it appears that dominic raab will become the prime minister on the event of boris johnson dying. they'll need to prorogue parliament, if it isn't already suspended, but the party has been clear on who it is deputizing, and who it will present to the queen, when she calls on the tories to form the next government.

but, how permanent that position is would up to the tories, themselves. they may choose to have a leadership process immediately after the pandemic is over, or might push it for a bit. but, dominic raab will need to win an election for party leader to remain prime minister, and will be expected by everybody to do so as quickly as is feasible.

this is complete nonsense.

the prime minister is not a separate executive office in canada the way that it is in the united states, so the question of "who becomes prime minister if trudeau dies?" is largely incoherent, in form. the prime minister is really just exactly that - the lead minister in the government, which means the leader of the sitting ruling party.

so, there would not be a process to find a new prime minister, there would be a process to find a new leader of the liberal party. this would be a temporary, interim position, due to the inability to launch a leadership process on short notice.

the governor-general would be then called on to invite the leader of the ruling party to form a new government, if there is confidence that they can pass a budget. but, the governor general does not make the choice as to who the leader of the party is, the party does.

so, the first thing that would need to be done would be for the party to name an interim leader, and the second thing that would need to be done would be for the governor-general to invite that interim leader to form a government, if there is confidence that they can pass a budget.

so, would this be a temporary or interim position, then? well, it would be relative to an upcoming leadership process. it's not the unwritten constitutional principles that determine the longevity of the position, it's the internal political processes within the parties, themselves. i suppose that the party might choose to forego a leadership process, or that the elevated candidate may run opposed, but a cabinet member cannot somehow inherit or be donned with party leadership, there needs to be an actual vote.

and, i will repeat that it would be widely expected that anybody that is intending to run for the leadership after the interim period would step down during the selection process, so as to not exert undue influence over it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6790626/coronavirus-trudeau-prime-minister-sick/

so, i'm not going to spend much time on this, it's the same propaganda we've seen elsewhere, but i just want to make some brief comments about the modelling, which is presented in a little more detail than elsewhere.

first, it should be pointed out that there's a large testing deficit in ontario, and any flattening effects seen on the curve are likely a relic of the fragmented data. if ontario was testing at the rates that quebec is, it would probably have actually found even more cases than quebec, and as ontario is such a large proportion of canada's population, testing lags in ontario will decisively effect the overall numbers. this is data that is known to be suspect, and canada's curve on that graph should be far more linear than is being presented.

second, i want to make a conceptual critique of the modelling in terms of how it understands the way the curves adjust to the different scenarios, or at least suggests that it does via it's use of pictorial aids. maybe i'm just correcting the props; i'd have to look deeper into it to know. the first option, where nothing is done at all, should indeed lead to a ramp up to a 70% infection rate fairly quickly, and then see a rapid drop in cases as the virus is unable to spread further in immune hosts - that's the benefit of herd immunity, and the graphic representation does capture that. however, the pictorial representations of the second and third options, where increasing amount of restrictions are applied, suggest the strict trail off achieved with herd immunity, while attempting to explicitly prevent it. again: i can't be sure what the formulas actually were. but, the pictorial representations of the graph should have had a plateau for the second graph, rather than a peak, and the third option should have had a long and sustained plateau, followed by an eventual trail-off, many months into the future. the reason these plateaus will kick in is that immunity will continue to be rare, and they will essentially stay in place for as long as it takes to actually get to 70%, meaning the number of actual cases is not lower, due to the onset of the sustained plateau.

see, and now we're getting some confusing messaging, then, because the graphical presentation of the data suggests that we can expect this to be over in the same time frame as though we'd done nothing, despite intentionally trying to slow down immunity, thereby stretching out the process.

....except that i actually don't think we're on the third curve. i think we're actually on the first one.

so, this is actually going to be a good signal to determine which model is more reflective of reality. if we see a sustained plateau in the number of deaths, we will know that it's because the effects are slowing the spread - and that it's going to take months to ease up. if we see a continual rise, a peak and sharp drop, we'll know that we had no effect on this thing at all, as it ripped through us at will, and burned itself out.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/using-data-modelling-inform-eng.pdf

it may be useful to control the number of bats, actually.

that's probably something the chinese should seriously look into.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/27/opinions/pangolin-coronavirus-pandemic-breiman/

so, what's my take on this?

living on the boundary of the empire may make us sometimes forget what the drawbacks of being behind the limes actually are, and perhaps lull us into a false sense of equivalency with conditions within the empire itself. we are so close to the heart of the empire, and we enjoy so many privileges as a result of it, but we are not within it's borders and there are ramifications of this.

the united states is not historically unique in it's ability to create money at will, this privilege has been enjoyed by other hegemonic states, but it is a rare and powerful privilege that satellite states like canada do not have, in the current financial system. nobody can or will tell the united states how much money to create, or what to do with it. canada, however, is subject to severe levels of discipline through the ratings agency system if it creates money at too great a rate, and these levels of discipline can be quite degrading - we're talking about forced market liberalization of government services, in order to raise equity for the interest payments.

i am an advocate of canadian sovereignty, and because of that, i need to clearly state that canada would be wise to avoid giving these international (but american dominated) bodies like the imf too much of an excuse to involve themselves in our public financing. we want these people to stay far away.

so, i realize that the question of correctly balancing the federal canadian debt load with our ability to generate revenue and our ability to pay down interest, both of which are suffering very badly right now, is in truth of great importance in maintaining our public infrastructure, in the long run.

stated simply: if we fuck up our debt-to-gdp ratio too badly on this, the imf is going to swoop in and privatize everything, which is game over for the country.

this doesn't mean i'm not an advocate of mmt, or that i think deficits actually matter in any serious macroeconomic way. i'm not buying into any of the neo-liberal arguments around this. at all. i'm just pointing out the severity of the disciplinary process. you can disagree with your master intellectually, while realizing the severity of the consequences for disobeying orders.

further, i don't want to make it seem like we should be pushing austerity at this point. being aware of where the limits are means realizing that the country does have a lot of space to play with, and isn't in risk of going bankrupt any time soon.

the reality is that the idea of sending large monthly checks to everybody in a time when revenue is low to non-existent is one that needs to be very carefully analyzed in terms of where it would leave our debt-to-gdp ratio, and because we are a satellite of the empire, we need to abide by the rules in place for satellite states, rather than the rules in place for the empire itself.

for that reason, i would support an immediate ubi in the united states, even as i call for careful budgeting in canada.

i'm not discounting the possibility that the ubi may emerge as the most effective method. one argument that i've seen david graeber promote repeatedly is that the government will actually save money by getting rid of the costly bureaucracy around needs-testing; i don't want to make guesses or reason through this, i want to see somebody actually do the math, and i don't have access to the stats, myself. this is a claim, and it may be true in specific contexts, but i'll let the experts tell me - how much is it costing to administer the program, and are there cost savings attached to administering the program, rather than handing out universal checks?

one of the arguments i've heard directly from the government is that some workers could be getting closer to $4,000/month under the emergency benefit, so moving to a flat benefit would lead to them getting less money, which could be catastrophic if they, for example, have children, or rent that is close to or higher than $2,000/month. the marxist in me wants to ensure that these people get what they need, and, in this case, it would be more than the amount being floated around; a ubi, in context, would have to be closer to $5,000/month to be implementable, and then there's little question that there are cost-savings in running the bureaucracy.

a more pertinent question may be whether a ubi-like payment may be the more efficient way to reach people that don't qualify, in addition to the programs that have been set up. if they just gave everybody below some poverty line ($20,000?) a $2000/month monthly check for however long this lasts, that may be more cost-effective than setting up additional programs, and the total payout may be manageable in the broader context. some people might get a little more than they need, but these will be people with very little, to begin with.

what i want them to do is actually find the right numbers and do the right calculations and see what the correct deductions are.

but, if they do this, please realize that the most likely outcome is an additional bursary program in addition to the existing payout schemes, and not something to replace it - it's not just the poor that are getting hit, it's also people with mortgages and salaried jobs, and they can't pay their bills on $2000.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-what-if-cras-emergency-response-benefit-amid-pandemic-is-a-mistake/

so, it looks like some places are actually going to peak this week, which is more in line with my own projections.

we have an open question in front of us - has the transmission rate reduced because we've successfully reduced the spread during lockdown, or is the virus in truth running completely rampant and beyond our control, and actually burning out due to running up against herd immunity? we will need to see which hypothesis better fits the data, now. the health services aren't going to do that, but i will.

the various governments have given you their projections, in order to back up their argument for social distancing. this is generally done by fitting the curve to data in various existing jurisdictions, which introduces all of the specific bias in the various individual systems. this isn't an approach to determine the actual mortality rate via analysis and separation of the data, but rather an attempt to gather as many possible outcomes as possible, in order to create a set of bounds. in this thinking, the best case scenario is the best dataset we have, and the worst case scenario is the worst dataset we have - and careful analyses of biases in each of these specific data sets can happen later.

i think it's fair to state that everybody realizes that all of the data undercounts the number of mild cases, and consequently exaggerates the mortality rate. "canada's data will show those same biases", you say - and you're clearly correct, but that bias will appear in undocumented cases, not in exaggerated deaths.

i am going to rather construct a range of data by performing three simple calculations. this is my very basic model:

1) min range = [total population]*[66.66% infection rate, that is herd immunity]*[0.001]

2) average range = [total population]*[66.66% infection rate, that is herd immunity]*[0.003]

3) maximum range = [total population]*[66.66% infection rate, that is herd immunity]*[0.005]

you can do these calculations yourself, they're easy enough.

herd immunity levels should be empirically determined, not assumed, but the situation is not ideal. so, that's a source of error. some areas that lack resources and get overwhelmed may see numbers closer to the maximum range, which in north america would probably be a statement that relates better to the obese midwestern united states than the relatively healthy coasts, and the comparably fit & athletic canada.

if the data is better fit by my model than the official models, we should conclude that we are not experiencing disruptions in transmission at all, but have pretty much already all got it; that the reason hospitalization rates are going down is that we actually achieved herd immunity exceedingly quickly, despite our best efforts to prevent it. such a realization should have drastic implications for future public health policy.

what are my number of projected deaths in....

1) new york city: (5799, 17398, 28997)  [projection: low end]

2) gta:  (4133, 12399, 20665)   [projection: low end]

3) montreal: (2800, 8399, 13999) [projection: low end]

4) detroit (metro area): (2866, 8599, 14332) [projection: expect something more like the middle number, due to higher comorbidity]

as you know, i've been leaning towards the low side of the calculation, but let's be rigorous here.

and, lets see where the numbers fall.