Showing posts sorted by relevance for query COVID19. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, April 25, 2020

"Reckless yahoos protest at Queen's Park in Toronto to end the shutdown"

PREMIER DOUG FORD DENOUNCES COVIDIOTS PROTESTING AT THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE IN ONTARIO OVER CORONAVIRUS STAY AT HOME REGULATIONS
YES HE DID AND IT WAS REFRESHING

BLOGTO City Tanya Mok Posted 4/25/2020

There's a protest in Toronto today. Civil liberties are at stake, the curve is flattening, haircuts are growing out beyond recognition: it's all too much, for some.

Chants of "Open up Ontario" are resounding at Queen's Park right now as a handful of citizens choose to spend their Saturday afternoon protesting Ontario's social distancing measures during a global pandemic.

Protesters chanting “my body my choice”

No social distancing except by reporters and journalist.

(I am not protesting I am covering independently) #queenspark #protest #COVID19 #toronto pic.twitter.com/R33mdO8g6J— Klara Quinton (@KlaraQuinton) April 25, 2020

The sizeable crowd of "yahoos", as Premier Doug Ford referred to them today, are currently fussing over the fact that trying to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, which has taken the lives of 811 people in Ontario and more than 2,350 nationwide to date has become unbearable.

Doug Ford condemns lockdown protests happening now at Queens Park in Toronto calling them “wreckless”
pic.twitter.com/52v2rw28UG— LΞIGH (@LeighStewy) April 25, 2020

"We see these people that are absolutely irresponsible, it's reckless to do what they're doing," said Ford in a press conference this afternoon. "And personally, I think it's selfish."

Energetic waving of signs that say things like "I want a haircut" would almost be funny, if it didn't blatantly flout the urgings of health officials and frontline healthcare workers, who have been saving lives amidst PPE shortages and outbreaks in the city's most vulnerable communities.

Protesters not social distancing. Letting kids play together.

Images from the current #endtheshutdown #protest in #toronto (I am not protesting, I am here covering this independently - I am wearing mask/gloves and distanced) #queenspark @blogTO @nationalpost @globalnewsto pic.twitter.com/8CLBPteY0p— Klara Quinton (@KlaraQuinton) April 25, 2020

Interestingly, someone's also holding a sign that says "Covexit", which is a pretty weird conflation of COVID-19 and the U.K.'s split from the European Union. Maybe they can take a leaf out of that book and 'exit' the province for a few months while the rest of us try to isolate?

Singing “get up stand up stand up for your rights” #Toronto #protest #COVID19 #queenspark

I am not protesting I am covering this independently pic.twitter.com/biUYwlgozp— Klara Quinton (@KlaraQuinton) April 25, 2020

Even more ironic than the waving of a "Free The Strong" sign alongside a "Protect The Vulnerable" sign is the fact some of the protestors are wearing face masks.

That's good news for the rest of us, because one can only imagine how many respiratory droplets are being dispersed while people shout for their right to haircuts.

Protesters chanting “Everyone’s essential, freedoms are essential, return our freedoms, return our rights” and moving towards traffic from Queens Park

(I am not protesting I am covering independently) #queenspark #protest #COVID19 #toronto pic.twitter.com/kutSzgc6AV— Klara Quinton (@KlaraQuinton) April 25, 2020

There even appears to be some mindful 2-metre-distancing going on, which shows a basic understanding of community spread, despite advocating for "reopening" of industries which have closed specifically for that reason.

Images from the current #endtheshutdown #protest in #toronto (I am not protesting, I am here covering this independently - I am wearing mask/gloves and distanced) #queenspark @blogTO @nationalpost @globalnewsto pic.twitter.com/LsF8e371Cj— Klara Quinton (@KlaraQuinton) April 25, 2020

Toronto's Medical Officer of Health announced last week the cumulative rate of COVID-19 in Toronto is lower than originally projected, thanks to people staying at home for the last month.

Lead photo by Klara Quinton;

Ford slams ‘bunch of yahoos’ protesting emergency measures outside Queen’s Park

About one hundred people went to Queen's Park Saturday slamming COVID-19 emergency measures and demanding a return to normal.

Chris Herhalt, CP24.com
Published Saturday, April 25, 2020

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he’s furious at the “bunch of yahoos” who decided to flout physical distancing measures and emergency laws to protest outside Queen’s Park Saturday afternoon, calling them “irresponsible, reckless and selfish.”

About 100 people gathered in front of Queen’s Park, chanting slogans demanding Ford “open up Ontario” and end all emergency measures, with some carrying signs claiming the novel coronavirus is a hoax.

Ford was visibly angry at the gathering, which violates the province’s month-long order banning all gatherings of more than five people.

“We have healthcare workers down the street at these hospitals working round the clock, to protect the community and 99.9 per cent of people in this province are working together side by side, that’s the reason we’re able to see a flattening of the curve,” Ford said.

“But then we have a bunch of yahoos out in the front of Queen’s Park sitting there protesting that the place isn’t open, as they are breaking the law. And putting everyone in jeopardy, putting themselves in jeopardy, putting workers

in jeopardy and god forbid one of them ends up in the hospital down the street.”

WOW NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THIS, BUT I AGREE WITH FORD.

He said he hoped Toronto police would ticket them.

Not keeping at least two metres apart from someone not in your own household currently carries a fine of $880 in Toronto.

Some demonstrators complained about not being able to get a haircut for the past five weeks, while others called media reports about the virus’ spread “fake news.”

A few demonstrators also brought children to the rally.

“Imagine if we had every single Ontarian acted like the way they’re doing right now, “Ford said. “It would set us back months.

The virus has so far infected at least 13,000 Ontarians, killing 811.

About one hundred people went to Queen's Park Saturday slamming COVID-19 emergency measures and demanding a return to normal.

'Bunch of yahoos': Ontario Premier Doug Ford sounds off on COVID-19 hoaxers protesting in Toronto

Coronavirus outbreak: Doug Ford blasts 'bunch of yahoos' protesting COVID-19 restrictions outside Queen's Park

Ahmar Khan April 25, 2020

A sunny day in Toronto has led to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford questioning the morality and intelligence of a group of protestors gathered outside the legislature at Queen’s Park in Toronto to voice their opinions against COVID-19 measures on Saturday afternoon.

Ford was asked about the group, and said he was appalled at the group for disobeying physical distancing measures and putting the wellbeing of others at risk.

“We have a bunch of yahoos out in front of Queen’s Park sitting there protesting, but the place isn’t open. They’re breaking the law and putting everybody in jeopardy,” Ford said

An anti-lockdown protest has formed outside the #Ontario legislature.

Many people chanting that #Covid19 is not real

1 man’s sign: ”I want a haircut”

At 1 point, they started singing the national anthem

Currently 44,364 Canadians have tested + for the virus & 2,350 have died pic.twitter.com/pJelE7dObu
— Brandon Gonez (@brandongonez) April 25, 2020

The group of protestors were shouting out “fear is the virus” and “the virus is hoax” while carrying placards reading “Open Toronto” and “Save Small Businesses! We R all essential.” The most popular sign was a #COVEXIT sign, which is likely referring to a COVID exit.

“There’s nobody who wants to open up the economy more than I do and everyone else, but we have to do it responsibly, with the guidance of our Chief Medical Officer of Health and consultation with municipalities,” said Ford.

Here’s the clip: premier @fordnation fired up after he is asked about people protesting #COVID19 measures outside Queen’s Park: “a bunch of yahoos putting everyone in jeopardy... we’re better than this” he says “it’s irresponsible, reckless, selfish” and setting us back. pic.twitter.com/4wqv792L4k
— Tina Yazdani (@TinaYazdani) April 25, 2020

Ontario health officials reported 476 new COVID-19 infections and 48 new deaths, bringing the total death toll to 811 and the overall case count including recoveries to 13,995.

Much of the support online has been in favour of Ford’s emphatic response to the protestors, with some on the opposite side of the isle politically siding with his wording.

I'm proud to see the leadership that Doug Ford is showing in how he is handling the #covid19 crisis the province, country and world is facing. Taking a stand and calling out those #yahoos at Queen's Park is exactly what this province needs! @fordnation #ONPoli
— Todd Hamblin (@Hambone9) April 25, 2020

Hell just froze over. I actually agreed with Dougie over the protesters over at Queen's Park... #Covid19 #Covid19Ontario #onpoli
— JT Bean (@jt4702) April 25, 2020

Really disappointed at the amount of folks at Queen's Park in Toronto protesting the shutdown. Stop being so selfish. You're not just putting yourself at risk, you're risking everyone else and the stability of our healthcare system. Smarten up folks. #onpoli #COVID19
— Alfred Lam (@AlfredLam) April 25, 2020

Ford was visibly heated at the fact the group had gathered together, especially while tens of millions of Ontarians sit idly in their homes awaiting recommendations.

“We have these people who want to break ranks with the 14.5 million people and just go rogue? Again, it’s irresponsible, reckless and it’s selfish,” said Premier Doug Ford. “It just burns me up, we worked so hard and we have a bunch of yahoos thinking it’s alright,” he said.

The protests come after protests led by far-right wing personalities caused intersections in Vancouver to shut down. The problem was even more pronounced in the U.S. where protests against government measures took place in over a dozen states, as some armed protestors faced off with healthcare workers.

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

UK Stimulus designed to help restaurant workers led to more COVID cases

Peer-Reviewed Publication

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS USA

A new paper in The Economic Journal indicates that a large-scale government subsidy aimed at encouraging people to eat out in restaurants in the wake of the first 2020 COVID-19 wave in the United Kingdom accelerated a second COVID19 wave.

The COVID19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus hurt economies around the world. The hospitality sector was particularly vulnerable due to forced decline in tourism and leisure activities. This rippled across economies, as hospitality workers then reduce their spending and have trouble meeting basic expenses. Some governments have used fiscal policy to help the hospitality sector by stimulating demand. This paper explored to what extent an intervention in the United Kingdom, the Eat-Out-To-Help-Out scheme – had the inadvertent effect of promoting COVID19 infections.

The scheme was designed to encourage demand for hospitality and restaurant businesses. It directly subsidized the cost of meals and non-alcoholic drinks by up to 50% across participating restaurants across the UK for meals served on all Mondays to Wednesdays from August 3 to August 31, 2020. The discount was capped at a maximum of GBP 10 per person but there was no limit on how often people could benefit. Aggregate data suggest that the government subsidized 160 million meals were subsidized, costing the taxpayer £849 million. Restaurant visits increased drastically on Monday to Wednesday, which usually see less traffic. Official government statistics released at the end of January 202 suggest that at least 59,981 businesses have registered for the scheme.

Researchers here found that the program did have a notable temporary impact on restaurant visits when comparing year-on-year changes from the booking service OpenTable. During days that the scheme was available, restaurant visits increased between 10-200%. Yet, the data also suggests that the scheme may have shifted restaurant visits from the weekend to weekdays on which the discount was available and that the increased number of restaurant visits was temporary.

Areas with higher participation in the Eat-Out-To-Help-Out scheme saw both a notable increase in new COVID19 infection clusters within a week of the scheme starting, and a deceleration in infections within two weeks of the program ending. Areas that had notable rainfall during the prime lunch and dinner hours on days the scheme was active, making customers less likely to visit restaurants and take advantage of the subsidized meals, had a lower infection rate.

The empirical estimates suggest that the subsidized restaurant meal scheme may be responsible for around 11% of all new detected COVID19 clusters emerging during August and into early September in the United Kingdom.

The paper, “Subsidising the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from the UK’s Eat-Out-to-Help-Out” Scheme,” is be available (at midnight on October 26th) at: https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ej/ueab074.

Direct correspondence to:
Thiemo Fetzer
Department of Economics
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL UNITED KINGDOM
thiemo.fetzer@gmail.com

To request a copy of the study, please contact:
Daniel Luzer
daniel.luzer@oup.com

JOURNAL

The Economic Journal

DOI

10.1093/ej/ueab074

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Subsidising the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from the UK’s Eat-Out-to-Help-Out” Scheme

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

26-Oct-2021

COI STATEMENT

N/A

Thursday, January 06, 2022

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
UNC tells public servants: Use civil disobedience

CLINT CHAN TACK

04/1/2022

Couva South MP Rudranath Indarsingh. -

THE Opposition UNC on Wednesday called upon public servants to display civil disobedience against anyone who tries to force them to be vaccinated against covid19 or disclose their vaccination status.

The UNC made this call as it supported the Joint Trade Union Movement's (JTUM) and the Public Services Association's (PSA) position that public sector workers should not disclose their covid19 vaccination status to their employers. The Government has said public-sector workers should be vaccinated or they will be furloughed without pay.

Couva South MP Rudranath Indarsingh, the UNC's labour spokesman, said, "We call upon the public servants to display a sense of what we would call civil disobedience, because at the end of the day, your medical records are your personal records."

That, he argued, is the greatest infringement in terms of a person's civil liberties.

Indarsingh also said, "We want to make it very clear that we stand on the side of public servants and the labour movement in this latest war that the people have to undergo and more so, in this instance, public servants."

Indarsingh called on teachers, healthcare workers, law enforcement offiers and workers across all state entities "to unify if they are to push back the Government." He accused the Prime Minister, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi and Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh of "poking their fingers in the eyes of public servants."

Indarsingh reiterated the UNC's support for vaccination but opposition to mandatory vaccination.

"We are not anti-vaxxers."

He said of the policy, "We believe it is violation of the citizens' constitutional rights. The Government is operating under the existing public health regulations, to force public servants to get vaccinated."

Indarsingh said the Government must engage in moral suasion and community dialogue in order to increase covid19 vaccination. He reiterated the UNC's claims that Dr Rowley's announcement last month, that public-sector workers who choose not to be vaccinated for non-medical reasons could be furloughed, is contrary to previous statements by Industrial Court president Deborah Thomas-Felix and the World Health Organization's (WHO) position on mandatory vaccination.

Last February, Thomas-Felix said an employer cannot alter terms and conditions to make covid19 vaccination mandatory for existing employees.

Last December, the WHO said, "Mandates around vaccination are an absolute last resort and only applicable when all other feasible options to improve vaccination uptake have been exhausted.”

UNC PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo supported Indarsingh's statements.

"The UNC has always defended the human rights of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago."

Saturday, April 11, 2020

FIRST DAUGHTER VS FIRST SON IN LAW AND MINISTER OF EVERYTHING
Chelsea Clinton blasts Jared Kushner for taking lead role on Coronavirus Task Force as she says despite teaching courses on global health even she is not qualified to do the job

Chelsea tweeted Friday: 'I'm not qualified to lead a national #covid19 effort'

Former First Daughter spoke of her Public Health masters and how she wrote a doctoral dissertation on efforts to tackle AIDS pandemic but still wasn't up to it

Hillary and Bill Clinton's daughter added that she co-authored a book on global health governance and teaches MPH courses on health systems & global health

Jared Kushner spoke at the Coronavirus Task Force Briefing on Thursday

Chelsea didn't mention him by name in the tweets but replied to one social media user who criticized Trump's decision to give a role to his son-in-law

Asked to imagine if Chelsea's parents did the same, she replied: 'My imagination doesn't stretch that far'

By LEAH SIMPSON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 6 April 2020

Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton has seemingly criticized Jared Kushner's involvement in the efforts to combat COVID-19, saying that even with her experience in public health, she wouldn't be qualified to take on a role in the Coronavirus Task Force.

Donald Trump's son-in-law addressed the country during a briefing Thursday – alongside Vice President Mike Pence, response coordinator for White House Coronavirus Task Force Deborah Birx, Rear Adm. John Polowczyk, and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro.

But Chelsea – who lived in the White House from 1993 to 2001 – appeared to take aim at Kushner, senior advisor to the president, in a series of tweets the following day.

'(Keep thinking: I've a Masters in Public Health; wrote my doctoral dissertation on global efforts to tackle AIDS pandemic; co-authored a book on global health governance; teach MPH courses on health systems & global health & I'm not qualified to lead a national #covid19 effort.),' she tweeted.

Jared Kushner, advisor and son-in-law to US President

Donald Trump, speaks at a coronavirus task force

briefing at the White House, Washington, DC, on Thursday.

Chelsea Clinton tweeted Friday: 'I'm not qualified

to lead a national #covid19 effort'

The former First Daughter tweeted about how she received her masters in Public Health and wrote a doctoral dissertation on global efforts to tackle AIDS pandemic but wasn't up to leading the pandemic response

Kushner's prior experience is in real estate development, investment and newspaper publishing.

Since he started his term in office, Trump has been criticized for making his children, Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr., advisers.

Chelsea was only a child when her father Bill Clinton led the country.

But after one social media user suggested Republicans would not have accepted it if First Lady Hillary won the 2016 election and did the same with Chelsea and her husband Marc Mexvinsky, she appeared to confirm she was referring to Kushner in her previous tweet.

'Imagine Hillary Clinton in the White House putting Chelsea Clinton's husband, Mark, in charge of handling the COVID-19 situation,' the Twitter user wrote. 'And when Mark briefed the country, he always praised her. 'Republicans would go insane, but not if the conflict of interest benefits them.'

Chelsea retweeted the message and commented: 'My imagination doesn't stretch that far.'

On Friday she appeared to further criticize Trump's decision making following the coronavirus outbreak when she retweeted Sen. Brian Schatz's (D-Hawaii) message that 'we are seeing preventable mass deaths in the United States'.

Hillary Clinton celebrates with her husband, former President Bill

Clinton (rear), and their daughter Chelsea Clinton (R) at her caucus

night rally in Des Moines, Iowa on February 1, 2016

Left, Chelsea Clinton and her husband Marc

Mezvinsky are pictured September 26, 2019.

Senior Advisers to the President, Ivanka Trump and

Jared Kushner, listen as Donald Trump speaks at

rally in Manchester, New Hampshire on February 10

Asked to imagine if Hillary Clinton had done the same had she won the White House, she replied: 'My imagination doesn't stretch that far'

On Friday she appeared to further criticize Trump's decision making following the coronavirus outbreak when she retweeted Sen. Brian Schatz's (D-Hawaii) message that 'we are seeing preventable mass deaths in the United States'

Above shows the number of coronavirus cases and deaths in the US and how they have escalated since January

As the pandemic has claimed the lives of more than 9,500 Americans since the end of January, Chelsea has criticized Trump's handling of the crisis.

On Tuesday she retweeted a reporter who said it was 'breathtaking' how the White House's briefing room slide listed a projected 100,000 to 240,000 deaths from coronavirus as 'goals of community mitigation'.

Chelsea added that there had been 'multiple failures-to test every suspected case, to isolate confirmed cases, to contact trace, to adequately prepare & protect our health workers'.

'President @realDonaldTrump didn't cause #covid19 but people are dying because of his failure in public health, leadership & humanity,' Chelsea continued.

A week prior she blasted Trump on Twitter after he said that if states want the federal government to be a good partner to them in fighting coronavirus, 'they have to treat us well'.

'YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Not some states,' she commented on the tweet which contained a video of Trump's utterance. 'Not just of the people who voted for you. Not just of the people who are American citizens (2020 census). THE UNITED STATES. It's never too late to start acting like it.'

Tuesday, Chelsea Clinton criticized Trump as she said there had been 'multiple failures - to test every suspected case, to isolate confirmed cases, to contact trace, to adequately prepare & protect our health workers'

Last month Chelsea Clinton blasted the president for treating some states more favorably in the fight against COVID-19

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

PROFITEERING

'Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic': Shoppers Drug Mart, Loblaw faces backlash for selling $40 rapid COVID-19 tests in Ontario, Alberta

Elisabetta Bianchini
Tue., May 18, 2021

'Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic': Shoppers Drug Mart, Loblaw faces backlash for selling $40 rapid COVID-19 tests in Ontario, Alberta

People in Alberta and Ontario can now buy a $40 COVID-19 rapid test from Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw pharmacies, which provides results between 15 and 20 minutes.

Anyone who does not have any COVID-19 symptoms and has not been in contact with a positive COVID-19 case in the past 14 days is eligible for the test.

Do you think Shoppers should be allowed to sell rapid COVID-19 tests?

"To get through this pandemic, we all need to follow public health guidelines, get vaccinated, and continue testing and screening in order to stop the spread of COVID-19," a statement from Ashesh Desai, executive vice president, pharmacy and healthcare, Shoppers Drug Mart, reads. "As Ontario and Alberta begin their recovery from this third wave of COVID-19, rapid screening options can provide customers with an extra level of confidence."

Loblaw has stated that the test were purchased directly from the manufacturer.

After the announcement was made on Monday, several people took to social media to criticize the business under George Weston Limited for "monetizing the pandemic."

You can now buy a #COVID19 rapid swab for $40 at Shoppers Drug Mart in Ontario.

Why Shoppers specifically? You can only purchase it if asymptomatic? Could these tests not be used elsewhere, like workplaces? Who will access these?

Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic.

— Gaibrie Stephen (@SGaibrie) May 17, 2021

This is what happens when government procured tests are stalled in deployment. The tests get commercialized and profit margins are realized at the expense of perpetuating inequity https://t.co/owqHkoP35g

— Victor Leung (@VicLeungIDdoc) May 17, 2021

I'd be curious to know what the retail markup is on those $40.00 rapid tests Loblaws/Shoppers is selling.

You know, since Doug's throwing the book at pandemic price gougers and all.

— Barney Panofsky's Best Intentions (@mynamesnotgordy) May 18, 2021

Shoppers has been allowed to purchase and resell at a profit a valuable asset that sat on shelves for months when making it broadly (hell, even freely) available could have controlled major outbreaks. There's a hell of a lot to see here. https://t.co/BQ5YBNTAl5

— Joshua Hind (@joshuahind) May 18, 2021

Why are we monetizing a pandemic? Buying a covid rapid test at shoppers? Do we not think these should be at every work place- schools, restaurants camps? This is a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. @fordnation #onpoli

— Sarah Langford (@keepsinging2day) May 18, 2021

I support rapid tests but for EVERYONE. @ShopprsDrugMart could you go ahead and stop making #Pharmacy look so bad. Thanks. 3/3 https://t.co/CQ5PZDyLYO

— Kristen Watt - Pharmacist Mama - she/her #BLM (@PharmacistMama) May 17, 2021

My child's school certainly does not have rapid testing nor could it afford it if it had to go out and buy it.

And by anyone, I'm guessing you mean those that can afford it. Because at $40 a test from shoppers, this isn't exactly equitable healthcare.

— london 🇨🇦/🇵🇹 (@boylondon402) May 17, 2021

Excited to see rapid COVID19 tests finally hitting the shelves in Ontario

$40 per test is far too expensive for regular testing. They are <$5 in Germany, and free in some countries

Most needed in hardest hit areas with the least resources.
https://t.co/1bw4flTTl3

— David Juncker (@DavidJuncker) May 18, 2021

You can now buy a #COVID19 rapid swab for $40 at Shoppers Drug Mart in Ontario.

Why Shoppers specifically? You can only purchase it if asymptomatic? Could these tests not be used elsewhere, like workplaces? Who will access these?

Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic.

— Gaibrie Stephen (@SGaibrie) May 17, 2021

This is what happens when government procured tests are stalled in deployment. The tests get commercialized and profit margins are realized at the expense of perpetuating inequity https://t.co/owqHkoP35g

— Victor Leung (@VicLeungIDdoc) May 17, 2021

I'd be curious to know what the retail markup is on those $40.00 rapid tests Loblaws/Shoppers is selling.

You know, since Doug's throwing the book at pandemic price gougers and all.

— Barney Panofsky's Best Intentions (@mynamesnotgordy) May 18, 2021

Shoppers has been allowed to purchase and resell at a profit a valuable asset that sat on shelves for months when making it broadly (hell, even freely) available could have controlled major outbreaks. There's a hell of a lot to see here. https://t.co/BQ5YBNTAl5

— Joshua Hind (@joshuahind) May 18, 2021

Why are we monetizing a pandemic? Buying a covid rapid test at shoppers? Do we not think these should be at every work place- schools, restaurants camps? This is a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. @fordnation #onpoli

— Sarah Langford (@keepsinging2day) May 18, 2021

rollout). I support rapid tests but for EVERYONE. @ShopprsDrugMart could you go ahead and stop making #Pharmacy look so bad. Thanks. 3/3 https://t.co/CQ5PZDyLYO

— Kristen Watt - Pharmacist Mama - she/her #BLM (@PharmacistMama) May 17, 2021

My child's school certainly does not have rapid testing nor could it afford it if it had to go out and buy it.

And by anyone, I'm guessing you mean those that can afford it. Because at $40 a test from shoppers, this isn't exactly equitable healthcare.

— london 🇨🇦/🇵🇹 (@boylondon402) May 17, 2021

Excited to see rapid COVID19 tests finally hitting the shelves in Ontario

$40 per test is far too expensive for regular testing. They are <$5 in Germany, and free in some countries

Most needed in hardest hit areas with the least resources.
https://t.co/1bw4flTTl3

— David Juncker (@DavidJuncker) May 18, 2021

In the U.S. rapid antigen tests are available for purchase, with the prices varying across state, ranging from around $20 into even hundreds of dollars.

On April 9, the U.K. government announced that anyone in England can take a free rapid COVID-19 test, rapid lateral flow tests (LFDs), twice a week.

"Around 1 in 3 people who have COVID-19 show no symptoms, and as we reopen society and resume parts of life we have all dearly missed, regular rapid testing is going to be fundamental in helping us quickly spot positive cases and squash any outbreaks," a statement from the country's Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, reads.

Friday, June 04, 2021

UN Labor Agency Finds Pandemic Pushed Over 100 Million Workers Into Poverty

The Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated preexisting inequalities and undermined progress on poverty reduction, gender equality, and battling child and forced labor, according to the International Labor Organization.

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

UCLA senior food service worker Claudia Salcedo and assistant cook Evelyn Aguila work in the kitchen of the Bruin Plate Residential Dining Restaurant as they prepare Brussel sprouts to be added to meals packaged for low-income families in partnership with the Venice Family Center on December 2, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)

Over a year after projecting that the coronavirus pandemic could have a "catastrophic" impact on the global economy and workforce, the United Nations labor agency on Wednesday revealed that the public health crisis pushed more than 100 million workers worldwide into poverty.

"Recovery from Covid-19 is not just a health issue. The serious damage to economies and societies needs to be overcome too."
—Guy Ryder, ILO

The new report (pdf), entitled World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021 (WESO Trends), also warns of the "real risk that—absent comprehensive and concerted policy efforts—the Covid-19 crisis will leave behind a legacy of widened inequality and reduced overall progress in the world of work across multiple dimensions."

Worryingly, the International Labor Organization (ILO) report shows that "the recovery process is likely to be both incomplete and uneven," said Guy Ryder, the agency's director-general, in a video about the findings.

"Incomplete because the damage done will not be fully repaired by the end of 2022, we will still have a major jobs shortfall," Ryder explained. "Uneven because it's the rich countries, the high-income countries, which are the best placed—because they have vaccines, because they have the fiscal means to do so—to recover more quickly."

"So the danger is a bit of a two-speed recovery," he continued, noting that not only workers in poor countries but also those in vulnerable sectors globally could be left behind. "We need a different option. We need a human-centered recovery, which will prevent that from happening."

Our new World Employment and Social Outlook Trends report shows that the world of work recovery from #COVID19 will be uneven and incomplete before 2023.

We need a human-centred recovery strategy that benefits all, backed by action and funding.

Full story:https://t.co/Ep0CiLrxdL pic.twitter.com/Mgb8889z7d

— Guy Ryder (@GuyRyder) June 2, 2021

The ILO found that relative to 2019, an additional 108 million workers worldwide are now moderately or extremely poor—meaning their families must survive on less than $3.20 per person each day. The report says that "five years of progress towards the eradication of working poverty have been undone."

The pandemic has "highlighted the vulnerable situation of migrant workers" and undermined recent progress on gender equality, the report adds. According to Agence France-Presse, Ryder told reporters that the ongoing crisis has also negatively affected efforts to end child and forced labor.

"Looking ahead, the projected employment growth will be insufficient to close the gaps opened up by the crisis," WESO Trends warns. "To make matters worse, many of the newly created jobs are expected to be of low productivity and poor quality."

The U.N. agency projects that the pandemic-induced "jobs gap" will hit 75 million this year and fall to 23 million next year. The gap in working hours—which accounts for the jobs gap and hours reductions—is expected to be the equivalent of 100 million full-time jobs in 2021 and 26 million full-time jobs in 2022.

#COVID19 to push global unemployment over 200 million mark in 2022 – “we’ve gone backwards” to 2015 levels of working poverty, says @ilo chief @GuyRyder @UN Genevahttps://t.co/SsN0T832XS

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) June 2, 2021

"As the overall economic situation starts to improve and pandemic-related restrictions are lifted, large numbers of people who were previously inactive in the labor market will enter the labor force again," the report says. "However, owing to the lack of sufficient jobs, the global unemployment headcount will remain elevated throughout 2021 and 2022—at 220 million and 205 million unemployed, respectively."

While the most affected regions in the first half of this year have been Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Europe and Central Asia, ILO points out that "the pandemic further exposed racial and ethnic inequality in North America." In the United States specifically, the crisis illuminated "inequalities in health and economic outcomes, linked to entrenched structural barriers."

"Worldwide, employment in the accommodation and food services sector is estimated to have been the worst affected by the crisis," says the report. The wholesale and retail trade sector was also heavily hit, as was manufacturing and construction, which "incurred a significant decline in employment as a result of the crisis, bearing the brunt of the impact in the industry sector."

The labour market crisis created by the #COVID19 pandemic is far from over.

Employment growth will be insufficient to make up for the losses suffered until at least 2023.

Check out the new ILO WESO Trends report: https://t.co/frEhP1ktgS pic.twitter.com/CeRaO0O0gm

— International Labour Organization (@ilo) June 2, 2021

"Recovery from Covid-19 is not just a health issue. The serious damage to economies and societies needs to be overcome too," Ryder emphasized in a statement. "Without a deliberate effort to accelerate the creation of decent jobs, and support the most vulnerable members of society and the recovery of the hardest-hit economic sectors, the lingering effects of the pandemic could be with us for years in the form of lost human and economic potential and higher poverty and inequality."

"We need a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, based on human-centered policies, and backed by action and funding," he added. "There can be no real recovery without a recovery of decent jobs."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Science, Scientists, And Scientism

Article: Keith Rankin

Monday, 6 December 2021

Science, in the not-so-recent-past, has often had a bad press. It's been personified, particularly by the political left, as Frankenstein, as agents of capitalism, classical liberalism, colonialism, sexism (yang over yin), eugenics, and god-like pretension. More recently though, in the zeitgeists of climate change awareness and covid, it's had an unusually good press; although we retain this persistent worry that viruses such as SARS-Cov2 may be the unwitting or witting result of the work of careless or evil scientists.

Science is simply a method of acquiring knowledge; a method that complements other methods, such as direct observation, thematic storytelling (literature, humanities), and abstraction (eg mathematics, accounting and law). And applied science is the process of creating technologies and other interventions which make use of scientific knowledge. Almost no knowledge is absolute; knowledge, whether derived from science or otherwise, is contestable. The only kind of absolute knowledge is that of tautology, with the most important tautologies being those that make up the discipline of mathematics.

The mantra we hear much of these days is: 'the science tells us …'. Actually, the science doesn’t tell us anything; rather scientists tell us things, and scientists are people with the same human foibles as other people. This idea of science (and therefore scientists) being the 'arbiters of facts' is what I call 'scientism'. It is no different to the old medieval idea of popes, and archbishops, and ayatollahs as being the possessors of facts; the arbiters of truth. It seeds the idea of uncontested – indeed incontestable – truth. It is the idea that 'facts' represent truth, and that there cannot be 'alternative facts'; it is the idea that if some statement (ie 'claim') conflicts with what the authorised science says, then that claim must be false.

This philosophy of science as absolute truth – 'the facts' – is practiced and supported by 'scientistes' (as I call them). Scientism is the religion of science; the 'faith' of science. Many people we call 'scientists' may also aptly be called 'scientistes'; they practice their science as a faith as well as their approved method.

Scientific knowledge actually consists of 'explanatory hypotheses' which are 'undisproven'. (This statement is an 'abstract truth' or tautology; it represents a 'definition' of science.) Thus science is a deductive method, where potential truths derive from theory, and are subject to testing. Scientific hypotheses may or may not be currently contested – in full or in part. But, to be scientific, the must be capable of being contested; and a resolution to such a contest should be conceptually possible, using the method of direct observation. The resolution need not be the discarding of one hypothesis in favour of another; it may be a synthesis of the contesting hypotheses. (Is 'light' made up of waves or particles? It turns out that the best current answer is 'both'.) We use scientific knowledge – undisproven hypotheses – to make predictions; 'making predictions' may be to test hypotheses, or we may perform actions – or implement policies – on the basis that this knowledge is most likely true.

We might note that the concept of evolution in science is a tautology; it essentially says 'what survives best survives best'. The disputes that involve evolution are around the initial origins of 'things' (such as the origins of life, or of matter); or around the mechanisms of evolutionary change, including whether those mechanisms involve intervention. (Charles Darwin prefaced 'The Origins of the Species' with a discussion about domestication, in which humans were the external agents for the evolution of domesticated species.)

A most useful metaphor for science is the 'table'. Explanatory hypotheses that may be true – that are undisproven – sit on this table of potential knowledge. Scientific tension exists when there are two or more hypotheses on the table, both (or all) purporting to explain the same observations. A scientist welcomes alternative hypotheses, because science is all about testing and revising current knowledge. Scientistes, on the other hand, do whatever they can to prevent the emergence of alternative facts. Scientistes are invested in one set of facts, and – in line with human nature generally – are not happy to 'write off' past investment. Leading scientistes distil their wisdom into texts, which become 'the truth'. In medical 'science', the truth for nearly two millenniums was revealed through the second century writings of Galen, arguably the greatest scientiste of all time. Ordinary scientistes, like priests, simply perpetrate or perpetuate the teachings of their antecedent mentors.

For practical convenience, science is divided into sciences, or scientific disciplines. The first division is into 'natural science' vis-à-vis 'social science'; sometimes called 'hard science' versus 'soft science'. The former includes physics, chemistry and biology. The latter includes economics, anthropology and psychology. By definition, these are empirical (subject to testing by observation) rather than cultural. However the practice of many people who are employed as 'scientists' may indeed include a cultural component; a component that reflects a belief system.

Belief systems can be regarded as forms of literary truths; truths which will typically conflict with other belief systems, and which by their very nature cannot be resolved as true or false. There are other kinds of literary truth: in particular those of 'fiction', such as the works of Shakespeare that uphold certain universal themes about human behaviour; and those of 'non-fiction', in particular history texts (historiography) which are highly contestable, and which often convey as much information about the zeitgeists and beliefs of the historians as they do about the times and mores that are being investigated.

Abstract truths may take the form of a tautology – true by definition or (as in algebra) by logical extension. Or they may arise from a belief system: for example, a set of laws such as the 'Ten Commandments' or 'Sharia Law'; or an accounting methodology such as the 'double-entry bookkeeping' as practiced by the medieval Venetians, and attributed in particular to the renaissance texts of Luca Pacioli.

Belief systems can be overlayed, possibly in contradictory ways. It is perfectly possible to believe in both Christianity and primitive capitalism. It is also possible to believe in Christianity and be implacably imposed to primitive capitalism. (To avoid discursion, we may think of primitive capitalism as unevolved or unreimagined capitalism. See my Who's The Thief? for a way out of unevolved capitalism.) While purely religious belief systems are not contestable, systems such as primitive capitalism – based on legal and accounting constructs around 'property' – are contestable but not in a strictly scientific sense. More in an ethical sense.

Who are Scientists?

Babies are scientists! Babies are unencumbered by previous investments, previously formed beliefs, so are free to learn about the world by forming hypotheses, testing them, and rejecting or modifying the hypotheses that don't meet their evidential tests.

· Babies resemble tiny scientists more than you might think, PBS, 2 Apr 2015

· Every Child is a Scientist, Wired, 28 Sep 2011

In an important sense, a scientist is anybody who revises what they believe to be true in the light of changing evidence. Police detectives are – or at least ought to be – scientists; yet, as a group, they have had a reputation for tunnel vision, for pursuing a single line of investigation while downplaying information that questions that investigative line.

Yet we normally think of scientists as people who are employed with a role labelled 'scientist', and as specialist scholars or practitioners within a scientific discipline such as physics or economics. Many people with this moniker are people we do not trust, in large part because of who they are employed by, or who they might hold an allegiance towards.

Any 'scientist' who instinctively acts to keep 'alternative facts' off the 'table of knowledge' is a scientiste rather than a scientist, whatever their formal title might be. They may have been corrupted by their employers' belief systems; or by their own. Indeed their own belief systems might attract them to employers with compatible belief systems. Scientistes are the knowledge gatekeepers of liberal polities.

Another problem with scientific truth is that of 'narrow-vision'. One test of a scientifically-informed policy relating to Covid19 might be that it minimises the number of people who die of Covid19, while neither caring about the number of people who die from (ie, as a result of, directly or indirectly) Covid19, nor being interested in non-fatal consequences of Covid19. The informing scientists may be unbiassed with respect to a belief system, but unintentionally biassed through an overly narrow criterion of the success of an intervention they support.

The scientiste problem is not just about biassed science; it's also about the cheerleaders for scientism, who may include politicians, public servants, and journalists. Cheerleaders, inclined towards popular belief-systems, may express 'confirmation bias' towards certain kinds of scientific 'facts' relative to alternative scientific facts. They may not ask questions that do not align with the favoured narratives.

An interesting article of the bad scientist good scientist genre is 'Reality Check: Vax Vexation' by Stephen Davis (NZ Listener, 4 Dec 2021, p.12) which focuses on the Public Health Policy Journal, which is edited and published by 'discredited' scientists. (I use quote marks as a sign of my neutrality on this matter.) My sense is that much of the 'science' in this journal might be regarded as non-science or nonsense by many scientists; but much science published in other journals also reflects an agenda.

Indeed some bad science is used to push one agenda that I'm supportive of; namely that of concern about anthropogenic climate change, a reality which it is difficult to argue against based on the evidence that I'm aware of. Nevertheless, as an economic historian, I was disappointed by the infamous 'hockey stick' chart, that entirely removes the Little Ice Age which peaked in the seventeenth century, and has been widely argued to be an instrumental factor in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, especially in Europe. (A very worthwhile book here is Nature's Mutiny by Philipp Blom, Picador 2019, about "How the Little Ice Age transformed the West and shaped the present". Some people have played down the Little Ice Age by suggesting that it was mainly a northern hemisphere phenomenon; the state of New Zealand's glaciers at the time of James Cook's first voyage – 1769 – would suggest otherwise)

Another example of bad science good science rhetoric was Al Jazeera's The Campaign Against the Climate (17 Apr 2021) where 'bad scientists' upholding naked capitalist agendas with pseudo-scientific falsehoods were pitted against good publicly-spirited agenda-free scientists. If only it were that simple! Actually, the requirement to look after Planet Earth is a difficult-to-contest ethical truth; the climate science is useful, but by no means the only reason to induce better behaviour.

An interesting and accessible recent discussion about science was Steven Pinker's RNZ (27 Nov 2021) interview with Kim Hill: Steven Pinker: why being rational is human and matters now. In a poignant moment at the end of the interview, Pinker acknowledged the important scientific career of the late Emeritus Professor Michael Corballis, who, apparently, "some senior academics say Corballis was the best chance Auckland University has ever had to snare a Nobel Prize". Sadly, for this distinguished world scientist aged 85, half of the references in his Wikipedia page relate to events in the last few months (see the letter Corballis co-authored, In Defence of Science, which referred to Mātauranga Māori.

(Mātauranga Māori is largely a mix of generalised inference from direct observation [the inductive method], much of which complements and facilitates science, and thematic storytelling which conveys ethical truths and true human foibles. That is not to claim that Māori before colonisation never used the scientific [deductive] method; rather it is to acknowledge that valid knowledge – truth – is much more than explanatory science, and that oral traditions of knowledge cannot easily convey methodology.)

Questions in need of an Improved Knowledge Base

I will mention four.

First on human origins, very little of what I have read properly acknowledges that a very large proportion of humans in the past will have lived, as today, in low-altitude habitats. The anthropalaeontologists don't deny that sea levels are up to 100 metres higher today than they were between 90,000 and 10,000 years ago; but they continue to favour inductive reasoning based on available evidence (very little of which was from low-altitude habitats for the essential reason that those habitats are now under water), while showing little interest in more speculative theory-informed possibilities about the coastal lives of early humans.

Second, when it comes to epidemiology, there still seems to be a scientific bias in favour of explanations for epidemics based on the unique characteristics of micro-pathogens rather than in favour of explanations that focus on the different vulnerabilities of host populations to the likes of viruses and bacteria. Thus, I have yet to see any stories trying to explain why, in 2020 before new Covid19 variants emerged, Eastern Europe suffered much worse than Western Europe in late 2020 despite the west suffering much more initially; and I have seen few attempts to explain why South America was so vulnerable.

Third, there are many matters in economics that could be better understood by better practice in economic science. The one I will mention here is about the causes of inflation; and the alleged role of low interest rates in causing inflation, and of the widespread conviction that intervening in the market to raise interest costs will somehow make inflation go away. The commonsense approach is to see inflation as analogous to physiological pain, knowing that pain can have many possible causes. The 'one remedy' answer for inflation is no more scientific than was Galen's famous blood-letting remedy for many types of medical ailment. Further, we only have to look at the relationship between interest rates and inflation in New Zealand (and elsewhere) in the years before the 2008 global financial crisis; then, higher interest rates were raising both general inflation and especially house price inflation.

Finally, an accounting matter. How can we know how much income-tax is paid by any New Zealander, and by all New Zealanders? It's a question with no scientific answer, because it depends on the legal and accounting systems adopted. And these systems, as noted, are derived culturally, not scientifically.

Philosophers of Science

I will finish this essay by noting three classic works on the philosophy of Science; all works I learned about in my higher education.

The first work remains the seminal text on the scientific method, and was published in Nazi Germany in 1934, and translated into English in 1959. It is of course Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. We should note that Popper (born in Austria) was not a Nazi; he indeed also wrote a classic discourse on political liberalism – The Open Society and Its Enemies – while living as a political refugee in Christchurch, New Zealand. Popper will have been well aware of the Methodenstreit – the Battle of Methods – in economics in the 1880s, in which the deductive method promoted by the 'Austrian school' of economists was pitted against the inductive method favoured by the German 'historical school'.

The second classic work on science was Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which introduced the notion of 'paradigm-shift'. Thus the reality is that most professional scientists work within paradigms all their careers, and that there is an innate conservatism within such scientific work. Scientists tend not to ask questions that might lead to uncomfortable answers; they build safer careers working within already well-researched territory.

Finally, Imre Lakatos introduced the idea of 'Research Programmes' which had a hard core, and a soft periphery. The hard core really represented a 'scientific dogma' (yes, it's an oxymoron), a quasi-scientific belief system (doctrine) which was protected from the usual scientific methods of falsification. The Research Programme could, however, evolve in relatively incremental ways, through allowing changes to its soft outer veneer.

I have little doubt that Michael Corballis was familiar with the works of these three philosophers of knowledge. Of course, their works and his are subject to the principle of scientific contestability – subject to revision through argument and through counter-example – as are any works in the field of knowledge.

One of the 'pseudo-sciences' that Lakatos identified was 'neoclassical economics', which, at its core and as is practiced by its practitioners, is very much a doctrine – the doctrine of economic liberalism – rather than a science. Yet economics comes up with many useful hypotheses which are often tested, though not always rejected or modified when the scientific method suggests they should be. Take my example about inflation.

Indeed economics, which models itself on physics, contains truths that are more analogous to pure mathematical truths; truths that might be called advanced tautologies. An important such truth forms the basis for cost-benefit analysis: it says that if the benefit of doing more of something outweighs its 'marginal' cost, then more should be done. Otherwise more should not be done, and possibly too much of that something has already been done.

Coming back to the biggest scientific issue of 2020 and 2021, this core economic truth can help answer the question as to how long a nation facing a pandemic emergency should continue to stay in protective quarantine, or for how long people should continue to wear facemasks in confined public spaces. By definition, an emergency public health mandate has clear short-term benefits that outweigh its short-term costs. But, when it comes to the question of extending such an authority-led measure, calculations of diminishing benefits and increasing costs come into play.

Conclusion

There is much more to knowledge than science. Nevertheless, the scientific method has proved to be a major contributor to modern knowledge, both through the wonderful and otherwise unknowable insights into nature that it brings, and to the technologies and other human interventions which contestable knowledge makes possible. Science should neither be denounced nor deified. Scientism is not science. Scientific knowledge is contestable, by definition, and is tested and modified through observation and measurement.

-------------

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin

Political Economist, Scoop Columnist

Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.

Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.

Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment