Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:46 AM
Mikemike2's Avatar
Mikemike2 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,309
There are graphs here - https://covid19stats.alberta.ca/ - that show there are a lot of new cases (mostly in Calgary), and that most new cases are from a known exposure. A known exposure means they can trace where the case probably came from, ie travel or family member or event. Why are they just now still testing people with known exposure?. Surely those people should have been traced and tested previously. Alberta has the capacity to test about 7000 per day, and is maybe testing 3000.
  #152  
Old 04-18-2020, 11:42 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
Wages have been stagnant for a long time. Inflation has eaten those wages up badly.
Wages prior to the pandemic were the highest they have ever been, even accounting for inflation. That's fact. You can claim inflation is somehow higher than any measure, but it's on you to prove that rather amazing claim.

Quote:
It is obvious that when a large factory is moved overseas, those jobs go there too.
Prior to pandemic, the unemployment rate was very low. That is just a fact.

Quote:
More new jobs are of low wage and quality.
There is no way to square this claim with the plain facts; wages were the highest they have ever been and unemployment was low.

Quote:
The government lowers interest rates so people can borrow more to maintain a standard of living.
The government does not control interest rates.

If you want to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of a given economic policy, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts and how things like interest rates work.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #153  
Old 04-18-2020, 12:00 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The government does not control interest rates.
.
Not directly, but the Bank of Canada does. The BoC is a Crown Corporation and the Governor is chosen by the board of directors based on the recommendation of the Finance Minister. Government direction certainly influences the BoC.

Last edited by FinsToTheLeft; 04-18-2020 at 12:00 PM.
  #154  
Old 04-18-2020, 02:46 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
"Not directly" is a hell of a modifier. The BoC and the government of the day have quite often worked at cross purposes, which, of course, is by design.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #155  
Old 04-18-2020, 04:25 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
"Not directly" is a hell of a modifier. The BoC and the government of the day have quite often worked at cross purposes, which, of course, is by design.
If you think the bank of Canada is of some reliability. Here is wage information from them. Drag the slider all the way to the left. It statrs at about 3%, ends at about 3%

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/in...s-definitions/
  #156  
Old 04-18-2020, 04:29 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Employment in Canada.
From a somewhat right wing news outlet at that.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...d-worry-us-all
  #157  
Old 04-18-2020, 04:34 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
I am not going to post anymore about the negatives of free trade in this thread. It is quite a bit off the main topic. But I encourage folks to look up all the negative facts. They are many.
  #158  
Old 04-18-2020, 04:59 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
If you think the bank of Canada is of some reliability. Here is wage information from them. Drag the slider all the way to the left. It statrs at about 3%, ends at about 3%

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/in...s-definitions/
To you, does the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% mean that wages are stagnant?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
Employment in Canada.
From a somewhat right wing news outlet at that.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...d-worry-us-all

Could you point to the specific quote/number/data that shows that "More new jobs are of low wage and quality." compared to previously? It says there is part-time work but I'm not finding where it says there has been an overall shift from full-time to part-time. From what I can see, the article doesn't compare working in Canada in the past/before free trade to working in Canada now, it compares working in Canada now to working in the US now.

Just giving a cite isn't enough, you need to explain how the data supports your assertion that "Wages have been stagnant for a long time. Inflation has eaten those wages up badly." and that "More new jobs are of low wage and quality." unless it's patently clear which isn't the case here.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-18-2020 at 05:00 PM.
  #159  
Old 04-18-2020, 05:37 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
It's actually easier to find more data on the similar U.S. situation.
They are suffering the same problems due to losing production to other countries. And it is very important to consider the distribution of income and profits. Not just the average plus or minus over time. Also look into how the inflation calculations have changed over time to make it look better than it is. Hedonics and substitution being a major way to make things look better. Also just excluding things from the calculation.

Overall. Inflation has been higher than reported. Unemployment is under reported. Underemployment is under reported. Increases of income and profits has been going more to those already in the higher income brackets. Start here.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Read some of Matt Taibbi's articles or books for info on government and high level business screwing us.
  #160  
Old 04-18-2020, 05:41 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
To you, does the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% mean that wages are stagnant?






Could you point to the specific quote/number/data that shows that "More new jobs are of low wage and quality." compared to previously? It says there is part-time work but I'm not finding where it says there has been an overall shift from full-time to part-time. From what I can see, the article doesn't compare working in Canada in the past/before free trade to working in Canada now, it compares working in Canada now to working in the US now.

Just giving a cite isn't enough, you need to explain how the data supports your assertion that "Wages have been stagnant for a long time. Inflation has eaten those wages up badly." and that "More new jobs are of low wage and quality." unless it's patently clear which isn't the case here.
From Forbes. Not a left wing institution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel.../#5e2268d74fd1
  #161  
Old 04-18-2020, 05:51 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Again Forbes.
https://forbeswealthblog.ca/2018/06/...n-rates-a-lie/
  #162  
Old 04-18-2020, 05:57 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
From Forbes. Not a left wing institution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel.../#5e2268d74fd1
I don't care where it comes from if the argument is that sloppy. You post links to articles without showing how the data there proves your assertions.


I repeat: To you, does the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% mean that wages are stagnant?
  #163  
Old 04-18-2020, 06:22 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Read the articles?
Or am I supposed to read them to you and explain them?
I am not just posting random numbers. They are articles with data. Explanations.

Your replies are empty. No cites. No data.

Again. I am done with this. I will take a peek to see if this subject is discussed somewhere else on the site. Probably is. Maybe Great Debates. And if I have time I will post there. Or start a new thread.
  #164  
Old 04-18-2020, 06:30 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
Read the articles?
Or am I supposed to read them to you and explain them?
I am not just posting random numbers. They are articles with data. Explanations.

Your replies are empty. No cites. No data.

Again. I am done with this. I will take a peek to see if this subject is discussed somewhere else on the site. Probably is. Maybe Great Debates. And if I have time I will post there. Or start a new thread.
I read the articles but it's far too easy to just post a link and say: "The link proves it". It's like starting a thread and just posting a link. I'm asking you to cite the precise parts which support your assertions instead of just posting a link because the articles may not prove your assertions even if they're related to them.

I haven't made assertions concerning trade, I'm questioning your assertions that: "Wages have been stagnant for a long time. Inflation has eaten those wages up badly." and that "More new jobs are of low wage and quality." Your links may be related to that but that doesn't mean they establish those assertions.

Again, I'd like to know if you think that the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at 3% proves wages have been stagnant. If you don't, I'm not sure what the point of posting that link was. Do you or not think that it proves wages have been stagnant?

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-18-2020 at 06:32 PM.
  #165  
Old 04-18-2020, 06:51 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
From Forbes. Not a left wing institution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel.../#5e2268d74fd1
Kedikat, I mean no disrepsect, but your wave of links is just silly. Two are blogs, some aren't about Canada, and one about labor market performance doesn't address any of your previous claims. None really have anything to do with international trade.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 04-18-2020 at 06:52 PM.
  #166  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:08 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Wages prior to the pandemic were the highest they have ever been, even accounting for inflation. That's fact. You can claim inflation is somehow higher than any measure, but it's on you to prove that rather amazing claim.


Prior to pandemic, the unemployment rate was very low. That is just a fact.


There is no way to square this claim with the plain facts; wages were the highest they have ever been and unemployment was low.


The government does not control interest rates.

If you want to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of a given economic policy, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts and how things like interest rates work.
Sigh... Copy and pasted from the Bank of Canada act.

Ministerís directive

(2) If, notwithstanding the consultations provided for in subsection (1), there should emerge a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed, the Minister may, after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy, in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, and the Bank shall comply with that directive.


"and the Bank shall comply with that directive." Final say of what the Bank of Canada does is with the Minister.

A couple of you complain that I am just posting links. You are not posting even links to information. Just nay saying. Easy for you to do. No need to search for information and provide links so that people reading the posts can verify anything. I am providing information, you are providing empty criticism.
  #167  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:13 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Another link.
A snarky one I admit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  #168  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:14 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
A couple of you complain that I am just posting links. You are not posting even links to information. Just nay saying. Easy for you to do. No need to search for information and provide links so that people reading the posts can verify anything. I am providing information, you are providing empty criticism.
Average real hourly wage: https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/u...ourly_wage.png

Real median wages, hourly and weekly: https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/u...weekly_12m.png


Average hourly wage of employees in Canada from 2000 to 2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...pation-canada/

Here, since they're charts rather than articles, I'm not sure how I can break it down to show how it supports high wages except to say that the part of the line on the left is lower than the part on the line on the right.


None of which is to say that everything's perfect and the State should do nothing. I personally would like to see UBI.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-18-2020 at 08:16 PM.
  #169  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:54 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
The second link to real median wage per hour would be a raise of $0.77 cents over 15 years. Forty hours a week, $30 dollars. Fifty two weeks, $1560. 9.21% increase.

Over the past 15 years have a lot of people seen just a $1560 dollar a year increase in their expenses? Just a cost increase of 9.21%? At just 1% inflation per year it blows past that. The Bank of Canada inflation calculator.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/re...on-calculator/
So sorry, another uninformative, useless link.
Shows a basket of items costing $100 dollars in 1998 would cost $133 dollars in 2012 ( the range of the wage graph ) and they would like to use very favorable figures. A 33% increase in cost. Versus a 9.21% increase in wages.
Hmmm. I was just saying wages were stagnant. I have seen information pointing out we are losing ground. But I backed off of that.

Thanks for the link.
  #170  
Old 04-18-2020, 08:59 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
The second link to real median wage per hour would be a raise of $0.77 cents over 15 years. Forty hours a week, $30 dollars. Fifty two weeks, $1560. 9.21% increase.

Over the past 15 years have a lot of people seen just a $1560 dollar a year increase in their expenses? Just a cost increase of 9.21%? At just 1% inflation per year it blows past that. The Bank of Canada inflation calculator.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/re...on-calculator/
So sorry, another uninformative, useless link.
Shows a basket of items costing $100 dollars in 1998 would cost $133 dollars in 2012 ( the range of the wage graph ) and they would like to use very favorable figures. A 33% increase in cost. Versus a 9.21% increase in wages.
Hmmm. I was just saying wages were stagnant. I have seen information pointing out we are losing ground. But I backed off of that.

Thanks for the link.

You think it shows a loss of ground?

C'mon, man.

It's real median wages. That qualifier indicates that the effects of inflation are taken into account in the statistic. You can also see on both sides that it's given in 2012 dollars.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-18-2020 at 09:01 PM.
  #171  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:03 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
I may be off in the numbers depending on definition of "real" median wages. But at that amount, over 15 years, 9.21% can be knocked down quite a bit in reality. Maybe the other way too, but less likely. The Bank of Canada calculator puts a 2.07% annual rate of inflation.

Last edited by Kedikat; 04-18-2020 at 09:07 PM.
  #172  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:10 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
2.07% annual inflation over 15 years would wipe out a 9.21% raise total in 15 years.
  #173  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:19 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Interesting. You can use the Bank of Canada inflation calculator in reverse too.
I put the 2012 wage in first and entered 2012 in the date.
Then 1998 in the lower date. It then returned the calculated 1998 wage.

1998 came out to $15.58.
  #174  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:45 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Going forward I think I will use that Bank of Canada calculator to check figures on all these sites. It seems to show that the McLeans graph may be off from it's inflation figures. Seeing as the Bank is the institution trying to manipulate inflation. I suppose a lot of information should be based on it's figures.
  #175  
Old 04-18-2020, 09:56 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
Interesting. You can use the Bank of Canada inflation calculator in reverse too.
I put the 2012 wage in first and entered 2012 in the date.
Then 1998 in the lower date. It then returned the calculated 1998 wage.

1998 came out to $15.58.

Do you take this as meaning that the numbers on the MacLeans' chart are unreliable? Any hypothesis as to why the numbers don't appear to match up?


Also, please finally fucking answer my question about whether or not the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% means it's stagnant.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-18-2020 at 09:59 PM.
  #176  
Old 04-18-2020, 10:01 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
This calculator also seems to match the Bank of Canada inflation figures. The inflation rate used is the official CPI. ( which I do feel is low ) The calculator is specifically for calculating wage gain or loss versus inflation rate as per CPI.

https://cupe.ca/cpi-calculator
  #177  
Old 04-18-2020, 10:27 PM
Kedikat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Do you take this as meaning that the numbers on the MacLeans' chart are unreliable? Any hypothesis as to why the numbers don't appear to match up?


Also, please finally fucking answer my question about whether or not the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% means it's stagnant.
There are always discrepancies in data sources. Sometimes they help your argument sometimes hurt. I notice that their graph looks a lot like one in a PDF from the Canadian government. But the graph in the PDF starts at an earlier date, 1981 to 2011. Maybe a date glitch? I haven't calculated the one in the PDF. Maybe they may have used a lower annual rate in the McLeans one.

That 3% thing is a weird representation of combined data. If you actually look at the wage data and went by the individual percentages at each data point, it would seem we should all be crazy rich by now. But overall it works out pretty flat. It's a complicated example. Should have left it out. It calculates in a bunch of other stuff into that Wage Pressure figure. What might be pushing wages up or down.
  #178  
Old 04-19-2020, 07:50 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,599
I good way to tell if wages have stagnated is to look to how often minimum wage was raised to keep pace with inflation.

Measuring how well the economy is doing by how well affluent people’s wages are doing, isn’t very accurate, in my opinion.

We can all see that presidents and CEOs get yet MORE millions of dollar in bonuses, stock options and salaries, EVERY year. Mostly as a reward for keeping wages stagnant for minimum and lower wage workers.

Including those pay giant hikes for top earners, skews stats when in fact, the largest, lowest paid cohort actually saw zero increases over that time, in my opinion.
  #179  
Old 04-19-2020, 07:52 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,599
I good way to tell if wages have stagnated is to look to how often minimum wage was raised to keep pace with inflation.

Measuring how well the economy is doing by how well affluent peopleís wages are doing, isnít very accurate, in my opinion.

We can all see that presidents and CEOs get yet MORE millions of dollar in bonuses, stock options and salaries, EVERY year. Mostly as a reward for keeping wages stagnant for minimum and lower wage workers.

Including those pay giant hikes for top earners, skews stats when in fact, the largest, lowest paid cohort actually saw zero increases over that time, in my opinion.
  #180  
Old 04-19-2020, 10:02 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
There are always discrepancies in data sources. Sometimes they help your argument sometimes hurt. I notice that their graph looks a lot like one in a PDF from the Canadian government. But the graph in the PDF starts at an earlier date, 1981 to 2011. Maybe a date glitch? I haven't calculated the one in the PDF. Maybe they may have used a lower annual rate in the McLeans one.
There are "discrepancies" because they're not about the same thing at all. MacLean's numbers are about inflation adjusted wages in 2012 dollars across several years. The inflation calculator is about nominal dollars in any given year. Do you understand the distinction between nominal dollars and inflation adjusted dollars? Because it looks like you don't if you think the BoC inflation calculator invalidates the MacLean's numbers.

The BoC inflation calculator is telling you what the nominal price of something would be if there has been no real (inflation adjusted) increase or decrease in its price. The MacLean's numbers are telling you what the real (inflation adjusted) wages have been over time. Aside from sharing the word "dollar", they have fuck all to do with each other.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedikat View Post
That 3% thing is a weird representation of combined data. If you actually look at the wage data and went by the individual percentages at each data point, it would seem we should all be crazy rich by now. But overall it works out pretty flat. It's a complicated example. Should have left it out. It calculates in a bunch of other stuff into that Wage Pressure figure. What might be pushing wages up or down.

No, it's not a weird representation of data. You just don't seem to understand what it means. It's telling you the increase in wages at each year.

No, even if you do by individual percentages of each data point, it doesn't seem like we should all be crazy rich by now. An increase of a few percentage points each year doesn't imply we should all be crazy rich nor that wages have been stagnant. That logical inference exists only in your head.

No, it's not a complicated example, it's an example you have difficulty understanding.

You don't seem to understand the distinction between an increase in wages and an increase in the rate of increase in wages.
Increase =/= increase in the rate of increase.
Wages have increased, it's the rate of increase that hasn't increased.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
I good way to tell if wages have stagnated is to look to how often minimum wage was raised to keep pace with inflation.

Measuring how well the economy is doing by how well affluent peopleís wages are doing, isnít very accurate, in my opinion.

We can all see that presidents and CEOs get yet MORE millions of dollar in bonuses, stock options and salaries, EVERY year. Mostly as a reward for keeping wages stagnant for minimum and lower wage workers.

Including those pay giant hikes for top earners, skews stats when in fact, the largest, lowest paid cohort actually saw zero increases over that time, in my opinion.

That's a false choice, of course. You don't have to choose between the minimum wage (which is a legal fiat) and how affluent people's wages are doing. Why the fuck would you posit a choice between only those two choices? The standard measure is to use the median wage, like in the example I gave.

And before you say: "The top earners distort the average!" I'll repeat that it's the median wage, not the average wage.
  #181  
Old 04-19-2020, 10:20 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
It was an interesting diversion but we are now clearly very far from the topic of the thread, so please rein it in.

RickJay
Moderator
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #182  
Old 04-19-2020, 10:21 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
It was an interesting diversion but we are now clearly very far from the topic of the thread, so please rein it in.

RickJay
Moderator
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #183  
Old 04-19-2020, 10:31 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Alright, you won't need to say it twice : )
  #184  
Old 04-19-2020, 11:11 PM
Sunspace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Near the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 27,956
My sister in the Soo says that there have now been cases of community transmission there. Guess no-one will be able to see my aunt in the retirement home for a while...
__________________
Rigardu, kaj vi ekvidos.
Look, and you will begin to see.
  #185  
Old 04-25-2020, 02:38 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
It's being reported that COVID-19 deaths in Ontario and Quebec are 75-80 percent in old age homes.

I remain pretty convinced that while most of us, and most businesses, will be out of lockdown by the end of May, old age homes won't be out of lockdown this year. And they shouldn't be.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #186  
Old 04-25-2020, 03:51 PM
Slight, Off Hand is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 11
New Brunswick has been a week with no new cases and only 11 active cases. Premier Higgs announced a loosening of restrictions yesterday. We can golf and get outside. Most importantly, we can increase our bubble by one household! So many of my friends are having fun with interviewing prospective monogamous household partners on Facebook.

This is the first step. If we can go another 2 or 3 weeks with no outbreaks (3 unlinked cases of community transmission within 6 days) then the restrictions loosen a bit further. Hopefully we can co-ordinate something with PEI before the end of summer as well as they have a great handle on things to all appearances.

Fingers crossed that my fellow NBers can keep things up and be smart.
  #187  
Old 04-25-2020, 05:01 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
In Alberta there is still a huge divergence between the Calgary area and...everywhere else. Calgary is still getting on the order of 100 new cases per day. In the rest of the province the virus has nearly stalled out. Here in Edmonton we've averaged less than 10 new cases per day over the past 14 days, in a region with over a million people.

We have only had 47 people need the ICU in total in Alberta since the start of the pandemic.

This suggests to me that outside of Calgary perhaps we are too locked down. We're not building herd immunity, our health care system is nowhere near capacity, and time is ticking on every closed business. We can't keep doing this.
  #188  
Old 04-25-2020, 07:08 PM
Hari Seldon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,846
Trudeau has announced rent relief for small businesses. The government will pay 50% of the rent; the tenant will have to pay 25% and the landlord will have to eat 25%. It looks like a good deal all around. It should allow a small business owner to survive and the landlord too. Presumably taxes will have to rise eventually to pay for all this, but them's the breaks.
  #189  
Old 04-25-2020, 11:52 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slight, Off Hand View Post
New Brunswick has been a week with no new cases and only 11 active cases. Premier Higgs announced a loosening of restrictions yesterday. We can golf and get outside.
If Ontario doesn't open golf courses in May, my mother will absolutely drive to New Brunswick from Kingston to golf.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #190  
Old 04-25-2020, 11:53 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In Alberta there is still a huge divergence between the Calgary area and...everywhere else. Calgary is still getting on the order of 100 new cases per day. In the rest of the province the virus has nearly stalled out. Here in Edmonton we've averaged less than 10 new cases per day over the past 14 days, in a region with over a million people.

We have only had 47 people need the ICU in total in Alberta since the start of the pandemic.

This suggests to me that outside of Calgary perhaps we are too locked down. We're not building herd immunity, our health care system is nowhere near capacity, and time is ticking on every closed business. We can't keep doing this.
Lockdown won't last that much longer. Still, even another four weeks will do terrible harm to the economy. I think that die is cast; we're facing the next Great Depression.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #191  
Old 04-26-2020, 12:17 PM
Slight, Off Hand is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
If Ontario doesn't open golf courses in May, my mother will absolutely drive to New Brunswick from Kingston to golf.
I hope they open then. I'd hate to see her take the drive and be turned away at the border. A big part of our plan is keeping the borders as tight as we can. I can see opening up with PEI as they have next to no cases but anywhere else will be a while I think.
  #192  
Old 04-27-2020, 11:05 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Well, my Mom isn't dumb enough to drive twelve hours and not first check to see if NB opened the border.

I got a notice yesterday that the schools have extended their shutdown to May 31; this took me by surprise because I actually thought they'd called it for the whole school year. I suppose they would prefer to at least get the high school kids back for exams.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #193  
Old 04-28-2020, 02:55 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
I've been playing around with the Covid-19 data in Alberta, and found some interesting things.

One of the things that has bothered me in most of the published data is that they keep showing it in terms of overall infections compared to deaths. This is misleading especially early on when most of the infected people are still not well and the disease for them has yet to run its full course. So I filtered out only the recovered and dead, to get a sense of what this looks like when the disease is done with you.

Unsurprisingly, what I found is that the virus is mostly a risk to those over 70. Here are the numbers:

Age 80+: 50 dead, 59 recovered
Age 70-79: 14 dead, 80 recovered
Age 60-69: 7 dead, 183 recovered
Age 50-59: 1 dead, 265 recovered

All ages: 75 deaths, 1664 recovered

Again, this is only for the people for whom the disease has fully run its course. This seems to me to be a far more accurate representation of the mortality rate for people who become symptomatic enough to be officially tracked in the data, because it eliminates unknowns like people who have been infected and remain asymptomatic. So far, it looks like if you are under 60, the risk of death is very low, but people over 70 should be doing everything they can to keep from being exposed.

Without knowing the specifics of the younger people who died, I would guess that they must have had significant co-morbidities, since there were only four deaths in the entire <60yr old cohort, despite the fact that they also had the vast majority of total infections.

Caveats: The data is thin, and maybe skewed for older people due to more of them being in institutions where they may be getting larger viral loads. It may not hold for people of that age still living alone, and there could be other confounding factors. We just don't have that data.

Hope this is interesting to someone.

Also, Southern Alberta is still getting slammed with new cases. Northern Alberta, almost none. It is a,puzzle.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 04-28-2020 at 02:56 PM.
  #194  
Old 04-28-2020, 05:11 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I've been playing around with the Covid-19 data in Alberta, and found some interesting things.

One of the things that has bothered me in most of the published data is that they keep showing it in terms of overall infections compared to deaths. This is misleading especially early on when most of the infected people are still not well and the disease for them has yet to run its full course. So I filtered out only the recovered and dead, to get a sense of what this looks like when the disease is done with you.

Unsurprisingly, what I found is that the virus is mostly a risk to those over 70. Here are the numbers:

Age 80+: 50 dead, 59 recovered
Age 70-79: 14 dead, 80 recovered
Age 60-69: 7 dead, 183 recovered
Age 50-59: 1 dead, 265 recovered

All ages: 75 deaths, 1664 recovered

Again, this is only for the people for whom the disease has fully run its course. This seems to me to be a far more accurate representation of the mortality rate for people who become symptomatic enough to be officially tracked in the data, because it eliminates unknowns like people who have been infected and remain asymptomatic. So far, it looks like if you are under 60, the risk of death is very low, but people over 70 should be doing everything they can to keep from being exposed.

Without knowing the specifics of the younger people who died, I would guess that they must have had significant co-morbidities, since there were only four deaths in the entire <60yr old cohort, despite the fact that they also had the vast majority of total infections.

Caveats: The data is thin, and maybe skewed for older people due to more of them being in institutions where they may be getting larger viral loads. It may not hold for people of that age still living alone, and there could be other confounding factors. We just don't have that data.

Hope this is interesting to someone.

Also, Southern Alberta is still getting slammed with new cases. Northern Alberta, almost none. It is a,puzzle.
If you go here you can see an interactive dashboard built by my staff using the Ontario data updated daily. Go to the second page and you can see the decomposition chart in the bottom right and click on fatal to see outcomes by age. Nothing under 20 and very few under 40, the bulk are over 60. I think the volume of deaths in Ontario give it more statistical significance, but then again itís has run rampant though seniors homes so they may have been disproportionate infection rates.
  #195  
Old 04-29-2020, 10:12 AM
Mikemike2's Avatar
Mikemike2 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,309
Nice analysis Sam Stone. I continue to be frustrated about the increasing caseload specifically in Calgary. I think everyone is socially distancing, and have been for a month or more, so it is somewhat hard to explain. I would guess that the rest of the province will be able to partially re-open first. I would like to open my small office in June. We have plenty of room and just 4 workers. We will see.

I think I will be able to get wage support for two employees. As usual, the self-employed business person seems to be left out.

Last edited by Mikemike2; 04-29-2020 at 10:15 AM.
  #196  
Old 04-29-2020, 12:25 PM
Sunspace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Near the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 27,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsToTheLeft View Post
If you go here you can see an interactive dashboard built by my staff using the Ontario data updated daily. Go to the second page and you can see the decomposition chart in the bottom right and click on fatal to see outcomes by age. Nothing under 20 and very few under 40, the bulk are over 60. I think the volume of deaths in Ontario give it more statistical significance, but then again itís has run rampant though seniors homes so they may have been disproportionate infection rates.
Wow, that's really impressive, Fins.
__________________
Rigardu, kaj vi ekvidos.
Look, and you will begin to see.
  #197  
Old 04-29-2020, 12:45 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,599
There was conjecture among researchers that ACE inhibitors, a common BP med, may actually assist or speed this virus, and possibly explain why hypertension is such a commonly seen comorbidity. ( Can’t remember what paper it was in, but should be easy to find if interested!)
  #198  
Old 04-29-2020, 01:07 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunspace View Post
Wow, that's really impressive, Fins.
Thanks Sunspace. Unfortunately the province is only providing data at the Pulic Health Unit level based on their address, so if you in Durham it all shows up under Oshawa.
  #199  
Old 04-29-2020, 01:14 PM
Mia Martinez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 3
yeah, all this is a little scary from the fact that you don’t understand much ..
  #200  
Old 04-29-2020, 01:22 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Ontario has released a "plan" for repoening the province.

https://files.ontario.ca/mof-framewo...2020-04-27.pdf

As a nitpicker and expert in procedural documentation, this really isn't any sort of a "plan." "Framework" is a very generous term. It looks great but says very little because nothing is defined.

It does at least note that old people in care facilities need special protection. Honestly, that should be at the BEGINNING of the document; that is where the vast majority of fatalities have been. COVID-19 is dangerous to middle aged people like me, sure, but to old people it's fantastically dangerous. It's the difference between recreational skydiving and being in a plane crash.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017