news // no. 4 AstraZeneca vaccine rollout in Canada amid banning in EU » US sends their vaccine surplus amid reports of blood clots Jessica Berget Assistant Editor n March 19, it was reported that the US would be sending Canada their surplus of AstraZeneca vaccines (which has a reported effectiveness of 79 percent) boosting the country’s supply of vaccines doses by 1.5 million. The vaccine (which was approved for emergency use in Canada last month and has not yet been approved by the US) is being sent both to Mexico and Canada in order to use them before their expiration dates. Unfortunately, the transfer comes with the notice that many countries in the European Union (EU) and across the globe have temporarily suspended the vaccine rollout amid reports of blood clots occurring in recipients. A blood clot (or thrombus) is a clump of hardened blood that can travel through the body and can cause heart attacks, strokes, and blockages in the lungs. The first country to blow the whistle was Denmark which temporarily banned the vaccine on March u citing reports of blood clots among some recipients with some leading to death. Norway and Iceland later followed suit with the same concerns saying the link between the vaccine and blood clots should be further investigated. Other European countries like Italy, Germany, France, Austria, Ireland (most recently) as well as Thailand, Congo, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, and many others have suspended the vaccines until the matter is further investigated. AstraZeneca reports that there have been 37 reports of blood clots among over 17 million people vaccinated—both the company and regulators maintain there is no evidence that the vaccine causes or increases the risk of blood clots. This is echoed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as also encourage that people should continue to be immunized citing that the benefits of the vaccine protecting against COVID-19 outweigh the risks. Despite the company’s and health official’s advice, public confidence (especially in Europe) regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine has dwindled. On March 20, it was reported that scientists in Europe did find a link between the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and potentially fatal blood clots, but only in extremely rare cases. In their research they found that 18 of the cases in Europe were a rare form of blood clot known as cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), though it’s worth noting these kind of blood clots were more common in women especially before or after pregnancy or while taking theotherpress.ca EMERGENC PARAMEDI AMBULAN Photo by Billy Bui birth control. The EMA says COVID-19 can also cause blood clots and the vaccine can reduce them, so it's safer to get immunized. They also found that these incidents were reported 14 days after receiving the shot and majority of the cases were in women over 55 years old. Canadians wanting to drop monarchy at a historic high » Is it possible for Canada drop the Queen and become a republic? Jessica Berget Assistant Editor mong the recent drama surrounding the Royal Family as per Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Oprah interview, the positivity rating of the monarchy among Canadians is at an all time low. With Barbados making plans to drop the Queen, many think that other commonwealth countries like Canada should do the same and elect their own head of state, but what would dropping the monarchy look like for Canada? The poll done by Research Co., found that of the 1000 Canadians surveyed, one in four (24 percent) said they would prefer Canada stay a monarchy, 13 percent were undecided, and 19 percent said they didn't care. The poll goes on to say that 45 percent of respondents said they would prefer to have an elected head of state rather than the Queen when considering the Canadian constitution. Currently, the Queen is the head of state in 16 countries including the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, as well as nations in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean. With Barbados making plans to become a republic later this year, one must wonder what it would take to make Canada a republic as well. For Barbados, their 30 member House of Assembly voted for the move to ditch the Queen; with the monarch being written into the Canadian Constitution, this may be more difficult for us to achieve. Under section 41 of the constitution (passed in 1982 by Pierre Trudeau), the “office of the Queen” cannot be changed unless approved by Parliament as well as the legislative assembly of each Photo by Arnaldo Fragozo Canadian province. This means that Canada would need the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, as well as all the provinces to sign on to this deal to make Canada a republic—something many people don’t want to deal with (especially amidst a pandemic). Since then, Canada has been monitoring guidance on the vaccine and has already administered more than 500,000 doses since March 20, but they have not yet provided an update on guidance for the shot. Yet, there is a loophole in our constitution. The term “office of the Queen” has no real definition, meaning our constitution does not say explicitly that our monarch has to be a descendant of the Queen or that it even has to be the same monarch as in the UK. This means that Canada would just need a single parliamentary statute to crown as our monarch, or we could sign off on another country’s monarch such as Japan or Norway. In Canada, the Queen has no real power and only serves as a symbolic figurehead. She plays no active role in Canadian politics and since she rarely comes to Canada, her daily symbolic responsibilities are done by the Governor General. Because of this, many argue that removing her as a figurehead would be better for the country. However, things may not change even if Canada does remove the Queen as head of state and moves to a fully fledged Canadian—the only real difference would be that the leader would then be in Canada instead of England. On the other hand, if Canada were to become a republic and have someone acting as a president instead of a King or Queen, there would have to be a huge change in the constitution and to our politics—and it would be expensive.