Bank of Canada Rate Decision December 2021 | Page 5 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Bank of Canada Rate Decision December 2021
December 21, 2021
6:51 pm
Vatox
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1116
Member Since:
October 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just a note, on the dark side, more infections and faster transmission, means higher probability for a worse mutation.sf-surprised

December 21, 2021
9:57 pm
HermanH
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 296
Member Since:
April 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Vatox said
Just a note, on the dark side, more infections and faster transmission, means higher probability for a worse mutation.sf-surprised  

That is faulty reasoning. There is absolutely no way to know if any mutation will be better, worse, or neutral.

December 21, 2021
11:14 pm
Vatox
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1116
Member Since:
October 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HermanH said

That is faulty reasoning. There is absolutely no way to know if any mutation will be better, worse, or neutral.  

I said probability! That means that the more opportunities the virus has to mutate, the more chances that a new mutation could be worse.

December 21, 2021
11:35 pm
HermanH
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 296
Member Since:
April 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There are exactly the same number of chances that it could be neutral or 'better'.

December 22, 2021
5:08 am
mordko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 102
Member Since:
April 27, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HermanH said
There are exactly the same number of chances that it could be neutral or 'better'.  

As the virus mutates, variants with the following characteristics will have an advantage:
1. The ones which transmit to unvaxed more efficiently (higher R number).
2. The ones which keep the host more infectious for longer.

Because of the second characteristic, variants with milder symptoms will have evolutionary advantages.

So, the chances of future dominant variants being less severe are actually higher.

December 22, 2021
6:23 am
savemoresaveoften
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 868
Member Since:
March 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My completely non scientific thoughts:

1) Virus needs to mutate so they can continue their survival against vaccines, etc
2) They either mutate to something more deadly OR
3) They mutate in a such a way so it can be more infectious but at the expense of potency

Since mutation to a more deadly version just kills more hosts which is counter intuitive to the ultimate goal of survival of the virus, a virus opt for option 3.

Lets hope so and we can move closer to normal once again.

December 22, 2021
9:21 am
Vatox
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1116
Member Since:
October 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This article is a perfect prelude to omicron and future variants. The key is the statement that genetic errors are made while the virus replicates and viruses replicate in infected bodies. More infected bodies means more opportunities for mutation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/10/18/coronavirus-mutations/

December 22, 2021
10:34 am
Kidd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 816
Member Since:
February 27, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
December 22, 2021
10:55 am
AltaRed
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1602
Member Since:
October 27, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

ON should also report on a per 100,000 basis for a 'best' representation, i.e. the spread in the numbers would be even more dramatic.

That said, the first two data sets, currently in ICU and in hospital are helpful reference points.

December 22, 2021
10:59 am
savemoresaveoften
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 868
Member Since:
March 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kidd said
dec-22.jpg

https://data.ontario.ca/en/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ontario  

With over 80% fully vaccinated, the covid cases being 4X higher for full vaccinated is as expected.
Its made clear by officials that the vaccine protects the person from serious illness, not 100% immune to the virus.

Will be interesting if the stat is available to show how many tested positive ends up in hospital for the 2 groups. Or hospitalization are the majority of people who does not even "bother" to take a test at the onset of the symptoms.

This thread is getting off topic.... I will say BoC's plan to raise rates will not change unless the omicron unfolding to be way worse with national lockdown needed. Then first hike wont happen in Jan or Mar...

December 22, 2021
11:02 am
Kidd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 816
Member Since:
February 27, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

AltaRed said
ON should also report on a per 100,000 basis for a 'best' representation, i.e. the spread in the numbers would be even more dramatic.

That said, the first two data sets, currently in ICU and in hospital are helpful reference points.  

Actually, the currently in ICU are NOT a reference point. An ICU stay lasts weeks, not days or hours. Those 83 unvaccinated in ICU may be the same 83 as 2 weeks ago.

December 22, 2021
11:04 am
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2733
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Among various points the October Washington Post article provided above also does mention is what some are saying here: "Pathogens that incapacitate their victims will not be as successful, typically, as those that are less “virulent” and allow the infected person to keep moving around and spreading the virus." Of course anything can happen but it's hopeful to know what "typically" happens. And the more than 200 common cold viruses have been around a long time without more lethal mutations taking over so hopefully this thing gets down to that highly transmissible, everybody-gets-it but not dangerous state, and stays there too.

Kidd's Dec 22 data is interesting to me in that 3/4 of those infected had their two doses, so that's not much less than % of Ontarians who've had two doses. Suggests vaccines don't do much to stop infection, maybe immunity wears off fast.

Exactly, hospitalizations and ICU stats show results of infections a week or more ago while the third set of data is what's happening re infections now.

December 22, 2021
11:25 am
HermanH
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 296
Member Since:
April 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Vatox said
More infected bodies means more opportunities for mutation.

Exactly. That is all infection means, more opportunity for mutation. There is no bias towards more or less severe outcomes.

December 22, 2021
12:00 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7659
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I found this article helpful. I only took one course in microbiology, and none in virology. It was a long time ago and I've forgotten most of it.

https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-viruses-mutate-and-create-new-variants

December 22, 2021
12:32 pm
RetirEd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 195
Member Since:
November 18, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Norman1 quoted:

RetirEd said
The media and politicians (for whom I have considerable respect - I'm no elite-basher) have switched to talking about lower hospital occupancy rates. But the high spreading rares and low morbigity/mortality mean we have entirely given up on actually eradicating the pandemic.

Norman1 said
That's not the situation at all. They are talking about slowing the spread and the hospitalizations instead of eradication because that's all that can be done in the coming weeks.

That was exactly what I said, Norman1. That's all that can be done in the coming weeks (until new vaccines are available) so we HAVE to give up on eradication for now.

Similarly, vaccine protection from transmission (rather than illness) dropped significantly with the arrival of the Delta variant, and probably with Omicron as well. Both variants multiply incredibly quickly, so it seems initial infections in vaccinated people can still spread to others while the host body amplifies its antibody response.

We all need to keep in mind what those %-protection numbers mean - read the study parameters carefully! They are never the percentage of vaccinated population that never gets the pathogen. Most of the time, they are either infection rates or morbidity/mortality rates RELATIVE to unvaccinated people.

Those RELATIVE numbers cannot be compared easily to older studies because the infectious environment around us has changed with time as the pandemic has progressed. There is a lot more virus out there to come into contact with.

My bottom line: even before Omicron, our stats had turned the wrong way. Why? Pick among...
- vaccine efficacy waning
- personal vigilance waning
(mask wearing, quality and maintenance of masks, sanitizing)
- health-care and support workers burning out or dropping out
- mask and vaccine mandates starting to relax (some provinces)
- travel restrictions loosening
- social restrictions loosening
> bars open
> schools open
> family events reopening (weddings, funerals, kid-ceremonies)
> mass sports events resuming
> mass entertainment events resuming

I'm sure everyone can add other items to this list. Things are going very wrong. Be obsessive in all you do for now. Some provinces are still going ahead with wide-open holiday gift-giving season commerce.

(While I'm typing this, Oaken gave me a "welcome call" making sure I know about the rate increase this week. I made sure to ask about offers hedging rate increases. No escalators, cashables or rate-reset products are currently in the works, but if we keep asking they'll know what's needed. I dropped a load in their savings account a month ago but am not ready to lock anything in yet.)
RetirEd

December 22, 2021
12:50 pm
Vatox
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1116
Member Since:
October 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HermanH said

Vatox said
More infected bodies means more opportunities for mutation.

Exactly. That is all infection means, more opportunity for mutation. There is no bias towards more or less severe outcomes.  

The bias either way isn’t my argument. My argument is that giving the virus opportunities and more of them has a higher probability for problematic mutations. And that’s playing with fire. Loonie’s article points that out. Since we have already had a number of variants causing concern, Its obvious that another will surface.

December 22, 2021
1:36 pm
Kidd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 816
Member Since:
February 27, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here's a, What if...

If the "vaccinated" are getting covid (testing positive) more than the "unvaccinated" maybe those who took the two shots have ruined their immunity system?

December 22, 2021
2:14 pm
AltaRed
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1602
Member Since:
October 27, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kidd said

Actually, the currently in ICU are NOT a reference point. An ICU stay lasts weeks, not days or hours. Those 83 unvaccinated in ICU may be the same 83 as 2 weeks ago.  

Perhaps for that particular measure, I can agree although over time it will show up. But for that last measure, new active cases per 100,000 would be a more appropriate measure. Then the erroneous conclusion in post #97 wouldn't have been written. When some 90% of the population is double vaccinated, the breakthrough cases will start to add up to more than active cases among the unvaccinated.

BC provides some data on a 'per 100,000' basis to compare data on the same reference point. https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/355215/BC-announces-1308-new-coronavirus-cases-138-in-Interior-Health It is pretty clear the unvaccinated are the problem. No surprise.

December 22, 2021
2:47 pm
Vatox
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1116
Member Since:
October 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kidd said
Here's a, What if...

If the "vaccinated" are getting covid (testing positive) more than the "unvaccinated" maybe those who took the two shots have ruined their immunity system?  

Could be, I think it’s more likely that vaccinated people are taking more risks and government restrictions have allowed vaccinated people into the riskier situations and not the unvaccinated. Restaurants, gatherings, events have all required vaccination proof to enter and that’s the exposure.

December 22, 2021
3:00 pm
Kidd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 816
Member Since:
February 27, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Vatox, i honestly do like the logic used in your reply (post 99). 2 thumbs up.

No permission to create posts

Please write your comments in the forum.