Evidence of meeting #24 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was naci.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if the member doesn't want to hear the answer, maybe she shouldn't ask the question.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
No, I'm just very frustrated, Mr. Chair. I think a lot of Canadians are as well. I get that everybody has a heavy job, but there's a lot of finger-pointing here. I think a lot of responsibility needs to be taken, perhaps by the minister.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
It's becoming clear to me that we're not going to be able to finish this round before the votes. On that basis, I suggest that we suspend and resume as soon as we can all get back here after the vote. We will resume with Dr. Powlowski, followed by Mr. Thériault and Mr. Davies.
With that, members, we are suspended for—
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a quick point of order. I can vote virtually. I don't know if my colleagues can. If we can all vote virtually, why can't we carry on the meeting? It will take me 30 seconds to vote on my phone virtually.
Does anybody on the committee have to be present in the chamber to vote, or can we all vote virtually?
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If we want to do that, it's going to require unanimous consent. We can all vote virtually. I think all of us are in our respective non-chamber locations.
I'm still not 100% confident that all of the technology has been worked out, so I'm much more comfortable being logged into the Zoom session. However, I'll ask the committee if there's unanimous consent to carry on and vote virtually. The suspension will probably be only 20 or 25 minutes.
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It's out of respect for the witnesses' time as well. It seems like we only have about 10 minutes of time left anyway, don't we?
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes, so we don't have time for Dr. Powlowski's question, as well as yours and Luc's. We do need to—
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but what I meant was that we only have about 10 minutes left of questioning.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's what I mean. I don't think we have.... We could try to shoehorn that in, I suppose.
Is it the will of the committee to carry on a bit further?
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I don't support that, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, this is a very critical vote for the House. If there are any glitches in the system, I want my voice to be heard. I therefore want to sign in and be present.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
We will suspend and then resume as soon as we can all get back here after the vote. It shouldn't be too long. My apologies to the witnesses.
We are suspended.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We now resume the meeting.
I thank the witnesses for hanging in there with us all during the vote. It's one of the costs of doing business in this place.
March 11th, 2021 / 9:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Pagé
Mr. Chair, just a second. The interpretation is not ready.
9:20 p.m.
The Clerk
It's a technical problem with the interpreters.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, as well, my video doesn't seem to be working. Maybe I should do a restart.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I would just as soon not wait for you to restart. We can hear you and we have a nice picture of you on the screen. For me, that's good enough.
Let's get this under way. Are we all good with translation?
9:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Not yet, Mr. Chair. We need 30 seconds.
9:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, it's all good. Go ahead.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
As I said, we are resuming meeting number 24 of the Standing Committee on Health as we continue our study into the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I certainly want to thank the witnesses for hanging in there while we had to suspend for that vote. It is certainly one of the costs of doing business. We are certainly very much aware of the kind of time and effort you guys put in on a daily basis, so it's really appreciated that you were able to hang in here with us.
With that, we will resume our third round of questions, with Dr. Powlowski.
Dr. Powlowski, please go ahead. You have five minutes.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I think Ms. Rempel Garner asked a key question. Canadians want to know, is this a good vaccine? Should I recommend it for my parents, if they have the opportunity to get this vaccine, or for my brother, who has a lot of underlying medical problems? I think the answer is yes. Unfortunately, in this meeting it's about as clear as mud, as far as I'm concerned, because there are so many different numbers out there. I think part of the confusion is the difference between “efficiency” and “effectiveness”.
I'll direct this to you, Dr. Quach-Thanh, because I think you know the numbers pretty well. My understanding of the efficiency comes from the phase three randomized control trial, where you had either the AstraZeneca vaccine or the placebo. Overall, the efficacy was 62%, but it was something like 40% in people over 65. However, to my understanding, I think in North America it showed 72% efficiency, and with half the first dose 90% efficiency.
That's from a randomized control trial, where you pre-select the people. In the actual real-world experience, the effectiveness has actually shown AstraZeneca looking better. There was the study by Hung and Poland in The Lancet, with 17,000 people. This was the one where they looked at giving the booster four months afterwards. They found an 81% effectiveness, including in the elderly. The other numbers I saw showed, with a four-month interval in spacing, 76% to 82%. They were certainly a lot better numbers than the 62% and the 40%. If you look at the efficiency or efficacy from the actual trial with AstraZeneca in preventing deaths, it was 100% efficient or effective in preventing death. In hospitalizations, the Scottish study showed 94%, but you're not going by those numbers.
Is that about right? In the actual study by AstraZeneca, nobody who got the vaccine died, and giving it four months apart was about 80% effective in preventing clinical illness. Is that right? As well, what is the hospitalization rate?
9:25 p.m.
Chair, National Advisory Committee on Immunization and Professor, Université de Montréal
You right that it's very complicated because there are so many numbers. Basically, 60% is the overall efficacy estimate, but if you look at people who got it with a longer interval, so 12 weeks and over, you're right that it then goes up to over 80%. In real-world effectiveness in terms of preventing hospitalization and death, it's above 80% even for elderly populations.
What I was saying was that those data came out after the NACI recommendation was released on March 1, and therefore these data are being included in the updated statement that will be published within the next few days.
