um do you know what your iq is I don't know what mine is. I have no idea. And, you know, occasionally you'll see something either online or wherever saying, test your IQ.

We can tell you what your IQ is. And I go, you know what? Maybe I don't want to know what my IQ is. Like I just don't want to know. Now, I do recall, especially at grade school, they used to do certain tests every once in a while with us that were telling them something about us. It was usually those multiple choice things. I used to hate those multiple choice surveys,

and sometimes I would just say, okay, today I'm going to take B on every answer and see where that ends up. It rarely ended up well. Anyway, enough about me. Let's move on to this story. It's about a two-year-old in Los Angeles. She's two.

And the American Mensa group says that she is the youngest member of American Mensa because she has an IQ. She's two. All right. She has an IQ of 146. And that is in the top 2% of the general population on a standardized intelligence test she's two her name's kasha and trevor mitchell the executive director of american mensa tells people magazine in a statement we are proud to have her and to be able to help her and her parents with the unique challenges that gifted youth encounter.

She's remarkable. There's a picture of her. She's not only remarkable, she's really cute. She's got the greatest hair. Going for a two-year-old that I think I've ever seen. While most toddlers should be able to recite some numbers by the time they're two, Cash's mother, Sukit Athwal, told KTTV that her daughter

is able to count to 100. She's two. She can count to 100. She's two. She can count to 100. She also knows more than 50 signs in sign language. That's pretty impressive. We started to notice her memory was really great, says her mother. She just picked up things really fast, and she was really interested in learning.

At about 17 or 18 months, she had recognized all the alphabet, numbers up to 100, colors and shapes. She's two. You know, it's a story like that that you want to follow, right? What happens to Asha?

Kasha, sorry. What happens to Kasha? You want to check in with her, say every five years, to find out what's Kasha up to. And the rate she's going, by 10 she'll probably have a master's degree in something or a doctorate.

Top 2% of the general population on a standardized intelligence test. That just makes me even more scared to want to have an IQ test. That's not going to happen with me. Anyway, you want to read more about Cash to Go to have an IQ test. That's not going to happen with me. Anyway, you want to read more about Cash You Go To People magazine. Just the current edition. A great story. But you're going to love the picture of her.

She should get top of marks just simply for her hair. It's amazing. All right. That's our discussion today. Some pretty heavy, serious stuff. Some really important stuff in terms of our health. And a nice little bright to think of as well okay i'm peter mansbridge

this has been the bridge tomorrow we're going to look at the question of vaccine passports got a privacy expert on britain looks like it's now backing away from the idea of vaccine passports this may be the reason why surrounding privacy So we'll talk vaccine passports tomorrow. Wednesday is Smoke Mirrors and the Truth by the old radish farmer. Thursday, Potpourri Thursday. And Friday, of course, is the weekend special. So lots in store as the week ahead moves along.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening to The Bridge. We'll be back in 24 hours.