Science

Friday October 15, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 15, 2021

Ford should rethink outdated minimum wage stand

Doug Ford’s minimum-wage policy is the product of minimal thought.

April 29, 2021

Since becoming Ontario’s premier more than three years ago, Ford has rejected any meaningful increase in the baseline wages that employers must by law pay to their workers. After freezing minimum wages during his first 27 months in office, the premier consented to a 25-cent-an-hour increase one year ago then followed up with a paltry 10-cent-an-hour hike on Oct. 1. That brought the current hourly minimum wage to $14.35.

For many of the province’s 500,000 minimum-wage earners, this month’s change felt like a slap in the face instead of a helpful hand up. Those extra 80 cents they have in their pockets after an eight-hour-day’s efforts wouldn’t even cover the cost of their bus ticket to work. Yet Ford stubbornly insists any significant minimum wage increases would shutter businesses and drive higher unemployment.

The problem with this defence is that real-life evidence and real-live economists prove it’s wrong. And if Ford needs an expert second opinion on the matter from a fellow Ontarian, he should consult David Card, the Berkeley university professor who just won the Nobel Prize in economics. The native of Guelph and graduate of Queen’s University, Card was awarded the prestigious honour this week largely for his groundbreaking work into the economic and human impacts that followed minimum-wage increases.

February 1, 2014

Before his research, many economists would have agreed with Ford that boosting wages for some people can make life worse for more by forcing business closures and job losses. If the cost of labour grows too high, the demand for it would drop as many businesses scramble to adapt and some even go bust. Or so went the reasoning — supported for a time by many studies.

But in 1993, Card and the late Alan Krueger challenged conventional theory by looking at what happened to jobs at several New Jersey fast-food restaurants after the state raised its hourly minimum wage from $4.25 (U.S.) to $5.05 (U.S.). After comparing the situation in New Jersey to what was going on at similar fast-food restaurants in neighbouring east Pennsylvania, they concluded the rise in the minimum wage had no effect on the number of people being employed.

In response to skeptical colleagues, Card launched another study in 2000 using new information. His findings were the same. And over time, he won over most of the doubters to his viewpoint. There are still vigorous debates over how governments should manage minimum-wage legislation. But the prevailing opinion of economists is that moderate and gradually introduced wage increments benefit low-wage employees, do not cost jobs and help reduce poverty.

October 18, 2006

In fact, Premier Ford should already know this. After the previous Liberal government raised the hourly minimum wage from $11.60 to $14 in 2018, he railed against what he called “a failed Liberal policy that is driving jobs and investment out of Ontario. It’s equal to the carbon tax when it comes to job killing.” The Ontario Chamber of Commerce was of the same mind and issued dire warnings of economic devastation to come.

Six months after the Liberal minimum-wage hike, however, Ontario’s unemployment rate had dropped to 5.4 per cent, the lowest it had been since 2000. Meanwhile, business profits in the province had risen while its annual inflation rate was running at a modest 2.2 per cent.

Let’s hope the worldwide publicity surrounding Prof. Card’s Nobel Prize will push Ford and the Progressive Conservatives to rethink a minimum wage policy that has so widely been discredited. In its place should be a minimum wage that rises annually and matches wage growth across the provincial workforce. It’s time for a minimum wage based on maximum wisdom. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Wednesday August 25, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday August 25, 2021

Top epidemiologist resigns from Ontario’s COVID-19 science table, alleges withholding of ‘grim’ projections

Young Doug Ford: The Series

One of Ontario’s most vocal epidemiologists has resigned from the province’s COVID-19 Science Advisory Table, alleging the group has delayed publication of its pandemic projections for the fall due to political interference — a charge the table has denied.

Dr. David Fisman, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health, announced on Twitter on Monday morning that he would step down from the table, posting a letter of resignation he sent to table co-chair Dr. Adalsteinn Brown.

Fisman said that while he had “mixed emotions” about resigning, he had been “repeatedly dissenting publicly from table guidance,” adding that Ontario “needs a public health system that is arm’s length from politics.”

“I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the degree to which political considerations appear to be driving outputs from the tables, or at least the degree to which these outputs are shared in a transparent manner with the public,” he wrote.

“I do not wish to remain in this uncomfortable position, where I must choose between placid relations with colleagues on the one hand, and the necessity of speaking the truth during a public health crisis on the other.”

The letter did not include any specifics about the alleged political considerations.

April 8, 2021

Fisman has already been removed from the table’s list of members on its website. 

His resignation comes two days after he tweeted that the science table had “important modelling work that projects a grim fall” and implied its publication had been intentionally delayed.

“I don’t understand why they’re not releasing that. It’s important for people to understand what lies ahead, and what the stakes are,” he wrote. 

The table has strongly refuted that it is purposefully withholding projections for the fall. In a series of tweets from its official account, it said, “There appear to be some rumours that the Science Advisory Table is withholding a consensus model of COVID-19 in the fall. To be absolutely clear, that is not true.”

The table’s statement went on to say that it was currently “working to understand how COVID-19 may affect Ontario in coming months,” which involves integrating and reviewing “many models done by many teams” until there is a “reasonable, scientific consensus.” (CBC) 

 

Thursday July 8, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 8, 2021

First-dose COVID-19 vaccinations plateau across Canada, threatening path to variant resilience

The number of people getting their first COVID-19 vaccine doses is plateauing across the country, heightening the need to target harder-to-reach groups if Canada is going to achieve the vaccination levels needed to control the spread of infection.

May 22, 2021

As of Monday, 78 per cent of those eligible to be vaccinated in Canada have received at least one dose, and 41 per cent were fully vaccinated, making the country one of the most immunized in the world. Among the Group of Seven nations, Canada ranks second next to Britain with the highest number of doses administered per 100 people.

However, within provinces and territories, there are pockets with low vaccination rates across the country.

In the High Level health unit in northern Alberta, for example, 21 per cent of the eligible population had received at least one dose, and in Manitoba, 19 per cent of the eligible population in the municipality of Stanley had received at least one dose.

While the number of people receiving second doses continues to climb, those receiving their first doses have stalled at fewer than 100,000 a day since June 20.

January 30, 2021

With the rise of more transmissible variants, some epidemiologists estimate at least 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the eligible population will need to be fully vaccinated to keep COVID-19 rates under control.

Reaching those levels will be critical as we head into the fall, when people start spending more time indoors again at the same time the highly infectious Delta variant is expected to become the dominant variant of the virus in most of the country, said Cordell Neudorf, professor in the department of community health and epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan.

“That’s when we expect the next wave to hit, unless we get high enough immunization coverage,” Dr. Neudorf said.

December 11, 2020

Now that those most willing and able to get immunized have received at least one vaccine, health authorities must ramp up their efforts to vaccinate groups that are more difficult to reach, said Nazeem Muhajarine, an epidemiologist and professor of community health and epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan.

And that will require different targeted approaches, he said, since those who remain unvaccinated are a heterogenous group. They include people who are willing to be vaccinated but have difficulty accessing clinics, individuals who have lingering questions about the safety of vaccines and those who refuse to be vaccinated altogether.

May 8, 2021

The latter, whose refusal is generally ideologically driven, are a minority, making up an estimated 10 per cent of the population, Dr. Muhajarine said. Another 12 per cent to 14 per cent of Saskatchewan adults he has been tracking say they are hesitant about getting vaccinated.

“It’s the hesitant group that we need to be able to convert get a vaccine,” he said. “They’re not saying they would not get one, but they’re also saying they will not readily line up, be the first in line.” (Globe & Mail) 

 

Thursday June 17, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 17, 2021

Think bigger, and smaller, than a vaccine lottery

The percentage of Canadians who’ve had their first shot of COVID-19 vaccine has rocketed this country to the top of the global charts. Yet even as Canada pivots to focusing on second doses, one-quarter of Canadian adults and teens have still not taken their first shot.

December 11, 2020

Could a lottery get them to stretch out their arms?

Last month, Ohio decided to try that approach. It’s part populism, part behavioural science. 

On May 12, the governor announced that the vaccinated would be entered into a draw, with a US$1-million prize awarded weekly, for five weeks.

The behavioural science insight behind all of this is that the human brain tends to misjudge probabilities. It’s why lotteries, with their poor odds – Ohio’s grand-prize odds are roughly one in a million – are often referred to as a tax on stupidity. Ohio decided to try to harness that stupidity for a good cause, namely boosting the vaccination rate. Several other states followed its lead, as have Manitoba and Alberta.

So how are things working out?

October 27, 2006

Thanks at least in part to Vax-a-Million, Ohio’s low vaccination rate did rise – but only for a short time.

In the seven days up to and including May 12 – the day the lottery was announced – the state of nearly 12 million people administered fewer than 92,000 first shots, according to our calculations from data on Ohio’s vaccine dashboard. The next week, after the lottery launched, first-shot vaccinations more than doubled.

The following week, however, vaccinations dropped by about a quarter. The next week, they dropped by almost half. The following week, they fell some more; the week after that, they fell sharply again.

And over the five days to June 14, Ohio averaged about half as many first shots as in the five days leading up to the lottery launch.

Ohio, which has now given a first dose to 47 per cent of its population, needed to up its rate by as much as 20 percentage points. Vax-a-Million appears to have delivered a boost of perhaps two percentage points, at most.

April 8, 2008

So far, Alberta’s lotto results are even less promising. Premier Jason Kenney announced the lottery plan 

on Saturday; on Sunday, Alberta recorded its lowest number of first shots since February. Monday’s tally was the second lowest since February. Tuesday was even lower.

There are many reasons why a quarter of eligible Canadians are still not vaccinated. The lack of pandemic prizes is likely the least of it. (Globe & Mail) 

 

Wednesday May 6, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 6, 2021

NACI is right about AstraZeneca. It shouldn’t be ‘unsettling’ to trust the public with uncomfortable information

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization is being pilloried for asserting that, while taking the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccine is still generally a good idea, their higher risk for blood clots means that certain Canadians would be better served by waiting for a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

December 11, 2020

Despite high-level accusations that the message is “misleading” or even “dangerous,” NACI is right: Different vaccines obviously carry different risks, and it would be irresponsible not to weigh those risks against the risk of contracting COVID-19. The only reason NACI’s messaging sounds “mixed” or “unsettling” is because Canadian public health authorities have spent this pandemic strenuously avoiding nuance or even the basic notion that the public can be trusted with uncomfortable information.

The controversy began over NACI’s latest vaccine recommendations saying that they “preferentially recommend” mRNA vaccines such as the Pfizer and Moderna shots. NACI drew the distinction because of emerging data showing that, in rare instances, viral vector vaccines such as AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson can potentially pose a risk of blood clots. On Tuesday night, for instance, Alberta confirmed the death of a woman in her 50s due to complications from the AstraZeneca vaccine.

For most Canadians, the life-saving benefits of COVID immunity clearly outstrip any blood clotting risks posed by a viral vector shot. Nevertheless, while NACI said that Canada should continue to roll out as many vaccines as quickly as possible, there may be instances, particularly among young people, in which it’s preferable to sit out the immediate prospect of an AstraZeneca shot in favour of a Pfizer shot down the road.

January 30, 2021

“NACI cautions that in age groups younger than 30 years of age, the benefit of offering a viral vector COVID-19 vaccine instead of waiting for an mRNA vaccine is not a certainty, especially in areas of very low COVID-19 activity,” reads the new recommendations, which also say that “an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine should be preferentially offered to individuals” over 30 unless they prefer to get vaccinated earlier.

David Naylor, a co-chair of the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told CBC on Tuesday morning that it was an “unsettling” message because it “suggests that you got the second-best vaccine.” Infectious disease specialist Abdu Sharkawy tweeted that it was “dangerous” to imply “vaccine superiority.”

While many public health agencies have been free to take a single-minded focus on COVID-19 prevention to the exclusion of other health considerations, NACI’s mission has always been to maximize the benefits of immunization while weighing its potential harms. In NACI’s own words, their mission is to assess “how best to use authorized vaccines to achieve the greatest public health benefits.”

March 31, 2021

Over the last 13 months, Canada has gotten used to public health authorities prescribing blunt pandemic restrictions with little to no explanation as to why. Seldom has a chief medical officer ever gone on TV to explain the latest science on outdoor transmission and then asked their citizens to decide for themselves if a BBQ with friends is worth the risk.

NACI’s approach is different. Rather than follow Ottawa’s line to “take whatever vaccine is offered to you first”, they told the truth: Despite mass immunization being the single most effective way to save lives and end this pandemic, it doesn’t mean every AstraZeneca shot is a good idea.

In saying this, NACI didn’t issue an unequivocal “yay” or “nay” on the safety of AstraZeneca, they instead drafted a detailed risk-assessment to allow the public to figure out for themselves if AstraZeneca now is preferable to Pfizer later. You’re middle-aged and living in a hard-hit area with overwhelmed hospitals? Take the shot. You’re 21, living in Prince Edward Island and you barely leave the house? It might be worth waiting for Pfizer or Moderna.

December 1, 2020

NACI is certainly not an antivax organization. The group is composed of volunteer medical experts who have spent decades studying effective immunization. It was NACI who was instrumental in recommending the four-month gap between vaccine doses that has allowed Canada to maximize its limited supply and significantly push forward the national timeline towards herd immunity.

In a pandemic that has repeatedly seen politicians urge the public to “listen to the science,” NACI is the Platonic ideal of career scientists making recommendations without worrying about political narratives.

And yet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is now openly telling Canadians to ignore the NACI recommendation and take the first shot they are offered.

New Brunswick education minister Dominic Cardy took it a step farther, telling his constituents Tuesday to “ignore NACI, ignore anti-masker, ignore the people undermining the faith in science.” (National Post)