British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/coronavirus-930602/)

Paul_Shepherd Apr 14th 2020 2:43 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12838313)
I don't think that's true. The best thing to do is to seal the borders, test everyone, contract trace everyone positive and isolate them. That, of course, is more practical for New Zealand and Hawaii than it is for Canada. Canada could however, "seal" the borders (as much as is possible, people will always be able to walk in), develop new tests so as to be able to test more people, test everyone in the circle of anyone found to be positive, aggressively promote social distancing and sheltering in place, provide financial assistance to minimize the number of people who break isolation for need of funds. Pretty much what the various levels of, usually warring, government are doing.

Canada is eventually going to have to deal with the probability of recurring waves of infection in the US but it's too soon for that.

It's no wonder to me that the governments of the US, the UK and Brazil should be making a bollocks of this but Sweden? There's no cartoonish but brutal dictator in Sweden.

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.....and there is not one plan that will work for all countries, there are so many variables. Sweden is still an unknown with regards to how their plan will work out..

dbd33 Apr 14th 2020 5:31 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12838509)
Hind sight is a wonderful thing.....and there is not one plan that will work for all countries, there are so many variables. Sweden is still an unknown with regards to how their plan will work out..

Where's the hindsight in that? New Zealand and Canada are making a good job of it. Boris has made a Brexit of it, instead of saving the country, he's caught it himself.

jimf Apr 14th 2020 7:41 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12838509)
Hind sight is a wonderful thing.....and there is not one plan that will work for all countries, there are so many variables. Sweden is still an unknown with regards to how their plan will work out..

As you suggest there do seem to be many variables and an approach that might seem successful in one location isn't necessarily evidence that it would be appropriate elsewhere. There are some critiques which are balanced and informative, others are somewhat predictable.

This is a good one...

I thought this was an interesting overview of pandemics...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/his...ics-deadliest/

Halfway through Survivors (1975) on YT now, a 1 in 5,000 survival rate...

Danny B Apr 14th 2020 8:31 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Essential sporting event apparently. How weird must it feel to fight with no audience?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52285742


dave_j Apr 14th 2020 9:13 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
So, where's the rule book entitled 'The best way to deal with a pandemic'.

I could write one, you could write one in fact my daughter's pet rabbit could write one (it wouldn't be very long though) and.. they'd all be just as valid as each other. At the moment it's simply too soon to be able to judge who's approach has led to a better outcome.
And there's another problem, define 'better outcome'.
In a few year's time, after all the conferences, symposia, papers and arguments have died down, we still won't know.
Sure some countries will have kept their deaths lower than others, others who've retained a higher GDP and still others who've retained the same government/rulers but generally speaking they'll all have attempted to do the best they could for that proportion of the population they thought best to represent.
What we will know is that we could almost certainly have done better, all of us.

So what'll be in the rule book?
It'll be blank. Why?

For the same reason we have so many different approaches to the same problem, there is no right way to fight this pandemic, whoever finds themselves having to deal with it will just do the best they can given the problems facing them at the time and soak up the criticism from those who thought they knew better with hindsight later.

A prime example is Andrew Cuomo. At the outset the death rate for the virus was stated to be 2-4% of those infected. The math's quite easy. for every million infected the anticipated death rate would be 20k and there are 20M in New York State. No wonder the panic, and the anticipated need for ventilators and beds in large quantities. Nobody knew what the effect of a lockdown would be but it has proven to have been somewhat effective. There are now those criticising him for attemting to prepare for the appocolypse. Did he get it wrong? He did well to prepare and the consequences are still unquantifiable.

There was no correct solution to the problem.

We're in the comfortable position of being able to throw brickbats with abandon, and like many I'll criticise the political class with the best of them, but I for one am relieved I'm not in their place today.




dbd33 Apr 14th 2020 10:13 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12838699)
Sure some countries will have kept their deaths lower than others, others who've retained a higher GDP and still others who've retained the same government/rulers but generally speaking they'll all have attempted to do the best they could for that proportion of the population they thought best to represent.

This seems like a weak justification for the Trump/Johnson **** the little people position. The proper objective, fewer dead people, doesn't need muddling "with subjection to retention of a significant proportion of GDP". The government is obliged to represent all the people.


Paul_Shepherd Apr 14th 2020 11:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12838595)
Where's the hindsight in that? New Zealand and Canada are making a good job of it. Boris has made a Brexit of it, instead of saving the country, he's caught it himself.

I meant hindsight in all what you stated in your post, we can all be experts now. Its impossible to compare the UK with New Zealand.... The population of the UK is more than 10 times the size of NZ. plus the UK is a huge airline hub serving the world, these two factors alone is what I think the UK had stacked against it from the start, coupled with the failure to test more, especially on incoming flights coming into the UK....that was a mistake.

I agree Canada has done a decent job, much of that down to the action of the provincial governments though. Needless to say we are in a way better situation than the US, they failed to act soon enough. As I said every country is a different case, and no government at the time knew if their plan was going to work for their country, I think the only country that has really screwed up is the US, by doing too little too late.

dbd33 Apr 15th 2020 12:08 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12838758)
I meant hindsight in all what you stated in your post, we can all be experts now. Its impossible to compare the UK with New Zealand.... The population of the UK is more than 10 times the size of NZ. plus the UK is a huge airline hub serving the world, these two factors alone is what I think the UK had stacked against it from the start, coupled with the failure to test more, especially on incoming flights coming into the UK....that was a mistake.

I agree Canada has done a decent job, much of that down to the action of the provincial governments though. Needless to say we are in a way better situation than the US, they failed to act soon enough. As I said every country is a different case, and no government at the time knew if their plan was going to work for their country, I think the only country that has really screwed up is the US, by doing too little too late.

I think Brazil, Sweden, the UK and the US have likely made a mess of this, if we use avoidance of preventable death as the measure, maybe other countries too. The crowds in the parks in the weekend in the UK suggest that there isn't a general adoption of social distancing, as in Canada, and there isn't enforcement of distancing, as in India. If, however, we look at retention of GDP or shift in net worth of members of government, they're likely the best.

South Korea, despite a large population, having busy airports, and not being an island, is the stand out nation in terms of prevention.

I agree with dave_j that the priorities of government are a consideration but wonder why anyone would want a government with the priorities of Johnson or Trump.

dave_j Apr 15th 2020 12:12 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12838724)
This seems like a weak justification for the Trump/Johnson **** the little people position. The proper objective, fewer dead people, doesn't need muddling "with subjection to retention of a significant proportion of GDP". The government is obliged to represent all the people.

I don't choose to defend, condemn or justify any position here. Unlike you I don''t have sacred cows that pop up at every opportunity, I try to understand why people do what they do. I do have a down on the political class in general, but I do try to be sensible.
You might argue that Trump and Johnson have cocked it up completely and should be beheaded but categorising Johnson with Trump is doing what Trump does, he introduces misleading arguments to support shaky faky arguments.
Johnson, like leaders throughout Europe was faced with difficult choices, choices that with hindsight were time critical. Some countries were fortunate in being a short period behind others whereas some became virus torch bearers, it all depended on who landed and who happened to be a virus carrier, early on this would have been pot luck.
All countries became afflicted. You might argue that Johnson's early policy of generating herd imunity to defeat the virus shouldn't have been attempted, and you're correct time was lost because of this, but I don't believe it was attempted in order to kill people. You might further argue that economic factors may have swayed decision making and again you're probably correct. However we can now see that there were consequences either way, as we are discovering of throwing millions out of work or increasing the death rate.
Unlike those who had to believe them, I had little faith in the mathematical models they had to use, you need data to tie these models down and there simply wasn't any. They'll be better next time but that'll be next time no doubt they were taken as gospel truth by those who knew little about them or the assumptions made.
Sweden is attempting to progress with a Johnson type policy and we'll wait and see how that works out. Sweden may exit from the virus in better shape ALL things considered, we'll have to wait and see.
What can be argued with some justification is that he dithered. He went with Plan A and then changed mid stream to Plan B, and it was this dithering that introduced delay into a sequence of time critical events that became worse with delay. It's possible that had he persevered with plan A then because of the existing delay and the already widespread introduction of the virus then the need to 'stay at home' may not have been required. A good model might have shown this, but they aren't very good.
Like I say, I'm relieved I wasn't there to decide which plan to adopt.


dbd33 Apr 15th 2020 12:18 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
"Johnson with Trump is doing what Trump does, he introduces misleading arguments to support shaky faky arguments."

How is it misleading or unfair to lump together two dodgy populists who share a political agenda and regard each other as ideological soul mates?

scrubbedexpat091 Apr 15th 2020 3:54 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
BC update for Tuesday

27 new cases, 3 more deaths, all connected to long term care homes.
total cases as of today 1,517 of which 942 have recovered.
new outbreak in a long term care home
134 in hospital with 58 in ICU
41 inmates & correctional guards at Mission Federal Prison now have tested positive with 7 in hospital.

Too early to set date for relaxing of restrictions, a number of factors will need to be considered before a date can be set for restrictions to be eased such as status of other provinces, ability to monitor the US border, ability to quickly detect new outbreaks, and the status of the healthcare system.

Translink (the Metro Vancouver transit agency) is losing $75 million per month due to low ridership and is asking the federal and provincial government for emergency funding.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...l-14-1.5531399

Some local Vancouver businesses are throwing in the towel and closing up shop for good & break and enters are up, over 40 have been arrested in the past few weeks caught breaking into closed businesses in Vancouver.






Paul_Shepherd Apr 15th 2020 11:09 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12838770)
I don't choose to defend, condemn or justify any position here. Unlike you I don''t have sacred cows that pop up at every opportunity, I try to understand why people do what they do. I do have a down on the political class in general, but I do try to be sensible.
You might argue that Trump and Johnson have cocked it up completely and should be beheaded but categorising Johnson with Trump is doing what Trump does, he introduces misleading arguments to support shaky faky arguments.
Johnson, like leaders throughout Europe was faced with difficult choices, choices that with hindsight were time critical. Some countries were fortunate in being a short period behind others whereas some became virus torch bearers, it all depended on who landed and who happened to be a virus carrier, early on this would have been pot luck.
All countries became afflicted. You might argue that Johnson's early policy of generating herd imunity to defeat the virus shouldn't have been attempted, and you're correct time was lost because of this, but I don't believe it was attempted in order to kill people. You might further argue that economic factors may have swayed decision making and again you're probably correct. However we can now see that there were consequences either way, as we are discovering of throwing millions out of work or increasing the death rate.
Unlike those who had to believe them, I had little faith in the mathematical models they had to use, you need data to tie these models down and there simply wasn't any. They'll be better next time but that'll be next time no doubt they were taken as gospel truth by those who knew little about them or the assumptions made.
Sweden is attempting to progress with a Johnson type policy and we'll wait and see how that works out. Sweden may exit from the virus in better shape ALL things considered, we'll have to wait and see.
What can be argued with some justification is that he dithered. He went with Plan A and then changed mid stream to Plan B, and it was this dithering that introduced delay into a sequence of time critical events that became worse with delay. It's possible that had he persevered with plan A then because of the existing delay and the already widespread introduction of the virus then the need to 'stay at home' may not have been required. A good model might have shown this, but they aren't very good.
Like I say, I'm relieved I wasn't there to decide which plan to adopt.

Id agree with most of what have said there Dave. Johnson switched stratergies half way through and dithered...resulting in neither plan A or plan B working effectively. Trump on the other hand, did nothing, he just wanted it to go away as it was going to affect his re election chances, he still thinks that way. I have little,time for that man. Johnson on the other hand made a mistake of switching strategies, but at least he was doing something. And yes as I said too....the jury is out on Sweden at the moment....

Almost Canadian Apr 15th 2020 2:15 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12838898)
Id agree with most of what have said there Dave. Johnson switched stratergies half way through and dithered...resulting in neither plan A or plan B working effectively. Trump on the other hand, did nothing, he just wanted it to go away as it was going to affect his re election chances, he still thinks that way. I have little,time for that man. Johnson on the other hand made a mistake of switching strategies, but at least he was doing something. And yes as I said too....the jury is out on Sweden at the moment....

As you are likely aware, what the Federal government in the US can do in times like this is massively outweighed by what the individual States can do (regarding controlling its residents), just as is the case in Canada.

While I appreciate that this site is clearly pro-Trump and some of the suggestions he makes are a stretch, the main thrust of his argument makes sense to me:


jimf Apr 15th 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12838898)
Id agree with most of what have said there Dave. Johnson switched stratergies half way through and dithered...resulting in neither plan A or plan B working effectively. Trump on the other hand, did nothing, he just wanted it to go away as it was going to affect his re election chances, he still thinks that way. I have little,time for that man. Johnson on the other hand made a mistake of switching strategies, but at least he was doing something. And yes as I said too....the jury is out on Sweden at the moment....

According to this the scientists appear to have been slow to sound the alarm. It is probable that Johnson was also reluctant to impose the lock down, initially wishing to to
encourage rather than impose behavior in the first instance. Whether Sweden has taken the right approach for them will no doubt be seen over the next couple of months. I read there were 19 patients at the Nightingale hospital in London over the weekend so for the time being at least the treatment capacity seems to be more than adequate. I didn't vote for Johnson but I doubt the other candidate would have done any better in this situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21P1VF

jimf Apr 15th 2020 4:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12838962)
As you are likely aware, what the Federal government in the US can do in times like this is massively outweighed by what the individual States can do (regarding controlling its residents), just as is the case in Canada.

While I appreciate that this site is clearly pro-Trump and some of the suggestions he makes are a stretch, the main thrust of his argument makes sense to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyGpLdBcP8

Interesting. How would you say the Canadian provincial leaders have done compared to the federal?

Siouxie Apr 15th 2020 4:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Can we PLEASE not turn this into another Political thread........

macadian Apr 15th 2020 5:00 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839052)
Can we PLEASE not turn this into another Political thread........

Ahhhhhh, but theirs the rub, any matter of such magnitude as Covic 19, will always be tainted with the stench of politics. Just ask dbd33....:cool:

Paul_Shepherd Apr 15th 2020 5:00 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12838962)
As you are likely aware, what the Federal government in the US can do in times like this is massively outweighed by what the individual States can do (regarding controlling its residents), just as is the case in Canada.

While I appreciate that this site is clearly pro-Trump and some of the suggestions he makes are a stretch, the main thrust of his argument makes sense to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyGpLdBcP8

Yes thats fair enough, I cant disagree with that, and as much as I dislike Trump the actual good things he does are not covered by a left wing biased media. I just feel Trump was slow out of the starting blocks....he tried to down play it at first as he obviously has his own agenda (re election)

Siouxie Apr 15th 2020 5:04 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
SIGH. Keep politics out of this thread please - if you want to discuss politics of Covid-19 take it to a separate one. Thank you... I won't ask again..... I'll just take action.

Pulaski Apr 15th 2020 5:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12838962)
As you are likely aware, what the Federal government in the US can do in times like this is massively outweighed by what the individual States can do (regarding controlling its residents) ....

Anyone who is interested in what is happening in the US, as compared to other countries, would do well to research what the US Constitution says about actions taken at the federal level, and what the laws in states actually allow a governor to do - generally only to close specific businesses that are suspected of a breach of law, not to close broad business sectors.

Personally I think it is a miracle that the US has managed as much of a "lock down" as it has. Thankfully there are many sensible leaders of business and churches in the US, who have taken the guidance seriously and followed it even if it could not be legally enforced, who have recognized the need to reduce the opportunities of the virus to spread, because per the US Constitution and per the letter of the law, there is actually very little than either the US President or state governors can do to actually force businesses to close on a blanket basis, and especially to prohibit churches from holding services.

Paul_Shepherd Apr 15th 2020 5:09 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 12839013)
According to this the scientists appear to have been slow to sound the alarm. It is probable that Johnson was also reluctant to impose the lock down, initially wishing to to
encourage rather than impose behavior in the first instance. Whether Sweden has taken the right approach for them will no doubt be seen over the next couple of months. I read there were 19 patients at the Nightingale hospital in London over the weekend so for the time being at least the treatment capacity seems to be more than adequate. I didn't vote for Johnson but I doubt the other candidate would have done any better in this situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21P1VF

That article could well have some truth to it, and as you combined with Johnson prefering to encourage behaviour like we have here in Canada now.....that said its become clear that in situations like this in a culture like in Britain, the government must act for the people.

Paul_Shepherd Apr 15th 2020 5:14 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839062)
SIGH. Keep politics out of this thread please - if you want to discuss politics of Covid-19 take it to a separate one. Thank you... I won't ask again..... I'll just take action.

Sorry if that was me, I was just answering replies, I didn't see your post.

Maybe move these last few replies to another thread?

scrubbedexpat091 Apr 15th 2020 5:53 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
CERB requirements are being relaxed, part-time, season, and contract workers and others who previously were not eligible.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cer...deau-1.5532767

Almost Canadian Apr 15th 2020 6:55 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 12839022)
Interesting. How would you say the Canadian provincial leaders have done compared to the federal?

I have been watching the figures every day. The percentage of deaths to those confirmed to have it is very comparable to those around the world (including the US) so, while I accept that Canadians love to pat themselves in the back as to how well they have done, I believe that time will tell whether their view has merit.

If the plan was to ensure that the maximum number of people are infected, while ensuring that the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, it appears to me that there is massive capacity in the healthcare system so, perhaps, the restrictions are too severe at this time.

No one has been able to explain to me how we will avoid a spike when people return to their normal routines and how to ensure that the maximum can be exposed on a gradual basis. We are, approximately, one month from any talk of restrictions and, within that very short period of time, the economy has tanked. Within the next month or two, I suspect that co-operation with the electorate will start to wane unless a sensible plan can be put forward. Saying, "we will depend upon the evidence..." is fine for those that are being paid in full but is unlikely to be sufficient for those that have lost most of their income and see no way out. What is the evidence? How well is the healthcare actually coping? How much extra capacity does it have and what is the plan to maximise that capacity?

jimf Apr 15th 2020 8:11 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12839136)
I have been watching the figures every day. The percentage of deaths to those confirmed to have it is very comparable to those around the world (including the US) so, while I accept that Canadians love to pat themselves in the back as to how well they have done, I believe that time will tell whether their view has merit.

If the plan was to ensure that the maximum number of people are infected, while ensuring that the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, it appears to me that there is massive capacity in the healthcare system so, perhaps, the restrictions are too severe at this time.

No one has been able to explain to me how we will avoid a spike when people return to their normal routines and how to ensure that the maximum can be exposed on a gradual basis. We are, approximately, one month from any talk of restrictions and, within that very short period of time, the economy has tanked. Within the next month or two, I suspect that co-operation with the electorate will start to wane unless a sensible plan can be put forward. Saying, "we will depend upon the evidence..." is fine for those that are being paid in full but is unlikely to be sufficient for those that have lost most of their income and see no way out. What is the evidence? How well is the healthcare actually coping? How much extra capacity does it have and what is the plan to maximise that capacity?

I would agree with that. The CBC and Canadian government coverage does seem to be loaded with a large dose of perceived Canadian exceptionalism and comparison with problems south of the border. From the article below it does seem that the chief medical health officer has been supporting a government political position. It is interesting that countries that previously suffered due to Chinese practices during SARS1 have been very proactive in dealing with SARS2 (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore), Canada seems to be the exception among this group though.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/wher...t-good-enough/

As you say the issue will be managing the process out of lockdown and keeping the majority on board.

Danny B Apr 16th 2020 3:30 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
And so it begins...Merica baby.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...ranny-11973905

scrubbedexpat091 Apr 16th 2020 4:54 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
Well doesn't look like we will be returning normal anytime soon in BC, at least 2 or 3 weeks before they consider relaxing things but wont do it all at once.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...says-1.5533944

Siouxie Apr 16th 2020 5:15 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jsmth321 (Post 12839103)
CERB requirements are being relaxed, part-time, season, and contract workers and others who previously were not eligible.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cer...deau-1.5532767

Good news indeed.. people at work are increasing their availability, resulting in fewer hours for me... it will be interesting to see if I could qualify.
Thanks for posting it!

I was reading on a business blog that CERB claimants have to 'sign on' every 4 weeks to continue to receive it... I wonder if this is correct or urban myth..

scrubbedexpat091 Apr 16th 2020 5:43 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839289)
Good news indeed.. people at work are increasing their availability, resulting in fewer hours for me... it will be interesting to see if I could qualify.
Thanks for posting it!

I was reading on a business blog that CERB claimants have to 'sign on' every 4 weeks to continue to receive it... I wonder if this is correct or urban myth..

I think you do, but not 100% sure but the way its worded on CRA website sounds like you may anyhow.

If only I had actually been able to start working, but I still didn't make 5,000 last year only made 4,753 in 2019, but I never started the job this year anyhow, so still don't qualify.

Paul_Shepherd Apr 16th 2020 10:36 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 12839267)

Why would you take a gun to a protest, to protest against something that is for the good of the people. Yanks and their guns! :rolleyes:

dbd33 Apr 16th 2020 11:42 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12839395)
Why would you take a gun to a protest, to protest against something that is for the good of the people. Yanks and their guns! :rolleyes:

Isn't that protest a political event, verboten here?

BristolUK Apr 16th 2020 1:48 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839289)
I was reading on a business blog that CERB claimants have to 'sign on' every 4 weeks to continue to receive it... I wonder if this is correct or urban myth..


Originally Posted by Jsmth321 (Post 12839298)
I think you do, but not 100% sure but the way its worded on CRA website sounds like you may anyhow.

SD did hers yesterday and says she has to do it again in four weeks. Sounds a little bit like the old 'postal signing' procedure on the UK dole. :unsure:

Siouxie Apr 16th 2020 3:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jsmth321 (Post 12839298)
I think you do, but not 100% sure but the way its worded on CRA website sounds like you may anyhow.


Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12839504)
SD did hers yesterday and says she has to do it again in four weeks. Sounds a little bit like the old 'postal signing' procedure on the UK dole. :unsure:

Thanks for the info, both - appreciated! My son got laid off from his job - he signed up for EI but got awarded CERB and wasn't sure .. I'll pass that one. :D

Danny B Apr 16th 2020 4:15 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 12839395)
Why would you take a gun to a protest, to protest against something that is for the good of the people. Yanks and their guns! :rolleyes:

I hope this is a parody account :lol:


caretaker Apr 16th 2020 4:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 12839615)
I hope this is a parody account :lol:

He's a comedian; I'm listening to one of his podcasts now. He may have just recognised an opportune market.

CanadaJimmy Apr 16th 2020 4:38 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
And now for a (sadly) non parody account :(


Almost Canadian Apr 16th 2020 4:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839289)
I was reading on a business blog that CERB claimants have to 'sign on' every 4 weeks to continue to receive it... I wonder if this is correct or urban myth..

It is correct. The payments cover a specific period, based upon the claimant's attestation, and if one wishes to claim for a new period, a new attestation is required. Seems sensible to me.

Almost Canadian Apr 16th 2020 5:09 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Siouxie (Post 12839570)
Thanks for the info, both - appreciated! My son got laid off from his job - he signed up for EI but got awarded CERB and wasn't sure .. I'll pass that one. :D

I believe that he may not have to as EI and CERB are different, albeit those that claim EI will be transferred to CERB. Time will tell it that simply applies to the amount they will receive, or whether the whole basis for receiving funds will also merge.

scrubbedexpat091 Apr 16th 2020 5:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
The government put up the new eligibility criteria online finally if anyone is interested.The Benefit is available to workers:
  • Residing in Canada, who are at least 15 years old;
  • Who have stopped working because of reasons related to COVID-19 or are eligible for Employment Insurance regular or sickness benefits or have exhausted their Employment Insurance regular benefits between December 29, 2019 and October 3, 2020;
  • Who had employment and/or self-employment income of at least $5,000 in 2019 or in the 12 months prior to the date of their application; and,
  • Who have not quit their job voluntarily.
When submitting your first claim, you cannot have earned more than $1,000 in employment and/or self-employment income for 14 or more consecutive days within the four-week benefit period of your claim.

When submitting subsequent claims, you cannot have earned more than $1,000 in employment and/or self-employment income for the entire four-week benefit period of your new claim.

Danny B Apr 16th 2020 5:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy (Post 12839636)
And now for a (sadly) non parody account :(

What kind of idiot does that? Never film video in portrait mode.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:56 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.