Press conference beginning now.
Dr Reka Gustafson says she is "passionate" about public health surveillance.

Primary purpose of data collected is to recognize patterns/trends and then to share with public health "for the purpose of making decisions".
"We make as much data as possible once validated and turned into meaning available publicly."

Dr Henry now: data being collected has changed over time. Her role is to speak data about what it means to help people make decisions.
Data they collect is for decision making purposes.

(Unclear why such vast disparities btwn regions would result in a provincial approach then)

Q: Positivity rate of some areas of Surrey is 20%+ on a scale. Why won't you tell us the actual positivity rates?

A: don't have that. I will find a scale. Positivity rates can be "unstable" if you use a small period of time/small # of tests. Won't necessarily be meaningful.

We need to understand backstory before understanding numbers. Why are certain communities lighting up in heat maps? It's not a single # that gives any meaningful info.

Q: There is clearly something going on in Surrey though.

A: This isn't new. We've been reporting on local health areas for more than a year. We know there's been an issue in Surrey. This data they've been able to link "more recently" is more granular.

It's not a surprise Surrey has been a challenging area for most of the pandemic.
Lifting restrictions: we're talking about how to do this without seeing flare-ups.
About protecting people most at risk through vaccinations, and managing it like any other respiratory illness.

Restrictions were a primary mode of controlling COVID because we didn't have vaccinations.
As we immunize more people, control measures will shift away from restrictions.

Q: Will you commit to releasing these reports publicly each week?

A: We do release almost all of that info that was in some of the reports that were posted.

(The leaked report was 4x longer than publicly released reports).

Those were working copies, we discuss info that's most meaningful and release the "vast majority" of it.

Gustafson: slide deck is working copy shared w/ colleagues for validation to go from data to info to meaning to understanding. Most is released.

It was helpful to hear people found this format helpful, we'll look at whether it's useful to release info like this.

The "working copy" is validated by colleagues to determine what's "misleading" or could be "misinterpreted".

We're not concerned by having any of this in the public.

(So why has it not been?)

Q: Are you concerned this will erode public trust?

A: We have to add meaning and context before we release it.

"We are happy to release it"

Q: You're calling this a draft but other provinces release this info almost daily. Neighbourhoods, vaccination rates, variants, etc. It took this long to find out disparity in Surrey of transmission vs vaccination. isnt' that important info?

A: We are releasing more than what other provinces are releasing.

Fact check: no. False.

This information is new for us as well since the province's online registration system went live.

(?) Why not release it starting in March then?
Is the registration system linked to case data? (No it's not)

Dr Gustafson telling us all about the situation report we've all been reading weekly since about June of last year.

Q: What specifically is going to change if you're looking at data releasing better, w/ the knowledge the public wants this information?

A: neighbourhood cases and immunization rates. Compare to TO - we want provincial level data, not single health unit level.

We don't collect workplace info, there's no simple way to collect disaggregated data by occupation "in a meaningful way". The info we have is not collected in a way that can be presented. A lot of it is on paper.

(PAPER? WHY???)

Q: You said you collect data for decision making but all this is available publicly in other provinces. not just Edmonton. They don't need leaks to the media to know what happens in their neighbourhood. Why now are you saying it's weeks away?

A: We have been providing info by local health area. That's comparable to neighbourhoods in other jurisdictions.

Gustafson taking issue with the word leak. says they always assume it might become public.

Q: I hear that you think you're being transparent. That's not what other people say from experts to community advocates to scientists. Will you commit now to the level of detail seen in this report going forward?

A: Yes.

Again says the vast majority of data in the report is already available (it's not)

We do not collect race-based data in BC.

Q: You've talked about stigmatization for ethnic groups but those groups themselves WANT the data. What groups are telling you they don't want the data released?

A: We don't collect certain data that people want. We have seen repeatedly that people are stigmatized.

e.g. anti-Asian racism, anti-Indigenous racism. We need to find balance and do our best w/ the data that we have. There's also legal constructs for privacy reasons.

We've changed the unit of geography as more cases come up.
People also think risk is lower if cases are lower.

Q: you say most of this data is not available. But at CBC we've been asking BCCDC/Ministry for 15 days if this data is even collected and nobody has responded to us. Will you commit to provide this info going forward now that we know it's being collected.

It's not being collected weekly and this is a recent development.
Don't underestimate how long it takes to link data by CHSA.
We're committed to providing cumulative cases by CHSA.
Short answer is yes.

Q: What has been your concern on real, tangible negative consequences of releasing this information?

A: We had concerns that people would be identified raised by leaders of communities. The rate is higher now and releasing more local info does not pose a risk

When cases go down, that issue may come up again.

Q: Our listeners feel condescended to by data being withheld.

A: We try to provide as much light as we possibly can while protecting privacy. There have been acts of discrimination. We've been open from the beginning. People w/ COVID trust us w/ their info.

The answers I am being given to my questions acknowledges systemic inequities that make some populations more likely to be impacted by COVID, but doesn't address why the public health system under their stewardship doesn't prioritize the most vulnerable at every level

The questions I am asking are "societal" questions.

"Systemic issues are not a public health issue, they are issues being revealed by this virus"