Au Chateau is Defying the Ministry's Own Rules

Asking for proof of a flu shot is not only unprecedented, it's in direct violation of the rules.

This week, I’ve been covering the fact that my local nursing home in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario appears to be the first in the country to start screening visitors based on flu shot status.

The fact that this type of policy is being implemented right as the flu season is ending is proof that they are simply doing this as a retributive measure against the caregivers they were forced to allow entry to just last month.

This policy is clearly unethical and questionably punitive. However I have now been made aware that it is also in direct violation of the actual rules and guidelines that dictate long-term care homes in Ontario.

The Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has a specific guidance document for LTC homes on how to deal with influenza outbreaks and influenza vaccines. Although this document has directed homes to force their staff to either take a flu shot or remain home during outbreaks in the past. It clearly does not apply to visitors.

On page 11 of the Control of Respiratory Infection Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Homes guidelines the ministry clearly states that:

"it is not the responsibility of the home to verify the immunization status of visitors and family members/SDMs beyond providing information on the importance and role of vaccination and where they may get vaccinated."

To almost every health professional or ethics expert, this is common sense. At least it was prior to the COVID pandemic response in Canada. Health recommendations have always been the norm. But health settings walk into ethically grey territory when they start coercing regular visitors into complying.

But in spite of this clear guideline from the actual ministry governing this organization, they still decided to implement an unprecedented policy hereby asking all visitors to show their influenza immunization status or proof of being on the controversial prescription drug Tamiflu.

Like we saw with Canada’s own emergency pandemic response plans which got thrown out the window when lockdowns started, we are seeing a similar phenomenon. Unelected health bureaucrats are making up their own rules. They are disregarding decades of studies, recommendations, guidelines and ethics.

Many people I have spoken to about this new policy don’t see it as a big deal. But it’s because they don’t understand the ramifications. When we allow arbitrary rules to take hold without opposition, we soon end up with the pandemic response fiasco we have seen in Canada over the last 3 years. One ineffective lockdown led to an even less effective one (but stricter). One baseless and generationaly harmful school closure led to another. One segregationist policy led to another.

This reminds me of a common saying these days. If they would have told us three years ago that lockdowns would last 24 months (instead of 2 weeks) would we have complied? If before anyone received it, they would have told us that the novel mRNA shot would be compulsory to work, travel or participate in society, how many would have complied?

So although showing your flu shot status (or prescription drug status) may not seem like a “big deal”. We didn’t think closing down businesses and preventing kids from learning for 2 weeks was a “big deal” either… Neither of these policies have ever been supported by science. They haven’t even been supported by our government’s own recommendations. I just proved it with this one. So why do we accept it?

PS: You might be interested in this latest analysis on influenza antivirals. This is from the world renowned epidemiologist who recently conducted the Cochrane review on mask efficacy. Dr. Jefferson has studied the concept of flu antivirals extensively and has concluded that in many cases the benefits don’t outweigh the risks. His meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal in 2014 concluded that Tamiflu had “no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza and no evidence of a reduction in transmission”. He and his colleagues also concluded that Tamiflu carried many medical risks to individuals and these should definitely be weighed against any benefits.

Anyhow, this just reinforces how ridiculous it is for this nursing home to differentiate entrants based on their choice to take or not take antivirals.