The idea that CERB basic income payments *caused* an increase in population overdose deaths isn't an idea that deserves analysis, but humour me? What if we applied some of Bradford Hill's criteria of causation?

THREAD.

(Spoiler: It makes the notion even more ridiculous)

Temporality?

If CERB caused an increase in fatal ODs, the program had to come *before* the increase. The surge clearly started in *March*.

Compared to Feb:
AB: 43%⬆️
BC: 53%⬆️
ON: 19%⬆️

You couldn't even apply for CERB till *April 6*, and payments didn't come till mid-April.

Dose-response?

In causal relationships, there's⬆️incidence where there's⬆️exposure.

In April when people started getting CERB OD deaths went up in:
AB by 26%
BC by 4.3%
ON by 29%

But the proportion of people getting CERB was statistically *the same* (~23.5%) in each province.

Coherence with established evidence?

The literature shows financial *insecurity*, not financial support, contributes to higher risk substance use and poorer health outcomes. The "CERB made ODs go up" narrative isn't just inconsistent with the science. It's *opposite* to it.

More plausible than other explanations?

The mechanism suggested for the "CERB effect" is that when you give extra money to people previously living on less than we need to survive (that's the *actual* problem), they buy a bunch of drugs and die. So fatality rates go up.