Alberta
An Alternative View of COVID 19 in Alberta
I am Al Poole, retired Site Leader, NOVA Chemicals, Joffre site. Like everyone else, I’ve been overwhelmed with information about Covid 19. It is in my nature to ask questions – and keep asking until I get a satisfactory answer. As a former Site Leader at NOVA Chemicals, Joffre I am aware of what emergency response plans look like. This isn’t it
Why am I doing this?
- I accept that covid may be more contagious than other influenzas and requires thoughtful and well planned interventions to minimize the impact on all citizens (I say “may” as there is considerable disagreement on the PCR test method – even by its founder).. However, I am puzzled as to why the AB government and AHS will not consider the opposing opinions coming from other health and science experts. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Why are they so reluctant to engage other opinion to ensure we are on a productive path to protect all Albertans. I am surprised at how willingly many Albertans have accepted the ongoing dogma by our government, AHS and the media. Fear factor is something to worry about. I believe it results from sharing inaccurate models and the constant reporting of cases even though we know cases are not harmful to the vast majority of Albertans. Clearly – our media people are caught up in the fear factor. I hope people will read this and begin a process to become more informed on – What is And What isn’t – as it relates to Covid. People need to ask more questions – demand better information.
- Read these articles: one by David Redman on a proper Emergency Response Plan – why ignore it? https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/12/every-store-and-school-should-be-open-confronting-the-pandemic-with-confidence/ Second one – Great Barrington Declaration, written by some smart qualified medical people – why it is simply dismissed? https://gbdeclaration.org/
- See this article on our freedoms and rights in the National Post from Preston Manning https://nationalpost.com/opinion/preston-manning-lockdown-rules-are-violating-our-rights-im-calling-on-the-justice-minister-to-intervene
Remember:
1) At the outset we were alerted to the fact the virus (like flu viruses) is likely to mutate. Now – it has and continues to mutate. Even more concerning is the notion it only happens in other countries and can only enter Canada – versus accepting the mutation can happen here too.
2) Soon after governments accepted Covid was real and in Canada they declared, “we must protect our most vulnerable”. Everyone agreed! It still makes sense as one of the important objectives – but not the only one.
Perspective:
As of Jan 25rd in Alberta (Based on data from Alberta Gov’t interactive web site on Covid):
- Over 95% of people contracting the virus have few to no symptoms;
- Less than 5% are hospitalized;
- Less than a 1% in ICU;
- Average age is 82;
- No one under the age of 20 has died.
Across Canada over 80% of deaths are in Long Term Care Facilities (most vulnerable).
So – how have they done protecting the most vulnerable? They have done a miserable job – and I am not surprised. They were offered an emergency response plan but chose to ignore it. The plan outlined by Mr. Redman is consistent with my Emergency Preparedness and Response training and experience. Further, as soon as you enter the realm of personal protective equipment to protect people from respiratory infection – you are into seriously rigid procedures. I have seen no evidence of meaningful procedures.
Deaths (using 4,400,000 as Alberta population – actual slightly higher):
- Covid deaths (1549): 0.04%
- Annual deaths (from all causes in 2019 – over 26,000): 0 .6%
- Deaths among elderly continue to rise – no surprise as they did not protect most vulnerable.
Age at death (comorbidities a major factor in most of these deaths):
- 80+ – 1030
- 70s – 316
- 60s – 160
- 50s – 50
In summary:
I worry the hype of new strains will lead gov’t to more and longer lockdown restrictions with out any realization these same actions have made it worse for our most vulnerable and have made it worse for so many other Albertans.. A good Emergency Response Plan would have done a better job of protecting our most vulnerable – less deaths – less load on hospitals and much less impact on Alberta citizens and way of life. It is not too late to rethink the covid approach to something more effective in protecting our most vulnerable and getting Alberta citizens and businesses moving back toward normal life and operations.
In closing, Covid has had an impact on us — for two of our three children – have experienced work interruptions. Our oldest is in essential services (Ontario) so continues to work. However, her son, our grandson at 13 is negatively impacted, by isolation and not being in a classroom, during a most important time of his life. Also, I have a 92 year old mom in good mental and physical health – more negatively impacted by isolation. As she said to me this summer, “for heavens sake Allan, I am 92 – what are they thinking”. She was so upset she could not hug two of her children who were allowed a ‘distance visit’.
I am still puzzled and wondering – what are they (gov’t and AHS) trying to protect? Their actions and decisions to date make no sense.
I encourage everyone to become more informed and start asking a lot more questions. We are entitled to better leadership and meaningful information from our government. Here are my questions :
- What is the truth on PCR testing? We want data not just your opinion.
- Why is the death rate so high in LTC – from March 2020 until now?
- Why is most testing related to multiple test for same people – suggests spread is in hot zones (LTC facilities).
- Why are so many business still under lockdown restrictions?
“What are your questions?”
Alberta
A Christmas wish list for health-care reform
From the Fraser Institute
By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir
It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.
For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.
While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.
And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.
At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.
The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.
While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.
While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.
Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.
Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.
The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.
Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.
These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.
So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.
Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.
Alberta
Calgary’s new city council votes to ban foreign flags at government buildings
From LifeSiteNews
It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.
Western Canada’s largest city has put in place what amounts to a ban on politically charged flags from flying at city-owned buildings.
“Calgary’s Flag Policy means any country recognized by Canada may have their flag flown at City Hall on their national day,” said Calgary’s new mayor Jeromy Farkas on X last month.
“But national flag-raisings are now creating division. Next week, we’ll move to end national flag-raisings at City Hall to keep this a safe, welcoming space for all.”
The motion to ban foreign flags from flying at government buildings was introduced on December 15 by Calgary councilor Dan McLean and passed by a vote of 8 to 7. He had said the previous policy to allow non-Canadian flags to fly, under former woke mayor Jyoti Gondek, was “source of division within our community.”
“In recent months, this practice has been in use in ways that I’ve seen have inflamed tensions, including instances where flag raisings have been associated with anti-Semitic behavior and messaging,” McLean said during a recent council meeting.
The ban on flag raising came after the Palestinian flag was allowed to be raised at City Hall for the first time.
Farkas, shortly after being elected mayor in the fall of 2025, had promised that he wanted a new flag policy introduced in the city.
It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.
Despite Farkas putting forth the motion, as reported by LifeSiteNews he is very much in the pro-LGBT camp. However, he has promised to focus only on non-ideological issues during his term.
McLean urged that City Hall must be a place of “neutrality, unity, and respect” for everyone.
“When City Hall becomes a venue for geopolitical expressions, it places the city in the middle of conflicts that are well beyond our municipal mandates,” he said.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, other jurisdictions in Canada are considering banning non-Canadian flags from flying over public buildings.
Recently a political party in British Columbia, OneBC, introduced legislation to ban non-domestic government flags at public buildings in British Columbia.
Across Canada there has also been an ongoing issue with so-called “Pride” flags being raised at schools and city buildings.
-
Agriculture2 days agoWhy is Canada paying for dairy ‘losses’ during a boom?
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance
-
Business20 hours agoState of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010
-
Bruce Dowbiggin22 hours agoHunting Poilievre Covers For Upcoming Demographic Collapse After Boomers
-
Alberta20 hours agoHousing in Calgary and Edmonton remains expensive but more affordable than other cities
-
Censorship Industrial Complex18 hours agoCanadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoTop constitutional lawyer warns against Liberal bills that could turn Canada into ‘police state’
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire


