The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), according to their website, “values transparency, accountability, and the wise use of public resources.” In fact, Director Patrick Allen’s calendar page further states that he “believes that sharing his appointments calendar will help him step back from his daily meetings and ensure he is meeting with, and listening to, a wide variety of people, partners and stakeholders.”
The people of Oregon do not feel heard, nor do they feel that OHA is being transparent with what these proposed rule changes would set the stage to do.
OAR 333-019-0010 and OAR 33-019-1005 proposed rule changes effectively grant unelected members of the Oregon Health Authority the authority to “determine” if a vaccine, such as the 5-11-year-old COVID-19 immunization, should be added to the list of vaccine requirements, and it allows OHA to set an arbitrary “School Exclusion” date pressuring all students to meet or be “Excluded” from in-person attendance at school if they do not comply.
Currently, OHA does not have this ability to do this without said rule change, as the required list of immunizations is approved by the Oregon legislature and only one already-established exclusion date is legislated, annually each February, with little public reminder that, by law, Oregon has medical and non-medical exemptions for children.
OAR 333-019-0010 and OAR 33-019-1005 proposed rule changes do not require that OHA offer Exemptions, as is currently required by law for all other immunizations.
These proposed changes are attempting to do, by rule versus a democratic legislative process, under the Governor Brown’s Emergency Declaration, what they have failed to do with SB 442 in 2015, HB 3063 in 2019, and SB 254 in 2021 where efforts to remove non-medical exemptions were made and estimations of 60,000 Oregon children would have been kicked out of school and/or in-person learning opportunities.
As the proposed rule explains:
“COVID-19 is still spreading in the community and particularly for programs providing services for children who may not yet be able to be vaccinated. It is important to have these requirements for communicable disease plans, exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19, and to require certain recordkeeping to assist with contact tracing, including notifying, as soon as possible, in coordination with the local public health authority (LPHA), all families and other individuals if there has been a case of COVID-19 on the premises.”
OHA are creating a clear narrative that children’s service programs, such as schools, youth sports, day care, etc., are significant source of COVID-19 spread. Oregon schools have not shown this to be the case, and schools that remained open showed that there is no significant evidence that this is the case. In fact, Colt Gill, director of the Oregon Department of Education is on record with saying that schools are “not super spreader sites.”
Further, the proposed rule changes allude that because some “cannot” get vaccinated, all who will not or cannot should be excluded. It also shifts the burden of record keeping and contact tracing onto the “provider” and away from the LPHA, and requires a person’s positive status to be shared out—without their explicit consent—to all other families and individuals whether the case was sourced at that location or not.
Additionally, the statement included in the proposed change, “exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19,” literally can encapsulate every child, staff member and person engaged on location.
The changes also adjust or remove definitions for natural immunity on one hand, and essentially force compliance to attend school by way of showing “immunity” paperwork without passing a new direct mandate or law but trying to arrive at the same effect through an OAR change quietly without the public fully understanding the potential ramifications.
Narrowing the very definition of immunity to be vaccine-induced-only poses a grave risk and unbelievably dangerous precedent that ignores scores of peer review research indicating that natural immunity is arguably by far more robust. Definition changes and language removal in the proposed rule changes, in essence, allow OHA to require paperwork to show “proof” of immunity for “non-required vaccines” as stated in desired change.
Research for COVID-19 also shows that ADE’s are more likely to occur after vaccination if the individual has had COVID infection prior to receiving the EUA-authorized vaccine.
Accepting vaccine-induced immunity would thus translate into a need to “show” immunity, which vaccine records.
This warrants another opportunity for the public to weigh in for many reasons. We are asking that a longer period of time is granted for personal and public testimony.
- Is there Justification for a permanent rule, based on data analysis of hospitalizations, deaths, and recovery rate of school aged children 0-19 from Jan. 21, 2020- November 28, 2021: Statistically doesn’t constitute conditions that would require making a permanent statewide rule, and that local control over adequate health responses would be best suited.
According to OHA from Jan 21, 2020 to November 28, 2021
Total Cases Oregon Age 0 to 19 – 70,461 Cases (18.9% of Cases in Oregon)
Total Hospitalizations Age 0 to 19 – 606 Hospitalizations (0.86% of School Age Cases have needed hospitalization)
Total Deaths Age 0 to 19 Age – 5 Deaths (0.007% of School Age Cases have resulted in death)
Total Recoveries Age 0 to 19 Age – 99.993% of Cases have Recovered
According to CDC from Jan 21, 2020 to November 28, 2021
Total (Oregon) MIS-C Age 0 to 19 – 25 to 49 (Max 0.07% of Cases have been MIS-C) Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children…” condition that appears to be linked to covid 19
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surveillance
For Reference Statistical Significance typically doesn’t come into effect until a percentage reaches 3 to 5%
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-calculate-statistical-significance
FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RULE TO BE PUT IN PLACE:
- Bullet point recommendations: The two rules proposed for adoption and amendment concern:
(Page 2 of the proposed rule should read): (highlighted wording replaced with bold print
- Potential exclusion of infected staff, children and students from schools and children facilities, if they are exposed through close contact to an individual (COVID-19) with provable SARS-COV-2 infection.
- Public health and safety (requirements) guidance for childcare providers and youth programs.
- There is potentially misuse of intended rule that would prevent equity and inclusion, and would be potentially discriminatory. An equitable solution and mechanism should be in place for children, not vaccinated and are at no risk, to return to school ASAP.
Some of the key problem areas with proposed OAR changes:
(A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at
What is to say that they can’t arbitrarily update the linked “Guidelines” as they see fit?
An item they are proposing to change that may raise some concerns makes us question the full intent with the statement “lacking evidence of immunity;” will they require children to show “evidence of immunity” for school or be put on quarantine if potentially exposed under their ambiguous updated statements around susceptibility and exposure? Despite continued cases of documented vaccine failure through “breakthrough cases,” the policies frame the issue that those receiving the COVID vaccine are less susceptible, which we know they are actually not, but they treat those who have received the vaccine differently with way less caution. This is discriminatory.
In section 1(d), the definition of “susceptible,” they changed section (A) from:
“(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050”
To:
(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050, or if immunization is not required, lacking evidence of immunity to the disease.
Recently, it was disclosed to Oregon School Superintendent Marc Thielman through his local county health person (who was just recently relocated to another position when she left for vacation) whom he worked with collaboratively to support his custom district mitigation plan that was much better than state guidelines that the state just adopted as their own but relabeled–she told Marc point blank that they are actively TRYING to link outbreaks to schools and realized that she was transferred because she would not intentionally do that.
An important item to note was that the single “hearing” for the proposed rule changes was scheduled for 11.15.2021 at 10:00 a.m.
However, in order to testify you had to request permission to appear remotely by sending an email to Secretary of State prior. This was required to even receive a link to the videoconference. This virtual meeting link was never provided to the public, even if they only wanted to view the hearing.
A phone number was provided for the audio only version of the hearing, which is an odd way of holding a “public” hearing. But more interesting was that fact that while the meeting was scheduled to end no later than 12:00 p.m., they stated that it “may close as early as 10:20 a.m. if all individuals that have signed up to testify have had the opportunity to enter their comments into the record.”
Clearly they were not expecting many public comments. Past legislative bills that have attempted to mandate vaccinations have received thousands of public comments at each opportunity for input on the proposed policies.
The reasons cited for the proposed rule changes were:
For OAR 333.19.0010
“…to amend this rule to clarify the definition for “evidence of immunity” to COVID-19 as well as defining what it means to be exposed to COVID-19. In addition, in child care and school settings, students or staff who are susceptible to COVID-19, can be excluded from those settings if they have been exposed.”
For OAR 333.019.1005
“It is important to have these requirements for communicable disease plans, exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19, and to require certain recordkeeping to assist with contact tracing, including notifying, as soon as possible, in coordination with the local public health authority (LPHA), all families and other individuals if there has been a case of COVID-19 on the premises.”
The changes.
In OAR 333.019.0010
In section 1(a) E, the section that described what “evidence of immunity” is, they removed:
(ii) Having received a dose of COVID-19 vaccine after having documented SARS-CoV-2 infection; or
They also changed the definition of “exposed” from:
(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:
(A) Within six feet of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case for 15 minutes or more within one day; or
To:
(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:
(A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/COMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGCOMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGGUIDELINES/pages/index.aspx
; or
Looking over the proposed rule change to 333.019-0010 on page 5 they are changing the definition of “exposed.”
The old definition was:
(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having
been:
(A) Within six feet of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case for 15 minutes or more within one day; or
(B) In contact with the infectious secretions or clinical specimens of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case.
The new definition is:
(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:¶ (A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/COMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGCOMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGGUIDELINES/pages/index.aspx
| Oregon Health Authority : Oregon Disease Investigative Guidelines : Investigative Guidelines : State of Oregon
Oregon Disease Investigative Guidelines. Download Investigative Guidelines. For reportable diseases lacking Oregon-specific investigative guidelines or case report forms, please contact the epidemiologist on call for assistance at 971-673-1111. www.oregon.gov |
; or
OHA don’t actually provide a definition within the actual proposed OAR rule changes. They just point the public to a URL saying that the linked document is where the definition is published.
In section 1(d), the definition of “susceptible,” they changed section (A) from:
“(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050”
To:
(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050, or if immunization is not required, lacking evidence of immunity to the disease.
In Section 3 they changed:
A school administrator shall exclude a susceptible child who attends a school or children’s facility if the administrator has reason to suspect that the child has been exposed to measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, or COVID-19, unless the local health officer determines, in accordance with section (6) of this rule, that exclusion is not necessary to protect the public’s health.
To: A school administrator shall exclude a susceptible child who attends a school or children’s facility or a susceptible employee of a school or children’s facility if the administrator has reason to suspect that the child or employee has been exposed to measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, hepatitis A, or hepatitis B, or COVID-19, unless the local health officer determines, in accordance with section (6) of this rule, that exclusion is not necessary to protect the public’s health.
Note in the new section they added employees. However, employees were included in the original in Section 4. In the new version Section 4 was removed. So I see no net change.
Section 5 (formerly section 6) was changed from:
(6) If a local health officer receives a request from a school administrator to determine whether an exclusion is appropriate under this rule, the local health officer, in consultation as needed with the Authority, may consider the following non-exclusive factors in making the determination:
(a) The severity of the disease;
(b) The means of transmission of the disease;
(c) The intensity of the child’s or employee’s exposure; and
(d) The exposed child’s or employee’s susceptibility to the disease.
To:
If a local health officer receives a request from a school administrator to determine whether an exclusion is appropriate under this rule, the local health officer, in consultation as needed with the Authority, may consider the following non-exclusive factors in making the determination:
(a) The severity of the disease;
(b) The means of transmission of the disease;
(c) The intensity of the child’s or employee’s exposure; and
(d) The exposed child’s or employee’s susceptibility to the disease, including having initiated a vaccination series for the disease.
What was added was: ”including having initiated a vaccination series for the disease.”
In OAR 333.019.1005
The entire following section was added:
(1) The requirements in this rule remain in effect unless the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer issues an order stating that the requirements in this rule are no longer necessary to control COVID-19. If such an order is issued the Oregon Health Authority must provide notice to interested parties and otherwise take reasonable steps to ensure notice of the order is provided to those affected by this rule, in accordance with ORS 183.335(1). The State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer may also rescind such an order, and such a rescission must also be noticed as provided in this section. In determining whether this rule should remain in effect the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer will take into consideration as least the following information:
(a) The degree of COVID-19 transmission, as measured by case rates, percent positivity, and any other objective metrics indicative of current or potential transmission in Oregon.
(b) COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths.
(c) Disparate COVID-19 related health impacts on communities of color and tribal communities. (d) Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In section 3(a) {formerly 2(a)} they removed the phrase “and provide the plan to the Oregon Health Authority or local public health authority,”
From the original which said:
Develop and follow a written communicable disease management plan for preventing and controlling communicable disease, including COVID-19, and provide the plan to the Oregon Health Authority or local public health authority, that includes: