About
About Flu Wiki
How To Navigate
New? Start Here!
Search FW Forum
Forum Rules
Simple HTML I
Simple HTML II
Forum Shorthand
Recent Active Diaries
RSS Feed

Search




Advanced Search


Flu Wiki Forum
Welcome to the conversation Forum of Flu Wiki

This is an international website intended to remain accessible to as many people as possible. The opinions expressed here are those of the individual posters who remain solely responsible for the content of their messages.
The use of good judgement during the discussion of controversial issues would be greatly appreciated.

Spring of Fear - SARS Commission Report Released January 9, 2006

by: Into The Woods

Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 18:34:49 PM EST


SARS was a tragedy. In the space of a few months, the deadly virus emerged from the jungles of central China, killed 44 in Ontario and struck down more than 3301 others with serious lung disease. It caused untold suffering to its victims and their families, forced thousands into quarantine, brought the health system in the Greater Toronto Area and other parts of the province to its knees and seriously impacted health systems in other parts of the country.

Nurses lived daily with the fear that they would die or infect their families with a fatal disease. The nine-year-old daughter of one nurse asked:

Mommy, are you going to die?

Respiratory technicians, doctors, hospital workers, paramedics and home care workers lived with the same fear.

The Ontario Nurses' Association surveyed its members after the outbreak and found that almost two-thirds felt their health and safety had been compromised during the SARS outbreak. More than half felt their SARS work was not adequately respected or they were unsure if it was respected.

So begins the executive summary of the recently release report of the SARS Commission entitiled: Spring of Fear.  (Hat tip to CIDRAP.)This is the third and final report of this Commission, which released preliminary reports in April of 2004 and April of 2005.

The report is is based on public hearings, government and health care provider documents, and confidential interviews of more than 600 people connected with SARS, including the health care workers involved.  This report tells the story of SARS and addresses these questions:

Into The Woods :: Spring of Fear - SARS Commission Report Released January 9, 2006
In the wake of SARS many questions arise, including:
Why does SARS matter today?
How bad was SARS?
What went right?
What went wrong?
Were precautions relaxed too soon?
Who is there to blame?
Was information withheld?
Did politics intrude?
Was SARS I preventable?
Was SARS II preventable?
Were health workers adequately protected?
Are we safer now?
What must be done?

In reading through the Introduction (14pgs) to the Executive Summary (70pgs) of this imposing 1200+ page report, there are some lessons that seem to rise up off the page like the ghosts of those that died and Jacob Marley-like urge us to mend our ways before it is too late.

The point is not who is right and who is wrong about airborne transmission. The point is not science, but safety. Scientific knowledge changes constantly. Yesterday's scientific dogma is today's discarded fable. When it comes to worker safety in hospitals, we should not be driven by the scientific dogma of yesterday or even the scientific dogma of today.We should be driven by the precautionary principle that reasonable steps to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty.

Of the almost 375 people who contracted SARS in Ontario, 72 per cent were infected in a heath care setting. Of this group, 45 per cent were health workers. Most of these workers were nurses whose jobs brought them into the closest contact with sick patients. And this does not show the full burden of SARS on nurses and paramedics and other health workers. In many cases nurses sick with undetected SARS brought illness, and in some cases death, home to their families.

It is easy to forget that everyone makes mistakes and that hospitals acted and continue to act in good faith. Ontario was not alone in its failure to protect health workers during SARS. The challenge of this new disease overcame the extent of their current scientific understanding. That is why it is better to forget dogmatic arguments based on current scientific understanding. That is why it is better to follow the precautionary principle that reasonable action to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty.

And that is why it is important to recognize that Vancouver, which was spared the devastation that SARS inflicted on Ontario, had a far greater systemic commitment to the precautionary principle.

(Emphasis added)

SARS taught us that we must be ready for the unseen. That is one of the most important lessons of SARS. Although no one did foresee and perhaps no one could foresee the unique convergence of factors that made SARS a perfect storm, we know now that new microbial threats like SARS have happened and can happen again. However, there is no longer any excuse for governments and hospitals to be caught off guard and no longer any excuse for health workers not to have available the maximum level of protection through appropriate equipment and training.

I would encourage those that can to take time to read through at least the Executive Summary and those portions of the report that might shed the most light on the what may be taking its next emergent step around the world.

Given the length of the report, anyone who finds particularly important segments, it would be much appreciated if you could provide the link to that particular section and let us know what you think of it. 

Sping of Fear - The SARS Commission

Volume 1 
Spring of Fear 
Executive Summary
 

Volume 2 
Spring of Fear 
Final Report Pages 1-873

Volume 3 
Spring of Fear 
Final Report Pages 874-1204

Volume 4 
SARS and Public Health in Ontario 
First Interim Report

Volume 5 
SARS and Public Health Legislation 
Second Interim Report

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Protect health-care workers: SARS report
http://www.thestar.c...

January 09, 2007

Helen Branswell

Canadian Press

Campbell said this principle should apply to planning for a flu pandemic, suggesting provincial planners ignore a heated debate over whether inexpensive surgical masks or more costly N95 respirators should be worn by health-care workers during a pandemic, and opt for the respirators.

"It's better to be safe than sorry," he said.

A spokesperson for Health Minister George Smitherman said the province intends to heed this advice, which it has also been hearing from organizations representing Ontario nurses.

"The question of the precautionary principle is one that we take Justice Campbell's advice on very seriously and we happen to agree with it," said David Spencer, Smitherman's press secretary. The minister was out of the country and unavailable for comment.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.


Beancounters
Beancounters don't subscribe to this model.

Their financial and risk-analysis models are least cost/ adequate for the job.

If given the choice of surgical masks or N95, the
bean counters will opt for the least cost/adequate after
factoring in all of the risk costs ie: future lawsuits, dead employee replacement/training costs, etc.

Harsh, but true.

And right now the beancounters are the ones doing the
ordering of supplies.

A sea-change of business practice modeling needs to be implemented in healthcare for the "better safe than
sorry" model to work.


-- "You're going to be staying home for one year. There will be no school, there will be no work... all we'll be doing is trying to keep ourselves alive." Richard Canas, NJ Homeland Security Director


[ Parent ]
Canadian health care is funded publicly and operates at provincial level.
Ontario (Toronto) is the only North American jurisdiction that was severely affected by SARS.  This report is the result of a lengthy judicial inquiry and no politician can afford to fight the registered nurses association head-to-head on this issue against the recommendations of this report.

Bean counters may be shunned. This may not be the case in the U.S. due to private health care. Regardless, HCW may not show up for work without proper PPE.

It included a recommendation to put the precautionary principle into law.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.


[ Parent ]
Report dated Jan 9, 2007 not 2006 n/t


You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.

If SARS infected 45% of HCW with surgical masks,
why would a flu pandemic be less infectious?

That's the question citizens every where should ask their politician.

You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.


no, you got the number wrong
45% of hospital-acquired SARS cases were HCW's!

Very different!



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...


[ Parent ]
Fair enough. Still need to be taken seriously. n/t


You want perspective. I want perspective. Let's talk. We don't have to agree on every thing. If we do, one of us is redundant.

[ Parent ]
Another key learning: Fear
Until SARS was better understood (eg. that contact had to be very close and that a patient wasn't infectious until AFTER they became ill) people became very fearful and some pretty harsh measures were taken: taking travelers' temps coming off airplanes, cancelling business trips to Asia (many businesses suffered huge losses), Asian companies forcing sick leave, etc. 

Don't think that this and much worse can't happen again.  In the early stages, especially given all the media hype for so long about BF, people will freak.  There will be a great deal of uncertainty until the disease is better understood.  We may get lucky - CF may drop enormously and we'll come in at around 1918 levels (something I know most wikians would be grateful for but expect much worse).  But don't expect it to be a smooth ride.


chart modeling "disruption"
I saw a diagram in a document by a Bank somewhere, whereby disruption is expected to peak at least twice: once at the onset of the pandemic, and then again at the peak of the first wave.

Then the document went on to outline why this disease would be very bad for operations where you've outsourced things like helpdesks etc.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Contact
  DemFromCT
  pogge
  Bronco Bill
  SusanC (emeritus)
  Melanie (In Memoriam)

  Flu Wiki (active wiki resource)
  How To Add To Flu Wiki
  Get Pandemic Ready (How To Start Prepping)
  Citizen's Guide v 2.0
  Effect Measure
  Dude's FTP

Home
Powered by: SoapBlox