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/)

Shard Jun 24th 2020 1:21 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12871208)
The vast majority of those being killed are not earning wages and paying taxes. So your analogy doesn't really work.

Jurisdictions cannot afford to keep paying money to those that can't work while not receiving their taxes. So, if we cannot return to normal until a vaccine is obtained, i don't believe societies will survive. Those that are advocating for such restrictions are not surviving on $2,000 a month.

My analogy is to do simply with debating a mortality rate in public, so it is sound.

What you seem to be saying is that older economically inactive citizens are expendable. That is a valid policy option, not one that I or most compassionate people would entertain, but some might see it as a necessary trade-off for higher economic growth.



​​




Almost Canadian Jun 24th 2020 12:25 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871245)
My analogy is to do simply with debating a mortality rate in public, so it is sound.

What you seem to be saying is that older economically inactive citizens are expendable. That is a valid policy option, not one that I or most compassionate people would entertain, but some might see it as a necessary trade-off for higher economic growth.



​​

I was referring to your reference to knocking out a large amount if the population.

No, what I am saying is that tanking the economy may not be justified to keep elderly, frail citizens alive for a short period of time (assuming that they are likely to die of natural causes in any event). The counter argument, the one you appear to favour, is that keeping those same citizens alive for a period of time, is worth any economic cost. I don't know the answer to that dilemma but I am happy to debate it without making references to the morales of the person debating it.

Of course, the ability of any government to fund the services its citizens require is the ability to raise funds through taxes and to balance those receipts with its expenses. That is difficult to do if its tax base is being decimated while at the same time its expenses are increasing as a result of having to make payments in lieu of wages to a huge numbers of its citizens.

Do you believe that lockdowns should remain until a vaccine is found even if it may take a decade to do so?

Nand Jun 24th 2020 3:38 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12871404)
I was referring to your reference to knocking out a large amount if the population.

No, what I am saying is that tanking the economy may not be justified to keep elderly, frail citizens alive for a short period of time (assuming that they are likely to die of natural causes in any event). The counter argument, the one you appear to favour, is that keeping those same citizens alive for a period of time, is worth any economic cost. I don't know the answer to that dilemma but I am happy to debate it without making references to the morales of the person debating it.

Of course, the ability of any government to fund the services its citizens require is the ability to raise funds through taxes and to balance those receipts with its expenses. That is difficult to do if its tax base is being decimated while at the same time its expenses are increasing as a result of having to make payments in lieu of wages to a huge numbers of its citizens.

Do you believe that lockdowns should remain until a vaccine is found even if it may take a decade to do so?

I think one argument against your idea that getting rid of the elderly will help the economy is that many younger people are just barely surviving the Covid19 disease. A fair amount of reports are coming to light now on how people do not fully recover from this disease, even from the milder cases. Many people are suffering strange ongoing health problems incuding brain damage, neurological disease, and most often it is permenant lung damage. Many of these permenant symptoms are going to render people unable to work and they will be a draw on the health system over the long run.

Its not just about letting the elderly go, as you suggest. There are more economic problems with these quasi-recovered but never-well-again group who are younger and these younger people will bring that financial burden onto the government and we will be having to pay higher taxes because of the permenant damage resulting from Covid19 infection. IMO it would be a better path to do our best to illiminate the spread of new cases altogether rather than hightening them, hoping for some future immunity.

Almost Canadian Jun 24th 2020 6:30 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by tumbleweedly (Post 12871487)
I think one argument against your idea that getting rid of the elderly will help the economy is that many younger people are just barely surviving the Covid19 disease. A fair amount of reports are coming to light now on how people do not fully recover from this disease, even from the milder cases. Many people are suffering strange ongoing health problems incuding brain damage, neurological disease, and most often it is permenant lung damage. Many of these permenant symptoms are going to render people unable to work and they will be a draw on the health system over the long run.

I have never suggested that governments should get rid of the elderly. I have always suggested that those that are vulnerable should ensure that they do all they can to avoid contracting the virus. I'd respectfully suggest that any financial problems that may arise from those that may be affected in the long term, are going to be significantly less than those that are currently being experienced.


Originally Posted by tumbleweedly (Post 12871487)
Its not just about letting the elderly go, as you suggest. There are more economic problems with these quasi-recovered but never-well-again group who are younger and these younger people will bring that financial burden onto the government and we will be having to pay higher taxes because of the permenant damage resulting from Covid19 infection. IMO it would be a better path to do our best to illiminate the spread of new cases altogether rather than hightening them, hoping for some future immunity.

Well, those that going to be permanently affected have already been affected, so what happens in the future is not going to change that. I accept that those that haven't been infected, may get infected in the future that may give some credibility to your argument, but the financial consequences are already occurring. The small businesses that have folded are not likely to come back. Those that have lost jobs in sectors such as aviation are not necessarily going to come back as soon as restrictions are lifted.

If you wish to eliminate the spread of new cases altogether, you must be advocating for the lockdowns to continue until such time that a vaccine is found. What if that never happens, or takes 5 years to occur? Are you willing to accept that jurisdictions will have to continue to funds their citizens' lives and, if so, where are they to receive such funds from?

BristolUK Jun 24th 2020 9:30 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12871190)
I have two mothers both in their 80s and at risk. One, my MIL, lives with someone else at risk (me) and a granddaughter who works customer facing retail. The other, with some mobility issues, lives with a grandson who runs a shop.

I don't believe households like this are unusual. How do you keep the at risk safe in a house with shared areas, appliances and gadgets if the healthy ones are encouraged to get infected?

And there's something else about that too.

Older people not paying taxes or contributing to society? They have already done so, in their working lives, probably more than many of the younger ones who have only worked a fraction of the time. They're still paying purchase and property taxes too.
I once worked out that my annual property tax bill was equivalent to income tax for a renter on something like $45k gross income.

I have a (virtually unemployable) adult stepson living with me. There's this nice catch-22 where he's only going to get a work placement or similar by reason of receiving income assistance, but he can't receive that because he lives in my home. So I (with a bit of help from his grandmother) house and provide for his needs.

But we're not contributing? My aunt fanny we're not.

scrubbedexpat091 Jun 24th 2020 10:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12871618)
And there's something else about that too.

Older people not paying taxes or contributing to society? They have already done so, in their working lives, probably more than many of the younger ones who have only worked a fraction of the time. They're still paying purchase and property taxes too.
I once worked out that my annual property tax bill was equivalent to income tax for a renter on something like $45k gross income.

I have a (virtually unemployable) adult stepson living with me. There's this nice catch-22 where he's only going to get a work placement or similar by reason of receiving income assistance, but he can't receive that because he lives in my home. So I (with a bit of help from his grandmother) house and provide for his needs.

But we're not contributing? My aunt fanny we're not.

My nephew seems to be in a similiar situation as your step son with regards to employment. My nephew was born premature with some health issues, he is 20 now but his IQ is closer to a 14 year old, so a 14 year old mind in a 20 year old body, so he really struggles with employment, he tries, but most places send him along after a couple weeks, even good will job placement for disabled sent him on. He gets a small payment from the federal government (US federal government) which amounts to around $545 a month which apparently is supposed to somehow support him, so he will very likely always live with my sister, or one of his siblings when they become adults and my sister is too old or not living anymore.

Sounds like NB is a bit harsh when it comes to assistance, depending on your step sons issues he would very likely at least get social assistance in BC, possibly disability. They may cut the housing portion though if living with family since the government figures family wont charge rent.

scrubbedexpat091 Jun 24th 2020 10:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Phase 3 will begin soon in BC, movie theaters, movie/tv production, overnight camp grounds, and leisure travel within the province will once again be allowed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...rgan-1.5625598

I do wonder if some of the movie/TV productions may just decide to film in the US since actors, directors, producers from the US will likely still be subject to the 14 day quarantine I would assume, unless the feds lift that. Not sure if coming to Canada to work in film/TV as a director, actor, producer is considered essential enough to cross? Will be interesting.


Shard Jun 24th 2020 11:36 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12871404)
I was referring to your reference to knocking out a large amount if the population.

No, what I am saying is that tanking the economy may not be justified to keep elderly, frail citizens alive for a short period of time (assuming that they are likely to die of natural causes in any event). The counter argument, the one you appear to favour, is that keeping those same citizens alive for a period of time, is worth any economic cost. I don't know the answer to that dilemma but I am happy to debate it without making references to the morales of the person debating it.

Of course, the ability of any government to fund the services its citizens require is the ability to raise funds through taxes and to balance those receipts with its expenses. That is difficult to do if its tax base is being decimated while at the same time its expenses are increasing as a result of having to make payments in lieu of wages to a huge numbers of its citizens.

Do you believe that lockdowns should remain until a vaccine is found even if it may take a decade to do so?

I don't think a decade lockdown would be required. The model is lockdown until the number of infections is minimal, and then test, track and trace the the population incessantly as the lockdown eases. What's known is that until a vaccine (or highly effective therapeutic) is available, we are at threat to this virus. I've heard 1-2 years, but whatever it is, a return to normal is not possible. Believe it or not, the virus doesn't care about economics or politics, it simply doesn't.

​​​​​​What amazes me is the media protestations about not being able to go to health spas because we've been locked down so long, and people are going mad. Priorities just seem nonsensical. I have the sense that I'm fifty years historians will look back in disbelief that certain societies were so hell-bent on trivialities that they exposed a far higher number to the virus than was necessary.

It's hard to debate the elderly for GDP trade off without the projections. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to shut the economy for a handful of excess deaths, just as it would be unconscionable to keep it open for hundreds of thousands bexcess deaths. The government must have this analysis, my point is that they should be sharing it.



Shard Jun 24th 2020 11:49 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12871221)
Let's say that the US has a population of 328million and life expectancy is 80 years. As a simple arithmetic exercise, the number of deaths per day on average in the US will be 328million / (80x365), which is 11,233, therefore to date, coronavirus has killed 11.0 days of average deaths in the US. It's barely a drop in the bucket. For Canada with a population of 38 million, the corresponding figure is 6.50 days of average deaths, so not only does the number of deaths barely register as compared to the total population, it hasn't really made much difference to the number of deaths that would have occured anyway. The coronavirus is a tragedy at the personal and family level, but barely registers at a national level.

I'm not getting your arithmetic estimate at all. Population / Expected days living ??? What is that ?

In any case, there are established stats on average deaths per day/week etc, and the most revealing graph is the one that shows the excess of the first wave of the virus. What's evident is that unless it's controlled it's fairly significant (2-3X average weekly deaths in the UK).

Following on from that is the point that AC and I have been discussing, namely the level of "collateral damage" the country should accept. Without data and projections, no easy answers.




Stumpylegs Jun 25th 2020 12:04 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871663)
I'm not getting your arithmetic estimate at all. Population / Expected days living ??? What is that ?

In any case, there are established stats on average deaths per day/week etc, and the most revealing graph is the one that shows the excess of the first wave of the virus. What's evident is that unless it's controlled it's fairly significant (2-3X average weekly deaths in the UK).

Following on from that is the point that AC and I have been discussing, namely the level of "collateral damage" the country should accept. Without data and projections, no easy answers.

The scary average death trend is the one when we adjust from winter to summer time! (IIRC its something like heart attacks in the week post clock change take a 19% hike above average, and drop below average by a similar amount the week we swap onto winter time)

with regards excess deaths - even them figures where somewhat misleading - if I remember the UK ones correctly - 2014/2015 had an excess of deaths over winter of 44,000, put down partly to weaker strains of flu the previous year, and an especially bad flu season. There were several weeks in that season were "flu" deaths exceeded our worst "COVID" weekly totals, both terms are somewhat misleading as a lot of it was assumed due to symptoms, but those with chronic respiratory issues which make up large numbers of both sets of victims will both display multiple flu/covid symptoms normally.

Whilst I'm not a COVID disbeliever, it is a thing and has caused many excess deaths, the question of how many less have died of flu this year, and have we had a couple of mild winters with weak flu strains and less average deaths proceeding this winter is one that is ultimately unanswered.


scrubbedexpat091 Jun 25th 2020 12:18 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
Food insecurity is rising in Canada in part due to COVID, in a stats Canada survey 14.8% said they cannot afford to eat properly.

Of Canadians not working due to COVID 3 out 10 can't meet their food needs.Among households with children, between nine and 13 per cent said that:
  • Food didn’t last and there was no money to get more, sometimes or often
  • They couldn’t afford balanced meals, sometimes or often
  • Adults in the household skipped or cut the size of meals
  • They personally were hungry but didn’t eat because they couldn’t afford food

Also not helping is prices of food is climbing.


Stats Canada noted: that groups known to be hard-hit by the corona-virus recession, such as renters and those that can’t work from home, were underrepresented in the survey, so the situation is likely worse than the data shows.

Parliamentary Budget office warns unemployed could hit 15% by end of the year.

Article here.







Pulaski Jun 25th 2020 12:22 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871663)
I'm not getting your arithmetic estimate at all. Population / Expected days living ??? What is that ? ....

Every day people day, as you roll the calender forward by one day, x people die, every day they just do, and the number who die every day in a given area is the number of residents in that area, divided by the number of days that the average person is expected to live, obviously assuming that area in question contains a fair and representative mix of ages from 0 to around 110 years.

It will vary a bit by season, in extreme heat or cold, but on average that formula will give you the number of deaths per day.

If you divide the number of Corona virus deaths but the average number of deaths per day, you'll get some relative measure of how serious a given disease or cause of death is. .... how many days under normal, non-pandemic conditions would it take to have that many deaths. The current answer for the US is 11 days, and 6.5 days for Canada, so Canada has a much lower mortality rate than the US.

dbd33 Jun 25th 2020 2:32 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12871208)
The vast majority of those being killed are not earning wages and paying taxes. So your analogy doesn't really work.

Jurisdictions cannot afford to keep paying money to those that can't work while not receiving their taxes. So, if we cannot return to normal until a vaccine is obtained, i don't believe societies will survive. Those that are advocating for such restrictions are not surviving on $2,000 a month.


It seems to me that the idea that the economy can be opened up and will recover is seriously flawed.

Firstly, I think we must accept that some industries are not coming back in the way they existed previously; they either expose employers to liability risks through workplace infection or have been shown to be inefficient by recent events; I think here of people who used to sit at desks in offices. Why would companies pay for office towers now that they know the work gets done anyway? The age of mass transit is over so airlines and tourist resorts are obvious casualties. No sensible person will get on a cruise ship again. Businesses based on commuting such as urban commercial real estate and toll roads are other examples. Businesses that were already becoming outmoded such as bricks and mortar retail will have their decline hastened. Anything involving a work camp such as the tar sands and fruit farms are in trouble.

Cars, at least, can get better, if you're not commuting you don't need a Prius and can have an E-Type instead.


Secondly, I think people will change their habits to reduce risk. Men, possibly also women, do not need professional haircuts. No one needs to go to a spa or a gym; Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump may say it's now ok to get sweaty and panty with people you don't know but the public might be a bit more sensible. These sorts of business are going to have problems.

Obviously former pilots and the owners of formerly popular lunch spots cannot all live on the taxes of those in portable jobs but they're not going back to generating taxable income either. A slightly adjusted model of society is needed (or just acceptance of widespread poverty).

Shard Jun 25th 2020 7:11 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12871680)
Every day people day, as you roll the calender forward by one day, x people die, every day they just do, and the number who die every day in a given area is the number of residents in that area, divided by the number of days that the average person is expected to live, obviously assuming that area in question contains a fair and representative mix of ages from 0 to around 110 years.

.

I'm fine with the relative measure, and agree it provides perspective on the impact of Covid.

What I'm not getting is the death per day calculation. Have you seen it used elsewhere? Can you do another worked example?
















Almost Canadian Jun 25th 2020 12:22 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12871711)
It seems to me that the idea that the economy can be opened up and will recover is seriously flawed.

Firstly, I think we must accept that some industries are not coming back in the way they existed previously; they either expose employers to liability risks through workplace infection or have been shown to be inefficient by recent events; I think here of people who used to sit at desks in offices. Why would companies pay for office towers now that they know the work gets done anyway? The age of mass transit is over so airlines and tourist resorts are obvious casualties. No sensible person will get on a cruise ship again. Businesses based on commuting such as urban commercial real estate and toll roads are other examples. Businesses that were already becoming outmoded such as bricks and mortar retail will have their decline hastened. Anything involving a work camp such as the tar sands and fruit farms are in trouble.

Cars, at least, can get better, if you're not commuting you don't need a Prius and can have an E-Type instead.


Secondly, I think people will change their habits to reduce risk. Men, possibly also women, do not need professional haircuts. No one needs to go to a spa or a gym; Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump may say it's now ok to get sweaty and panty with people you don't know but the public might be a bit more sensible. These sorts of business are going to have problems.

Obviously former pilots and the owners of formerly popular lunch spots cannot all live on the taxes of those in portable jobs but they're not going back to generating taxable income either. A slightly adjusted model of society is needed (or just acceptance of widespread poverty).

I agree.

When those office towers close, municipalities are going to have to find another way to raise funds, or lower expenses. The same will apply to all levels of government and it isn't going to be pretty.

Pulaski Jun 25th 2020 12:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871753)
I'm fine with the relative measure, and agree it provides perspective on the impact of Covid.

What I'm not getting is the death per day calculation. Have you seen it used elsewhere? Can you do another worked example?

I think you're overthinking it, it isn't a maths formula, it a life span observation.

The average person is currently expected to live about 78 years, give or take, I rounded it to 80 years. 80 years is 29,219 days, so, assuming a stable population, every day on average 1 / 29,219 of the population dies, for whatever reason. During a pandemic the death rate exceeds that average death rate, and my observation is that so far coronavirus deaths have only added 11 days "worth" of average deaths in the US and 6½ days in Canada.

dbd33 Jun 25th 2020 12:58 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12871875)
I agree.

When those office towers close, municipalities are going to have to find another way to raise funds, or lower expenses. The same will apply to all levels of government and it isn't going to be pretty.

In the town to which I used to commute parking fees were a major source of revenue. That stream will have dried up and there's no related drop in costs, the costs were negligible, the parking fees were found money to the municipality. I don't know what they're doing to counter that loss but it can't be an uncommon problem.

Shard Jun 25th 2020 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12871886)
I think you're overthinking it, it isn't a maths formula, it a life span observation.

The average person is currently expected to live about 78 years, give or take, I rounded it to 80 years. 80 years is 29,219 days, so, assuming a stable population, every day on average 1 / 29,219 of the population dies, for whatever reason. During a pandemic the death rate exceeds that average death rate, and my observation is that so far coronavirus deaths have only added 11 days "worth" of average deaths in the US and 6½ days in Canada.

Ok, I get 1 day represents 1/29,219 of an 80 year old's life. But how does that "proportion of life" relate to deaths in the population? (Leaving aside, for now, the age distribution in the population.) What is it that you are calculating with this figure?

Danny B Jun 25th 2020 2:11 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
#bournemouthbeach is trending on Twitter.


Nand Jun 25th 2020 2:33 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Yep. I saw this earlier this morning. Until people get their heads screwed on the right way about th Covid19 disease and how it is spread I will keep on in isolation. Even if it takes a year, I would rather live than be dead on the beach.

What can we say? Absolutly stupifying it is.

Then over in Brixton 40 cops injured and their cars damaged for answering calls about a crowded throng involved in a music event who were being noisy and violent.

Shard Jun 25th 2020 2:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by tumbleweedly (Post 12871947)
Yep. I saw this earlier this morning. Until people get their heads screwed on the right way about th Covid19 disease and how it is spread I will keep on in isolation. Even if it takes a year, I would rather live than be dead on the beach.

What can we say? Absolutly stupifying it is.

I saw video footage on Sky News yesterday, and although crowded, it didn't look horrendous. Not certain if this is a photo from today, and even if it is, using a telephoto lens has the effect of compressing a crowd far more than in reality. In any case, I too will be keeping well clear of such virus festivals.

dbd33 Jun 25th 2020 3:02 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by tumbleweedly (Post 12871947)
Yep. I saw this earlier this morning. Until people get their heads screwed on the right way about th Covid19 disease and how it is spread I will keep on in isolation. Even if it takes a year, I would rather live than be dead on the beach.

What can we say? Absolutly stupifying it is.

An unfortunate combination of child care issues and the need to test their eyesight compelled these people to go to the beach.

Pulaski Jun 25th 2020 3:24 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871919)
Ok, I get 1 day represents 1/29,219 of an 80 year old's life. But how does that "proportion of life" relate to deaths in the population? (Leaving aside, for now, the age distribution in the population.) What is it that you are calculating with this figure?

How many more "days of average deaths" that the pandemic has caused.

If you divide the number of deaths attributed to coronavirus by the daily average and get the answer "365" then the disease would have killed an additional number of people equivalent to an entire year's average number of deaths, i.e. the mortality rate would have doubled compared to normal average mortality in the population, so I think we can agree that would be pretty serious.

As of a couple of days ago, over about three months coronavirus has only cause an additional number of deaths in the US equivalent to about 11 days of normal, average mortality, which over a three month, 90-ish day period, is ball-park about a 12% increase above normal average mortality. Hence my comment that the deaths due to coronavirus are a tragedy at the personal and family level, but barely register at the national level. This is even more true in Canada, where as of a couple of days ago the excess mortality apparently caused by coronavirus, is only about 6½ days of normal average mortality.

Siouxie Jun 25th 2020 3:56 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12871949)
I saw video footage on Sky News yesterday, and although crowded, it didn't look horrendous. Not certain if this is a photo from today, and even if it is, using a telephoto lens has the effect of compressing a crowd far more than in reality. In any case, I too will be keeping well clear of such virus festivals.


scrubbedexpat091 Jun 25th 2020 5:38 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
I'd be surprised if the economy ever truly returns to 2019 levels, companies are going to use this time restructure. Westjet is, they announced yesterday they are going to outsource nearly every airport in Canada they serve, only keeping their own employees at Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto. (they already outsourced pre COVID ramp in most of these city's and most others, they never really had in house ramp outside of Calgary) and restructuring their call center, but left off details about that.

A lady I know posted on facebook a month ago about how she was loving her companies new work from home policy and how her company was going to have everyone work from home permanently, little did she know a month later she would be posting about how she and all her co-workers have been given notice they will be laid off in the coming months, as the company is restructuring and moving the Canadian jobs overseas.

How many companies will do that? Why pay someone in Canada, Canadian wages to work from home, when you can pay someone a fraction of the wage somewhere else in the world.

Retailers are also using this opportunity to automate more of their stores, so these retailers will likely need less heads per store.

Fast food seems to be moving towards more automation as well, our local McDonald's has way less people working now that they make you order from a kiosk or an app, probably a good 50% less people working at this particular location now.

Why have 6-10 cashiers all at registers, when you can have 10-12 self check outs, and 1 employee, win for the company.

Sure the automation will create some jobs, but they will likely be higher skilled jobs, and not accessible to people who work in the lower skill jobs being eliminated.


Government better have a plan because I don't think the economy will return to normal anytime soon, BC relies too heavily for example on tourism, all those jobs lost this year wont return this year, there are not enough jobs in other industries to absorb all those who work in tourism. Goodness the airport alone saw something like 17,000 people lose their jobs, most haven't come back yet as flight levels are non-existent, but is there 17,000 low to middle skilled jobs available in the region, doubt it, and that is just 1 work location in Vancouver area.

There is also so much demand for app based jobs like instacart, skip the dishes and such, that some have had to close off new sign ups because there isn't enough work to go around, so these are not viable options for large scale employment either, its not a sign up and work type deal, instacart this week has been dead, so can't rely on such jobs for stable income, we have barely made $40 this week, and was offered no batches yesterday in our area, and today isn't looking much better.

I bet this fall and next spring and fall schools will end up overfilled, people wanting to retrain, some will go to school so they can access funds from loans to survive.

Shard Jun 25th 2020 6:19 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12871968)
How many more "days of average deaths" that the pandemic has caused.

If you divide the number of deaths attributed to coronavirus by the daily average and get the answer "365" then the disease would have killed an additional number of people equivalent to an entire year's average number of deaths, i.e. the mortality rate would have doubled compared to normal average mortality in the population, so I think we can agree that would be pretty serious.

As of a couple of days ago, over about three months coronavirus has only cause an additional number of deaths in the US equivalent to about 11 days of normal, average mortality, which over a three month, 90-ish day period, is ball-park about a 12% increase above normal average mortality. Hence my comment that the deaths due to coronavirus are a tragedy at the personal and family level, but barely register at the national level. This is even more true in Canada, where as of a couple of days ago the excess mortality apparently caused by coronavirus, is only about 6½ days of normal average mortality.

Ok, if we're dispensing with days life span that's better.

I found this chart on Sky News useful. It suggests UK deaths are typically 15,000 per week. So if we had 60,000 UK excess deaths (Covid + indirect) it implies about 4 weeks of excess mortality during this first wave. We'll see what the next 9 months holds, but I suspect that we'll end up with a much higher figure.







Pulaski Jun 25th 2020 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12872034)
Ok, if we're dispensing with days life span that's better. ....

Not dispensing with it, but I have very little confidence in the media when it comes to reporting science and maths issues, so I like to be able to verify a postition or report myself, at least enough to prove that the report is in the right ball park, and the "days life span" method allows me to estimate excess mortality with nothing more than [1] the size of the population, [2] average life expectancy and [3] the number of deaths attributed to corona virus.

Almost Canadian Jun 25th 2020 6:45 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12872034)
Ok, if we're dispensing with days life span that's better.

I found this chart on Sky News useful. It suggests UK deaths are typically 15,000 per week. So if we had 60,000 UK excess deaths (Covid + indirect) it implies about 4 weeks of excess mortality during this first wave. We'll see what the next 9 months holds, but I suspect that we'll end up with a much higher figure.

The link I posted upthread came up with a figure of a month for the UK to date. He then made the comment that, looking at it on an annual basis, it may be much less as some of those that succumbed would have done so by the end of the year in any event.

Stumpylegs Jun 27th 2020 10:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
So the UK have released a traffic light system for destinations to travel to, unsure if you have seen it - or if its made Canadian news??

Interesting choice of countries not requiring quarantine - and in addition interesting categorisation between amber and green (Austria and Germany are green, yet Canada and Italy are amber ) - quite unsure what the point of the whole system is - apart from the red countries of course.

But those with no colours - what do they mean? originally i believe the idea was air bridges and reciprocal quarantine exemptions - which made sense providing countries were at a similar low level of infection and restricted travel in similar manners (no use UK and France opening up an air bridge, then France opening up to the US who we are might be closed to - although the UK doesn't seem particularly closed to anyone) - but I'm fairly sure there is no reciprocal with NZ and I don't see them lifting their 14 days quarantine to new arrivals anytime soon)

dave_j Jun 27th 2020 10:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12872855)
but I'm fairly sure there is no reciprocal with NZ and I don't see them lifting their 14 days quarantine to new arrivals anytime soon)

And this is likely to remain the case until a reliable vaccine has been developed.
It's an unfortunate side effect of living in a virus free country that it remains almost uniquely vulnerable in a world saturated with C19.
It's very success ensures that self imposed isolation is essential.


Stumpylegs Jun 27th 2020 10:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12872866)
And this is likely to remain the case until a reliable vaccine has been developed.
It's an unfortunate side effect of living in a virus free country that it remains almost uniquely vulnerable in a world saturated with C19.
It's very success ensures that self imposed isolation is essential.

Yep and that makes perfect sense, the only place you wouldn't necessarily want to quarantine is another reliably virus free country, with similar restrictions to yours if there was a benefit to doing so.

I just don't get the UK's traffic light system and what it means - although i have since read a news report stating it is little more than where the foreign office things its safe to travel to. but then you've got statements like this (apologies, its from the daily fail) " Green' countries are expected to include Austria, Croatia, Greece and Germany while 'Amber' countries include France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and Spain. It is hoped an agreement will be reached with Australia and New Zealand in the coming weeks to add them to the list of 'green' countries."

suggesting that either the UK is making these countries present a case to them to be graded as green (a bit of a strange thing to happen) or suggests there is some sort of agreement between the 2 countries to promote travel between the 2 of them -can see no such thing happening, and personally if i was NZ I'd be saying "you want to go to Britain, you can go by all means, but if you have to come back you need a full hose down and quarantine"

Former Lancastrian Jun 27th 2020 11:05 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
True story and this only pertains to Canada but involves travel and how things can change in a matter of days.
My dad died on the 7th June. At that particular time I had the choice of travelling and self isolating for 14 days on arrival and on return self isolate again for 14 days. Also unsure if I could attend any service so things not looking good.
Between 7 - 15 June the self isolation on arrival was lifted and I could attend a service of not more than 10 but I would still have to self isolate on returning home. On 13 June the Province where I lived was lifting self isolation on 21st June but did not specify where East of where I lived this applied to. Seeing as I was working from home I decided to travel and understood and was prepared to self isolate when returning home. Prior to 21st June the self isolation was lifted and where I attended the service was included in not having to self isolate so on 21 June I drove home.

dbd33 Jun 27th 2020 11:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 12872874)
True story and this only pertains to Canada but involves travel and how things can change in a matter of days.
My dad died on the 7th June. At that particular time I had the choice of travelling and self isolating for 14 days on arrival and on return self isolate again for 14 days. Also unsure if I could attend any service so things not looking good.
Between 7 - 15 June the self isolation on arrival was lifted and I could attend a service of not more than 10 but I would still have to self isolate on returning home. On 13 June the Province where I lived was lifting self isolation on 21st June but did not specify where East of where I lived this applied to. Seeing as I was working from home I decided to travel and understood and was prepared to self isolate when returning home. Prior to 21st June the self isolation was lifted and where I attended the service was included in not having to self isolate so on 21 June I drove home.

Sorry for your loss.

caretaker Jun 27th 2020 11:08 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Good shot, all when you needed it, and my condolences.

Former Lancastrian Jun 27th 2020 11:14 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Thanks to both of you. I got lucky and I know others haven't been able to attend even if living in the same city.

Teaandtoday5 Jun 27th 2020 11:15 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Sorry for your loss.

Former Lancastrian Jun 27th 2020 11:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Thanks and thank you to anybody else but I won't reply to all not because I don't like them but I could be here all night replying :lol:

BEVS Jun 27th 2020 11:43 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 12871932)
#bournemouthbeach is trending on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/s...819989508?s=20


Bmth beach in and around the pier is always the goto beach to illustrate a hot day beach crowd. Said photographer has the pier or the gentle overcliff rises each side to gain the angle they want.

Not saying the beach was not crowded but it won't be the only one by far. The area always gridlocks and the services are always over run. Been that way for many decades . A case of too many people squashed onto too small a landmass with not enough open spaces.

Re COVID19 - well, what did everyone there expect. The Govt itself has given the message loud and clear that there is not too much to worry about really. "Be vigilant" whatever the heck that means. People will die but hey. Local authorities AFAIK are unable to close in roads and people are allowed to take these trips so they have.

Knowing the area well , it would difficult to leave once arrived. Better the government had acted properly for once and enacted a max travel distance allowed . Some people would still push against that but likely to a lesser measure.

Hopeless.

BEVS Jun 27th 2020 11:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12872855)
So the UK have released a traffic light system for destinations to travel to, unsure if you have seen it - or if its made Canadian news??

Interesting choice of countries not requiring quarantine - and in addition interesting categorisation between amber and green (Austria and Germany are green, yet Canada and Italy are amber ) - quite unsure what the point of the whole system is - apart from the red countries of course.

But those with no colours - what do they mean? originally i believe the idea was air bridges and reciprocal quarantine exemptions - which made sense providing countries were at a similar low level of infection and restricted travel in similar manners (no use UK and France opening up an air bridge, then France opening up to the US who we are might be closed to - although the UK doesn't seem particularly closed to anyone) - but I'm fairly sure there is no reciprocal with NZ and I don't see them lifting their 14 days quarantine to new arrivals anytime soon)


Stuff that. The UK does not have a handle on COVID and no-one should be travelling much within the country , let alone outside it.

NZ borders are closed except for returning NZ residents and citizens. Exemptions can be applied for and considered for a group of needed workers, as in the case of the German specialists already enlisted to fix a water treatment plant in the capital . They must all do the quarantine and be tested first.

Very much doubt that NZ will want or be able to cope ( capacity) with the uncertainty of UK tourists arriving here. NZ may look to the pacific isles or Oz first .

BEVS Jun 27th 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 12872874)
True story and this only pertains to Canada but involves travel and how things can change in a matter of days.
My dad died on the 7th June. At that particular time I had the choice of travelling and self isolating for 14 days on arrival and on return self isolate again for 14 days. Also unsure if I could attend any service so things not looking good.
Between 7 - 15 June the self isolation on arrival was lifted and I could attend a service of not more than 10 but I would still have to self isolate on returning home. On 13 June the Province where I lived was lifting self isolation on 21st June but did not specify where East of where I lived this applied to. Seeing as I was working from home I decided to travel and understood and was prepared to self isolate when returning home. Prior to 21st June the self isolation was lifted and where I attended the service was included in not having to self isolate so on 21 June I drove home.

Incredibly hard & uncertain all round , on top of a difficult sad time. My condolences for your loss.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:48 am.

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.