My sister-in-law recently sent us a picture of a completely empty toilet paper aisle in her local supermarket in New York, and my first thought was "why toilet paper?"
But apparently it's a scene that has been encountered many times in recent days, and right across the world. Australia has a particular problem with it, and so so have Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, and of course the USA. Armed robbers stole pallets of the stuff in Hong Kong, and it has led to fisticuffs and at least one knife incident in Australia. Some toilet paper aisles are guarded by armed security officers. Other paper tissues and kitchen rolls are often still widely available, but the toilet rolls sections have been stripped bare. For what it's worth, my local Toronto supermarket's shelves are fully stocked as usual, but maybe we use less toilet paper here?
Now, I can understand a tendency to stock up on food essentials in uncertain times such as we have with the current novel coronavirus outbreak. Anti-bacterial hand sanitizers and masks, sure. But toilet paper?
I have yet to see a convincing explanation for the phenemenon. The best the BBC can offer is that it is all an extreme case of FOMO - that guy is stocking up on toilet rolls, so maybe I should too, maybe he knows something I don't. Otherwise, it may be just people wanting to hold on to the last shreds of their dignity, represented in this case by the ability to use real toilet paper after a bowel movement.
Other theories suggest: that it is a way for people to maintain control (over hygeine, bodily functions, etc) when chaos appears to be descending all around; that it is a relatively cheap way for people to feel as though they are "doing something" in a crisis situation; that toilet rolls are big, bulky products, so it just looks worse than panic-buying of other, smaller products.
None of this sounds very convincing, does it? It's bewildering, really. If you want my theory, I just put it down to mass hysteria.
Friday, March 06, 2020
Thursday, March 05, 2020
Fatalities from COVID-19 overwhelmingly among the elderly
I heard yesterday that the average age of South Koreans who have died from the COVID-19 coronavirus is around 80, so I got to wondering about the overall age profile of those who die from the virus outbreak. The answer it turns out is "old".
The best data I could find shows that the likelihood of death ramps up exponentially as age increases. So, while those in their teens, twenties and thirties have a death rate of just 0.2%, those in their forties increases to 0.4%, fifties 2.3%, sixties 3.6%, seventies 8%, and eighties-plus a whopping 14.8%. Interestingly, no deaths have been reported in children under 10, who make up just 1% of confirmed cases. And, although the overall death rate is 3.4% (higher than earlier estimates of around 2%), the rate among those confirmed cases who have no pre-existing health problems or chronic illness is just 1%. The fatality rates may actually be even lower than these figures suggest, as they rely on the numbers of reported and confirmed cases. Also, within these figures is a lot of variation - the death rate in Italy, for instance, may be over 7%, possibly due to Italy's age profile.
Compare this with a fatality rate for ebola (1976 outbreak) of about 40%, nipah (1998) 78%, SARS (2002) 10%, and MERS (2012) 34%, and suddenly COVID-19 doesn't seem so bad. For comparison, the fatality rate for influenza is around 1%, again mainly among the very old and those with pre-existing conditions. With COVID-19, at least 80% of cases are mild. Unpleasant, but not life-threatening.
The best data I could find shows that the likelihood of death ramps up exponentially as age increases. So, while those in their teens, twenties and thirties have a death rate of just 0.2%, those in their forties increases to 0.4%, fifties 2.3%, sixties 3.6%, seventies 8%, and eighties-plus a whopping 14.8%. Interestingly, no deaths have been reported in children under 10, who make up just 1% of confirmed cases. And, although the overall death rate is 3.4% (higher than earlier estimates of around 2%), the rate among those confirmed cases who have no pre-existing health problems or chronic illness is just 1%. The fatality rates may actually be even lower than these figures suggest, as they rely on the numbers of reported and confirmed cases. Also, within these figures is a lot of variation - the death rate in Italy, for instance, may be over 7%, possibly due to Italy's age profile.
Compare this with a fatality rate for ebola (1976 outbreak) of about 40%, nipah (1998) 78%, SARS (2002) 10%, and MERS (2012) 34%, and suddenly COVID-19 doesn't seem so bad. For comparison, the fatality rate for influenza is around 1%, again mainly among the very old and those with pre-existing conditions. With COVID-19, at least 80% of cases are mild. Unpleasant, but not life-threatening.
Wednesday, March 04, 2020
The absurdity of the Buffalo Declaration
A bunch of four Alberta Conservative MPs have issued a document they are calling, a little over-dramatically, the Buffalo Declaration. It was actually published a couple of weeks ago, I just didn't get around to commenting on it.
The MPs, most of whom you will probably never have heard of, are Michelle Rempel Garner (the one whom you might have heard of, given that she was a cabinet member under Stephen Harper), Blake Richards, Glen Motz and Arnold Viersen. Most other Conservative MPs, even those from Alberta, have conspicuously managed to avoid publicly commenting on it.
The Buffalo Declaration is the latest, and perhaps most egregious, in the series of Alberta politicians whingeing and whining (see this article of mine for another such). It is not so much a declaration as a list of complaints about how badly treated Alberta has been by the central (read "Liberal") government, from the National Energy Program of the 1980s (for which an official apology is demanded), through the provincial equalization system to the carbon tax and, the final insult, the lack of oil pipelines. It even sees the current Indigenous blockades over the BC gas pipeline project as an example of government mistreatment of Alberta!
It claims that Alberta has always been treated as an inferior member of confederation, that the province has contributed a disproportionate amount of wealth to Ottawa, that its resource industry has been deliberately starved and held back, and that it is under-represented in Parliament, in the civil service, and even in the media. If all this were not enough, the prospect of Alberta seceding from Canada is mooted, and finally, the coup de grâce, a claim that Alberta be recognized as "culturally distinct", just like its nemesis, Quebec.
There is no mention of that old climate change thing, and the fact that low global oil prices are nothing to do with federal government policies. And there is definitely no mention of the fact that, if Alberta had a sales tax like everywhere else, the province would have a surplus not a deficit. All in all, it's a laughable document, were it not for the sobering thought that, crikey! a plurality of Albertan voters actually supported and voted for this mob. That is perhaps the scariest thought of all.
The MPs, most of whom you will probably never have heard of, are Michelle Rempel Garner (the one whom you might have heard of, given that she was a cabinet member under Stephen Harper), Blake Richards, Glen Motz and Arnold Viersen. Most other Conservative MPs, even those from Alberta, have conspicuously managed to avoid publicly commenting on it.
The Buffalo Declaration is the latest, and perhaps most egregious, in the series of Alberta politicians whingeing and whining (see this article of mine for another such). It is not so much a declaration as a list of complaints about how badly treated Alberta has been by the central (read "Liberal") government, from the National Energy Program of the 1980s (for which an official apology is demanded), through the provincial equalization system to the carbon tax and, the final insult, the lack of oil pipelines. It even sees the current Indigenous blockades over the BC gas pipeline project as an example of government mistreatment of Alberta!
It claims that Alberta has always been treated as an inferior member of confederation, that the province has contributed a disproportionate amount of wealth to Ottawa, that its resource industry has been deliberately starved and held back, and that it is under-represented in Parliament, in the civil service, and even in the media. If all this were not enough, the prospect of Alberta seceding from Canada is mooted, and finally, the coup de grâce, a claim that Alberta be recognized as "culturally distinct", just like its nemesis, Quebec.
There is no mention of that old climate change thing, and the fact that low global oil prices are nothing to do with federal government policies. And there is definitely no mention of the fact that, if Alberta had a sales tax like everywhere else, the province would have a surplus not a deficit. All in all, it's a laughable document, were it not for the sobering thought that, crikey! a plurality of Albertan voters actually supported and voted for this mob. That is perhaps the scariest thought of all.
Coronavirus outbreak is making people seriously question globalization
We are all (well, all North Americans and Europeans at least) used to being able to obtain pretty much anything from anywhere in the world at any time of year. This is the boon that is globalization. By the same token, people think nothing of just hopping on a plane and crossing the globe.
However, globalization does not come without drawbacks, some of them profound. Ever wonder why a bombing in Iraq or an attempted coup in Venezuela pushes up the price of gas in Canada overnight, even though Canada is all but self-sufficient in oil and gas? That's globalization, baby! Most of the drawbacks of globalization we do not even think about on a day to day basis, although the climate change impacts and the environmental challenges of globalization are becoming better understood as we struggle to come to grips with global greenhouse gas emissions.
And now, the latest coronavirus outbreak, which has rapidly progressed from a localized epidemic to a global pandemic (depending on your definitions), has caused further soul-searching about the merits of, and justifications for, globalization. Indeed, no less a personage than arch-conservative Eric Reguly, in the business pages of the Globe and Mail, is now expressing severe reservations about the whole globalization project.
Most of the world has been affected by the virus one way or another. For one thing, it spread from China to other countries with unprecedented rapidity, first to nearby South Korea and Japan, but then to an estimated 67 countries at last count, despite precautions. Because everywhere is so inextricably connected, it is almost inpossible to stop it from spreading further.
But COVID-19 has also made the world face up to just how reliant it is on China, and Chinese manufacturing in particular. As large segments of Chinese industry have shut down overnight, many other industries around the world have ground to a halt, even though they are not directly affected by the outbreak. Here is just one report about how much the loss of Chinese parts is affecting business in other countries, to the tune of around $50 billion in February alone according to this report.
As people used to say about Canada's unhealthily close relationship with the USA, when China sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold, in both a metaphorical and an all-too-literal sense.
However, globalization does not come without drawbacks, some of them profound. Ever wonder why a bombing in Iraq or an attempted coup in Venezuela pushes up the price of gas in Canada overnight, even though Canada is all but self-sufficient in oil and gas? That's globalization, baby! Most of the drawbacks of globalization we do not even think about on a day to day basis, although the climate change impacts and the environmental challenges of globalization are becoming better understood as we struggle to come to grips with global greenhouse gas emissions.
And now, the latest coronavirus outbreak, which has rapidly progressed from a localized epidemic to a global pandemic (depending on your definitions), has caused further soul-searching about the merits of, and justifications for, globalization. Indeed, no less a personage than arch-conservative Eric Reguly, in the business pages of the Globe and Mail, is now expressing severe reservations about the whole globalization project.
Most of the world has been affected by the virus one way or another. For one thing, it spread from China to other countries with unprecedented rapidity, first to nearby South Korea and Japan, but then to an estimated 67 countries at last count, despite precautions. Because everywhere is so inextricably connected, it is almost inpossible to stop it from spreading further.
But COVID-19 has also made the world face up to just how reliant it is on China, and Chinese manufacturing in particular. As large segments of Chinese industry have shut down overnight, many other industries around the world have ground to a halt, even though they are not directly affected by the outbreak. Here is just one report about how much the loss of Chinese parts is affecting business in other countries, to the tune of around $50 billion in February alone according to this report.
As people used to say about Canada's unhealthily close relationship with the USA, when China sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold, in both a metaphorical and an all-too-literal sense.
We touch our faces 23 times an hour - we're doomed!
The latest information on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease suggests that it is probably spread person-to-person by droplets, not through the air (this in spite of the fact that Canada's official response to the outbreak seems to be assuming that it is airborne). So, inhaling other people's coughs and sneezes, and hand-to-mouth/nose/eyes. It may be able to linger on hard surfaces, to be picked up by hands, but can probably not linger for long in the air.
The best we can do, then, is to manically wash out hands as often as possible, and refrain from touching our faces. It is the latter that presents the more insuperable problem. Research suggests that we touch our faces way more than we probably think. One American study concluded that we touch our faces an average of 15.7 times an hour, while another study in South Wales yielded 23 time an hour. Maybe Welsh people are more touchy-feely than Americans, or maybe the results are not totally reliable. A third American/Brazilian study suggests we touch our faces as little as 3.6 times an hour, at least in public places.
None of these studies were very large (10, 26 and 250 subjects respectively), which only goes to show how little this has been studied. But it seems like we probably do touch our faces way more than we might think, and my guess is that kids do it even more than the average. Furthermore, changing such ingrained habits may be next to impossible to achieve (especially in the case of kids). And yet that is exactly what we are being asked to do.
So, put away that mask (next to useless, we are told), and tie your hands behind your back. If that is not a practicable option for you, then wear a mask, so that when you do touch your face you don't touch your nose or mouth. Oh, wait, we're being told that masks are useless, and we should not be using them.
Like I say, we're doomed...
The best we can do, then, is to manically wash out hands as often as possible, and refrain from touching our faces. It is the latter that presents the more insuperable problem. Research suggests that we touch our faces way more than we probably think. One American study concluded that we touch our faces an average of 15.7 times an hour, while another study in South Wales yielded 23 time an hour. Maybe Welsh people are more touchy-feely than Americans, or maybe the results are not totally reliable. A third American/Brazilian study suggests we touch our faces as little as 3.6 times an hour, at least in public places.
None of these studies were very large (10, 26 and 250 subjects respectively), which only goes to show how little this has been studied. But it seems like we probably do touch our faces way more than we might think, and my guess is that kids do it even more than the average. Furthermore, changing such ingrained habits may be next to impossible to achieve (especially in the case of kids). And yet that is exactly what we are being asked to do.
So, put away that mask (next to useless, we are told), and tie your hands behind your back. If that is not a practicable option for you, then wear a mask, so that when you do touch your face you don't touch your nose or mouth. Oh, wait, we're being told that masks are useless, and we should not be using them.
Like I say, we're doomed...
Friday, February 28, 2020
"Dord" really should be a word
But it's not.
"Dord" did, however, find its way into the 1934 edition of Merriam's New International Dictionary, where it stayed until the next edition was published in 1947. Apparently, rge error arose due to a note card by a Merriam's chemistry consultant indicating that density has two possible abbreviations, D or d. And, lo, "dord" was born.
It's a lovely story, and places "dord in the rarefied company of other dictionary errors and ghost words like like "hink", "kime", "adventine", "dentize", "foupe" and "morse".
But they really should be words.
"Dord" did, however, find its way into the 1934 edition of Merriam's New International Dictionary, where it stayed until the next edition was published in 1947. Apparently, rge error arose due to a note card by a Merriam's chemistry consultant indicating that density has two possible abbreviations, D or d. And, lo, "dord" was born.
It's a lovely story, and places "dord in the rarefied company of other dictionary errors and ghost words like like "hink", "kime", "adventine", "dentize", "foupe" and "morse".
But they really should be words.
Discharged gay art teacher wins $100,000 settlement
Stacy Bailey, a Texas art teacher, twice voted teacher of the year, was put on "administrative leave" (i.e. temporarily laid off, but with pay and benefits intact) by Mansfield Independent School District, near Fort Worth, Texas. The reason? Complaints from a single homophobic parent, who was incensed that Ms. Bailey had the temerity to share a humorous picture of herself and her then fiancée, Julie Vasquez.
But Ms. Bailey stood up for herself, and has just won a court case and received a $100,000 settlement. The eight-month leave has been expunged from her record, and Mansfield ISB is to receive mandatory training on LGBTQ issues. Ms. Bailey still teaches at Lake Ridge High School, and she and Ms. Vasquez are now happily married. She donated part of her settlement to a local non-profit organization that deals with LGBTQ issues, as did her lawyer out of his reduced fees. The school board is left with egg on its face, and the disgruntled parent is ... probably just as disgruntled and intolerant as ever.
But Ms. Bailey stood up for herself, and has just won a court case and received a $100,000 settlement. The eight-month leave has been expunged from her record, and Mansfield ISB is to receive mandatory training on LGBTQ issues. Ms. Bailey still teaches at Lake Ridge High School, and she and Ms. Vasquez are now happily married. She donated part of her settlement to a local non-profit organization that deals with LGBTQ issues, as did her lawyer out of his reduced fees. The school board is left with egg on its face, and the disgruntled parent is ... probably just as disgruntled and intolerant as ever.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Scotland first to provide free sanitary products for women
Today, Scotland became the first country to make feminine menstrual products like tampons and sanitary pads absolutely free.
In a move that even the progressive countries of Scandinavia have not got around to, Scotland's parliament voted 112-0 (with one abstention) to make sanitary products freely available at pharmacies, community centres and youth clubs, at an annual cost of over $30 million. The bill still has to pass the second stage, where amendments can be made, but it is expected to pass unopposed.
It follows a bill in 2018 that provided free sanitary products in schools, colleges and universities.
In a move that even the progressive countries of Scandinavia have not got around to, Scotland's parliament voted 112-0 (with one abstention) to make sanitary products freely available at pharmacies, community centres and youth clubs, at an annual cost of over $30 million. The bill still has to pass the second stage, where amendments can be made, but it is expected to pass unopposed.
It follows a bill in 2018 that provided free sanitary products in schools, colleges and universities.