[magnus]

Unless we tell every person who develops moderate COVID-19 symptoms to take 20 ambien and see us in the next life, sacrificing granny is NOT an effective strategy for the rest of us, either.

Probably the only way out of this pandemic without killing the economy.  Quarantine everyone with severe symptoms in a place and sedate them until they either recover or pass away.

Everyone else will recover, and move on...scarred for life.  Until the virus mutates and hits again. =/

[magnus]

Unless we tell every person who develops moderate COVID-19 symptoms to take 20 ambien and see us in the next life, sacrificing granny is NOT an effective strategy for the rest of us, either.

Probably the only way out of this pandemic without killing the economy.  Quarantine everyone with severe symptoms in a place and sedate them until they either recover or pass away.

Everyone else will recover, and move on...scarred for life.  Until the virus mutates and hits again. =/

[BostonCard]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...cle-link-4



Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.  It's almost like illness saps economic dynamism.

BC

---

And here's the original paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?...id=3561560

What are the economic consequences of an influenza pandemic? And given the pandemic, what are the economic costs and benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI)? Using geographic variation in mortality during the 1918 Flu Pandemic in the U.S., we find that more exposed areas experience a sharp and persistent decline in economic activity. The estimates imply that the pandemic reduced manufacturing output by 18%. The downturn is driven by both supply and demand-side channels. Further, building on findings from the epidemiology literature establishing that NPIs decrease influenza mortality, we use variation in the timing and intensity of NPIs across U.S. cities to study their economic effects. We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over. Our findings thus indicate that NPIs not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...cle-link-4



Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.  It's almost like illness saps economic dynamism.

BC

---

And here's the original paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?...id=3561560

What are the economic consequences of an influenza pandemic? And given the pandemic, what are the economic costs and benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI)? Using geographic variation in mortality during the 1918 Flu Pandemic in the U.S., we find that more exposed areas experience a sharp and persistent decline in economic activity. The estimates imply that the pandemic reduced manufacturing output by 18%. The downturn is driven by both supply and demand-side channels. Further, building on findings from the epidemiology literature establishing that NPIs decrease influenza mortality, we use variation in the timing and intensity of NPIs across U.S. cities to study their economic effects. We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over. Our findings thus indicate that NPIs not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic.

BC

[82 Card]

The CARES Act is a total abomination.

The FED is now buying assets with the Treasury Department (U.S. tax payers) as its co-signer, without our permission.  We get a couple grand and then the pork flies, bailing out terrible industries that deserve to die, creditors who made bad loans, and others deemed too big to fail. Our asset values are crushed and then whatever remaining cash we have is hollowed out by inflation, and we're still on the hook for this debt we didn't authorize.

Everyone should feel a deep sense of betrayal toward our government leaders. They aren't protecting us as much as selling us out.

So what's new?

[82 Card]

The CARES Act is a total abomination.

The FED is now buying assets with the Treasury Department (U.S. tax payers) as its co-signer, without our permission.  We get a couple grand and then the pork flies, bailing out terrible industries that deserve to die, creditors who made bad loans, and others deemed too big to fail. Our asset values are crushed and then whatever remaining cash we have is hollowed out by inflation, and we're still on the hook for this debt we didn't authorize.

Everyone should feel a deep sense of betrayal toward our government leaders. They aren't protecting us as much as selling us out.

So what's new?

[Mick]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:
Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.
BC

Agreed, it's interesting. Unfortunately, China does our manufacturing now. Perhaps they will be the beneficiary of post-pandemic success. Manufacturing is only 8.8% of our GDP at present.

---

This is a false dichotomy. If we did nothing to slow the virus, our healthcare system would be completely overrun, and with it, our economy, but with no easy path back because we'd have no healthcare system. 

Also a false dichotomy.  I didn't say "Do nothing."  Obviously we need to take reasonable steps to avoid the coronavirus.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't about Wall Street, like I've seen a few posters mention on this site.  This is about Main Street.  America is in the process of voluntarily eliminating an enormous portion of its economy, up to 67 million jobs, according to the St. Louis Fed governor.

In an average week, pre-pandemic, about 225k jobless claims were filed.  This week, 3.5 million people filed for unemployment (Edit: the revised initial claim is 6.6 million, see link below).  3.3 million filed for unemployment the week before.  BofA's senior economist says it will be 5.5 million next week.  That's not Wall Street, that's ten million people out of a job on Main Street.  10 million in two weeks.  There are 155.76 million employed in America.  By fall, that number will be under 100 million people.  

I realize most people on this board don't live like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck, or the 40% of America that can't afford an unforeseen $400 expense.  All I'm saying is that it didn't have to be that way.  We didn't have to kill the next generation.

See you at the riots in September...

[Mick]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:
Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.
BC

Agreed, it's interesting. Unfortunately, China does our manufacturing now. Perhaps they will be the beneficiary of post-pandemic success. Manufacturing is only 8.8% of our GDP at present.

---

This is a false dichotomy. If we did nothing to slow the virus, our healthcare system would be completely overrun, and with it, our economy, but with no easy path back because we'd have no healthcare system. 

Also a false dichotomy.  I didn't say "Do nothing."  Obviously we need to take reasonable steps to avoid the coronavirus.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't about Wall Street, like I've seen a few posters mention on this site.  This is about Main Street.  America is in the process of voluntarily eliminating an enormous portion of its economy, up to 67 million jobs, according to the St. Louis Fed governor.

In an average week, pre-pandemic, about 225k jobless claims were filed.  This week, 3.5 million people filed for unemployment (Edit: the revised initial claim is 6.6 million, see link below).  3.3 million filed for unemployment the week before.  BofA's senior economist says it will be 5.5 million next week.  That's not Wall Street, that's ten million people out of a job on Main Street.  10 million in two weeks.  There are 155.76 million employed in America.  By fall, that number will be under 100 million people.  

I realize most people on this board don't live like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck, or the 40% of America that can't afford an unforeseen $400 expense.  All I'm saying is that it didn't have to be that way.  We didn't have to kill the next generation.

See you at the riots in September...

[2006alum]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:
Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.
BC

Agreed, it's interesting.  Unfortunately, China does our manufacturing now.  Perhaps they will be the beneficiary of post-pandemic success.  Manufacturing is only 8.8% of our GDP at present.

---

This is a false dichotomy. If we did nothing to slow the virus, our healthcare system would be completely overrun, and with it, our economy, but with no easy path back because we'd have no healthcare system. 

Also a false dichotomy.  I didn't say "Do nothing."  Obviously we need to take reasonable steps to avoid the coronavirus.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't about Wall Street, like I've seen a few posters mention on this site.  This is about Main Street.  America is in the process of voluntarily eliminating an enormous portion of its economy, up to 67 million jobs, according to the St. Louis Fed governor.

In an average week, pre-pandemic, about 225k jobless claims were filed.  This week, 3.5 million people filed for unemployment (Edit: the revised initial claim is 6.6 million, see link below).  3.3 million filed for unemployment the week before.  BofA's senior economist says it will be 5.5 million next week.  That's not Wall Street, that's ten million people out of a job on Main Street.  10 million in two weeks.  There are 155.76 million employed in America.  By fall, that number will be under 100 million people.  

I realize most people on this board don't live like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck, or the 40% of America that can't afford an unforeseen $400 expense.  All I'm saying is that it didn't have to be that way.  We didn't have to kill the next generation.

See you at the riots in September...

Mick, whether or not any one of us on this board "live[s] like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck," it's probably safe to assume we all have friends and family who do, since, as you say, it's half the country. So nothing you are saying is something you are uniquely positioned to have awareness of vis-a-vis the rest of us.

However, for all you are saying "it didn't have to be this way," I've yet to hear from you a clear, concrete, and detailed proposal for what way it could/should have been instead. That's what I don't get. Tell me precisely what you think we should have done instead. 

The only countries to have avoided pretty severe lockdowns are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong (and possibly Sweden -- jury is still out). Those countries have done widespread testing, fever checks to enter just about anywhere public establishment, insanely effective social contact tracing, and mandatory and widespread isolation for even those potentially exposed to someone who was diagnosed. 

And if that's what you think we should be doing instead, I'm surprised you aren't joining the chorus of the rest of us who have been practically screaming at the ineptitude of our country's leadership, for failing to roll out tests, then for lying that "anyone who wants a test can get tested," and now for dismissing the importance of testing altogether. Six weeks ago the leader of our country said that it was "just 15 cases and they'll go away any day now." That statement reflected the honest thinking of our nation's leader about how important it was to be prepared for this.

I would think you'd have lamented, repeatedly, as several others of us have, how one of the most important interim measures will be developing and deploying a rapid antibody test so that we can at least determine who has (potential short-term) immunity to resume normal activities. 

And I would have thought you'd be apoplectic that the Trump Administration shipped 18 tons of PPE to China in mid-February because apparently our country's leadership didn't anticipate any possibility we'd need it here in the United States. Without effective PPE, our frontline medical providers will be sitting ducks, and with them anyone who needs to use the hospital for any reason.

So I guess, tl;dr, tell me what you think we should be doing instead that isn't what I've just outlined, and what many of us have been crying out about over the past month?

[2006alum]

Interesting lessons from the 1918 flu pandemic:
Basically, states that had stricter social distancing policies had the highest growth in manufacturing activity.
BC

Agreed, it's interesting.  Unfortunately, China does our manufacturing now.  Perhaps they will be the beneficiary of post-pandemic success.  Manufacturing is only 8.8% of our GDP at present.

---

This is a false dichotomy. If we did nothing to slow the virus, our healthcare system would be completely overrun, and with it, our economy, but with no easy path back because we'd have no healthcare system. 

Also a false dichotomy.  I didn't say "Do nothing."  Obviously we need to take reasonable steps to avoid the coronavirus.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't about Wall Street, like I've seen a few posters mention on this site.  This is about Main Street.  America is in the process of voluntarily eliminating an enormous portion of its economy, up to 67 million jobs, according to the St. Louis Fed governor.

In an average week, pre-pandemic, about 225k jobless claims were filed.  This week, 3.5 million people filed for unemployment (Edit: the revised initial claim is 6.6 million, see link below).  3.3 million filed for unemployment the week before.  BofA's senior economist says it will be 5.5 million next week.  That's not Wall Street, that's ten million people out of a job on Main Street.  10 million in two weeks.  There are 155.76 million employed in America.  By fall, that number will be under 100 million people.  

I realize most people on this board don't live like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck, or the 40% of America that can't afford an unforeseen $400 expense.  All I'm saying is that it didn't have to be that way.  We didn't have to kill the next generation.

See you at the riots in September...

Mick, whether or not any one of us on this board "live[s] like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck," it's probably safe to assume we all have friends and family who do, since, as you say, it's half the country. So nothing you are saying is something you are uniquely positioned to have awareness of vis-a-vis the rest of us.

However, for all you are saying "it didn't have to be this way," I've yet to hear from you a clear, concrete, and detailed proposal for what way it could/should have been instead. That's what I don't get. Tell me precisely what you think we should have done instead. 

The only countries to have avoided pretty severe lockdowns are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong (and possibly Sweden -- jury is still out). Those countries have done widespread testing, fever checks to enter just about anywhere public establishment, insanely effective social contact tracing, and mandatory and widespread isolation for even those potentially exposed to someone who was diagnosed. 

And if that's what you think we should be doing instead, I'm surprised you aren't joining the chorus of the rest of us who have been practically screaming at the ineptitude of our country's leadership, for failing to roll out tests, then for lying that "anyone who wants a test can get tested," and now for dismissing the importance of testing altogether. Six weeks ago the leader of our country said that it was "just 15 cases and they'll go away any day now." That statement reflected the honest thinking of our nation's leader about how important it was to be prepared for this.

I would think you'd have lamented, repeatedly, as several others of us have, how one of the most important interim measures will be developing and deploying a rapid antibody test so that we can at least determine who has (potential short-term) immunity to resume normal activities. 

And I would have thought you'd be apoplectic that the Trump Administration shipped 18 tons of PPE to China in mid-February because apparently our country's leadership didn't anticipate any possibility we'd need it here in the United States. Without effective PPE, our frontline medical providers will be sitting ducks, and with them anyone who needs to use the hospital for any reason.

So I guess, tl;dr, tell me what you think we should be doing instead that isn't what I've just outlined, and what many of us have been crying out about over the past month?

[stupac2]

Mick, you're repeatedly saying that we didn't have to do this, but then not offering an alternative. What is the alternative? Because if you're suggesting just continuing on and letting the virus spread like wildfire, that would've been far worse economically. There have already been a number of links suggesting that, but here's one about a survey of top economists about ending social distancing early. They're basically unanimous in disapproval.

The sad truth is that the only way we could've prevented the economy from experiencing some type of dramatic shock was early and effective action like the non-China SARS countries. We didn't do that, and now there's no choice but to see lots of death and lots of economic pain. The question is just how much of each, and while it's not totally clear how isolation policies will affect the latter, it's very very clear how they'll affect the former. They must be maintained.

And, by the way, I'm hardly immune to this. I work for a small business that supplies scientific instruments to companies. We've already had a lot of orders delayed indefinitely and I'm sure new orders are drying up. If this goes on until June I might be SOL. But if it goes until June it'll be for a damn good reason and I'll still support it.

[stupac2]

Mick, you're repeatedly saying that we didn't have to do this, but then not offering an alternative. What is the alternative? Because if you're suggesting just continuing on and letting the virus spread like wildfire, that would've been far worse economically. There have already been a number of links suggesting that, but here's one about a survey of top economists about ending social distancing early. They're basically unanimous in disapproval.

The sad truth is that the only way we could've prevented the economy from experiencing some type of dramatic shock was early and effective action like the non-China SARS countries. We didn't do that, and now there's no choice but to see lots of death and lots of economic pain. The question is just how much of each, and while it's not totally clear how isolation policies will affect the latter, it's very very clear how they'll affect the former. They must be maintained.

And, by the way, I'm hardly immune to this. I work for a small business that supplies scientific instruments to companies. We've already had a lot of orders delayed indefinitely and I'm sure new orders are drying up. If this goes on until June I might be SOL. But if it goes until June it'll be for a damn good reason and I'll still support it.

[OutsiderFan]

All problems start with debt. Some amount of debt actually makes some sense, but bailing out lenders is bad policy. When you have a system that bails out lenders and also allows government to perpetually sink further into debt, you have the recipe for disaster.

The larger the credit bubbles are allowed to get, the more pain there will be when they burst. They, and recessions are akin to earthquakes.  Nobody wants them, but the longer it takes for them to happen before pressure is relieved, the more damage they will do.

As for Main Street, it's always about creating incentives to drive desired behavior. People must be given incentives to buy locally. The problem is governments have allowed companies to get too big and efficient, so they can outcompete Main Street on price. This has been an issue ever since Walmart started shipping its manufacturing to China in the 1980s. The only thing that grows unchecked is cancer, so we need anti-trust laws to be enforced at scale, to limit how big corporations can be. We need the tax code to reward labor not capital.  We need to eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions and/or increase contributions by 1%.  We need a carbon tax.  We need a national health care system that rids employers of the cost of paying for everyone's health care, and mandates everyone buys their own individual health coverage plan. We need to reduce income inequality.

So many things can be done to re-engineer the economy to be more robust and healthy, and provide more safety nets, so we don't end up adding what, $5 Trillion to our debt in a year, while watching Main Street get decimated anyway. Failing is part of life. Businesses simply must be allowed to fail like forests need to burn to allow new growth. But the system can't be set up so if you are giant you get saved and if you are small you die.

What we see now is the product of a horribly designed system revealing all its faults. But you know who's at fault?  We are.  We allowed it to happen. by being more concerned with petty political squabbles and our own lives than actual policy and the greater good of our society.

[OutsiderFan]

All problems start with debt. Some amount of debt actually makes some sense, but bailing out lenders is bad policy. When you have a system that bails out lenders and also allows government to perpetually sink further into debt, you have the recipe for disaster.

The larger the credit bubbles are allowed to get, the more pain there will be when they burst. They, and recessions are akin to earthquakes.  Nobody wants them, but the longer it takes for them to happen before pressure is relieved, the more damage they will do.

As for Main Street, it's always about creating incentives to drive desired behavior. People must be given incentives to buy locally. The problem is governments have allowed companies to get too big and efficient, so they can outcompete Main Street on price. This has been an issue ever since Walmart started shipping its manufacturing to China in the 1980s. The only thing that grows unchecked is cancer, so we need anti-trust laws to be enforced at scale, to limit how big corporations can be. We need the tax code to reward labor not capital.  We need to eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions and/or increase contributions by 1%.  We need a carbon tax.  We need a national health care system that rids employers of the cost of paying for everyone's health care, and mandates everyone buys their own individual health coverage plan. We need to reduce income inequality.

So many things can be done to re-engineer the economy to be more robust and healthy, and provide more safety nets, so we don't end up adding what, $5 Trillion to our debt in a year, while watching Main Street get decimated anyway. Failing is part of life. Businesses simply must be allowed to fail like forests need to burn to allow new growth. But the system can't be set up so if you are giant you get saved and if you are small you die.

What we see now is the product of a horribly designed system revealing all its faults. But you know who's at fault?  We are.  We allowed it to happen. by being more concerned with petty political squabbles and our own lives than actual policy and the greater good of our society.

[Mick]

Mick, whether or not any one of us on this board "live[s] like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck," it's probably safe to assume we all have friends and family who do, since, as you say, it's half the country. So nothing you are saying is something you are uniquely positioned to have awareness of vis-a-vis the rest of us.

I agree, I shouldn't have that unique awareness, but my perspective is different than yours.  But awareness doesn't matter.  After all, you're aware of it as a statistic, perhaps some of your best friends may even be in that 51% (doubt it), but you and others similarly situated clearly don't care about the misery of that lesser half.  

I think remaining and future generations are more important than us short-timers.  Clearly, you and other well-off people who can withstand an economic downturn do not.

However, for all you are saying "it didn't have to be this way," I've yet to hear from you a clear, concrete, and detailed proposal for what way it could/should have been instead. That's what I don't get. Tell me precisely what you think we should have done instead. 

The steps we are currently taking make sense to me only if we expect 50 million+ dead.  But it's a small fraction of that.  We stopped economic activity in its tracks to a degree that few understand.  And the pronouncement of the St. Louis Fed Governor who stated that we would bounce back quickly was nonsensical, though it is the clear expectation of everyone who supported stopping the economy in its tracks.  Businesses that required a lifetime of investment and effort are gone.  It is highly unlikely that they will return.  That will be the norm.

Economists projected, after layoffs increased from an average of 225k to 3.3 million that the next week would be 3.5 million.  SURPRISE.  Turned out to be nearly twice that, 6.6 million.  Gee.  Who could have seen that coming?

Everything I see about this virus leads me to believe that we will lose less than 5 million people, probably a fraction of that number, and the losses will be limited to people, frankly, like me.  Old people with lots of comorbidities.

Incidental thought.  Looks like a lot more people like me will be saved from the great hereafter for a while longer.  In the resulting hellish economic environment, who's going to pay for them?

Anti-Trump paragraphs 1-4.  Sorry, just saving space

I don't like Trump any more than you do.  In fact, I can't abide NYC billionaires, so I didn't want Bloomberg or Steyer either.  But I don't need to join a chorus.  I doubt any other administration would have had significantly different results, and in any event, what's done is done.  This economy, and this society will be ruined beyond repair because very-well-off people like you and the economists who depend on solid data (but don't have it) don't understand what they're seeing and don't understand what they're doing.

As far as I'm concerned, the only saving grace to this entire thing is twofold (a) Trump will be voted out of office and (b) Bernie won't be elected -- I don't think so, anyway -- but his soak-the-rich policies will take hold.  They'll have to.  When 60 million people without jobs and with guns look for revenge on people who ruined their livelihoods turn on y'all, it won't be pretty.  At a minimum, AOC-like nitwits will take everything away from rich folks, which, frankly, they will deserve.  At worst, either French Revolution or October Revolution, take your pick.

[Mick]

Mick, whether or not any one of us on this board "live[s] like the 51% of America who live paycheck to paycheck," it's probably safe to assume we all have friends and family who do, since, as you say, it's half the country. So nothing you are saying is something you are uniquely positioned to have awareness of vis-a-vis the rest of us.

I agree, I shouldn't have that unique awareness, but my perspective is different than yours.  But awareness doesn't matter.  After all, you're aware of it as a statistic, perhaps some of your best friends may even be in that 51% (doubt it), but you and others similarly situated clearly don't care about the misery of that lesser half.  

I think remaining and future generations are more important than us short-timers.  Clearly, you and other well-off people who can withstand an economic downturn do not.

However, for all you are saying "it didn't have to be this way," I've yet to hear from you a clear, concrete, and detailed proposal for what way it could/should have been instead. That's what I don't get. Tell me precisely what you think we should have done instead. 

The steps we are currently taking make sense to me only if we expect 50 million+ dead.  But it's a small fraction of that.  We stopped economic activity in its tracks to a degree that few understand.  And the pronouncement of the St. Louis Fed Governor who stated that we would bounce back quickly was nonsensical, though it is the clear expectation of everyone who supported stopping the economy in its tracks.  Businesses that required a lifetime of investment and effort are gone.  It is highly unlikely that they will return.  That will be the norm.

Economists projected, after layoffs increased from an average of 225k to 3.3 million that the next week would be 3.5 million.  SURPRISE.  Turned out to be nearly twice that, 6.6 million.  Gee.  Who could have seen that coming?

Everything I see about this virus leads me to believe that we will lose less than 5 million people, probably a fraction of that number, and the losses will be limited to people, frankly, like me.  Old people with lots of comorbidities.

Incidental thought.  Looks like a lot more people like me will be saved from the great hereafter for a while longer.  In the resulting hellish economic environment, who's going to pay for them?

Anti-Trump paragraphs 1-4.  Sorry, just saving space

I don't like Trump any more than you do.  In fact, I can't abide NYC billionaires, so I didn't want Bloomberg or Steyer either.  But I don't need to join a chorus.  I doubt any other administration would have had significantly different results, and in any event, what's done is done.  This economy, and this society will be ruined beyond repair because very-well-off people like you and the economists who depend on solid data (but don't have it) don't understand what they're seeing and don't understand what they're doing.

As far as I'm concerned, the only saving grace to this entire thing is twofold (a) Trump will be voted out of office and (b) Bernie won't be elected -- I don't think so, anyway -- but his soak-the-rich policies will take hold.  They'll have to.  When 60 million people without jobs and with guns look for revenge on people who ruined their livelihoods turn on y'all, it won't be pretty.  At a minimum, AOC-like nitwits will take everything away from rich folks, which, frankly, they will deserve.  At worst, either French Revolution or October Revolution, take your pick.

[2006alum]

I agree, I shouldn't have that unique awareness, but my perspective is different than yours.  But awareness doesn't matter.  After all, you're aware of it as a statistic, perhaps some of your best friends may even be in that 51% (doubt it), but you and others similarly situated clearly don't care about the misery of that lesser half.  

I think remaining and future generations are more important than us short-timers.  Clearly, you and other well-off people who can withstand an economic downturn do not.

I don't talk about my personal circumstances in this forum, but I have no idea why you think that automatically means I'm well-off and can withstand this economic downturn any better than anyone else. Thanks to student loans, my net worth is many tens of thousands sub-zero. I'm nearly 15 years out of undergrad but due to the nature of my profession, I've never once had a six figure salary. I'd need more than two hands to count the number of friends and relatives who've been furloughed, had to shutter their businesses, and/or who have already reached out to other family members (including me) for financial support. I've spent much of the past 10 days triaging among friends and family to figure out how they can pay their rent/business expenses/life expenses just to to get to May 1. Trust me when I say I am familiar with how bad this already is. Don't assume that because some of us don't choose to talk about it that we aren't also suffering and know, first-hand, how badly hurt others are.

And insofar as I am part of that "remaining and future generation," I have no idea why you think I don't care about my own generation. I just recognize that what hits grandma is also going to hit me, and that we are all in this together. The notion that we can sacrifice the old and ailing while the rest of us skates through is totally unsupported by the data.

But I will return to my main point: nothing in your last post provided your proposed solution. You don't seem to want to offer one. You said earlier you're not saying we should do nothing, but you aren't saying what we should be doing. So unless you want to propose an alternative course, I don't see a lot of value in complaining about the solutions that are being implemented and/or offered.

[2006alum]

I agree, I shouldn't have that unique awareness, but my perspective is different than yours.  But awareness doesn't matter.  After all, you're aware of it as a statistic, perhaps some of your best friends may even be in that 51% (doubt it), but you and others similarly situated clearly don't care about the misery of that lesser half.  

I think remaining and future generations are more important than us short-timers.  Clearly, you and other well-off people who can withstand an economic downturn do not.

I don't talk about my personal circumstances in this forum, but I have no idea why you think that automatically means I'm well-off and can withstand this economic downturn any better than anyone else. Thanks to student loans, my net worth is many tens of thousands sub-zero. I'm nearly 15 years out of undergrad but due to the nature of my profession, I've never once had a six figure salary. I'd need more than two hands to count the number of friends and relatives who've been furloughed, had to shutter their businesses, and/or who have already reached out to other family members (including me) for financial support. I've spent much of the past 10 days triaging among friends and family to figure out how they can pay their rent/business expenses/life expenses just to to get to May 1. Trust me when I say I am familiar with how bad this already is. Don't assume that because some of us don't choose to talk about it that we aren't also suffering and know, first-hand, how badly hurt others are.

And insofar as I am part of that "remaining and future generation," I have no idea why you think I don't care about my own generation. I just recognize that what hits grandma is also going to hit me, and that we are all in this together. The notion that we can sacrifice the old and ailing while the rest of us skates through is totally unsupported by the data.

But I will return to my main point: nothing in your last post provided your proposed solution. You don't seem to want to offer one. You said earlier you're not saying we should do nothing, but you aren't saying what we should be doing. So unless you want to propose an alternative course, I don't see a lot of value in complaining about the solutions that are being implemented and/or offered.

[dabigv13]

Mick, I always thought you were reasonable but this is monstrous. You are proposing we sink the american health care system, and kill a lot of blameless doctors and nurses, for the economy. This requires granting your assumption that the economy even could function, which I think is also clearly wrong.

[dabigv13]

Mick, I always thought you were reasonable but this is monstrous. You are proposing we sink the american health care system, and kill a lot of blameless doctors and nurses, for the economy. This requires granting your assumption that the economy even could function, which I think is also clearly wrong.

[g1313]

I think the alternative being proposed is no social distancing or mandatory business shutdowns. If you assume a 1% fatality rate, and all 327 million people in the US will eventually be infected under this scenario, that's 3.3 million deaths, plus additional deaths from people with other illnesses not being able to get medical care due to an overwhelmed medical system.

If I am reading correctly, he is proposing that it would be better to just accept the 3.3M+ deaths vs the very real economic pain that 50M+ people will be feeling due to business shutdowns. I don't think this is ridiculous or immoral in principle since we make these tradeoffs every day (the economic benefits of driving vs the deaths from automobile accidents, pollution, etc). But everyone can disagree on what the right tradeoff is.

[g1313]

I think the alternative being proposed is no social distancing or mandatory business shutdowns. If you assume a 1% fatality rate, and all 327 million people in the US will eventually be infected under this scenario, that's 3.3 million deaths, plus additional deaths from people with other illnesses not being able to get medical care due to an overwhelmed medical system.

If I am reading correctly, he is proposing that it would be better to just accept the 3.3M+ deaths vs the very real economic pain that 50M+ people will be feeling due to business shutdowns. I don't think this is ridiculous or immoral in principle since we make these tradeoffs every day (the economic benefits of driving vs the deaths from automobile accidents, pollution, etc). But everyone can disagree on what the right tradeoff is.

[2006alum]

I think the alternative being proposed is no social distancing or mandatory business shutdowns. If you assume a 1% fatality rate, and all 327 million people in the US will eventually be infected under this scenario, that's 3.3 million deaths, plus additional deaths from people with other illnesses not being able to get medical care due to an overwhelmed medical system.

If I am reading correctly, he is proposing that it would be better to just accept the 3.3M+ deaths vs the very real economic pain that 50M+ people will be feeling due to business shutdowns. I don't think this is ridiculous or immoral in principle since we make these tradeoffs every day (the economic benefits of driving vs the deaths from automobile accidents, pollution, etc). But everyone can disagree on what the right tradeoff is.

To be clear, an estimated CFR is not inherent to a disease - it depends on treatment and intervention protocols. As countries like Italy are showing, the CFR drastically increases once a medical system cannot adequately treat every seriously ill patient. You're naive if you think it would remain at 1% if left unchecked. Moreover, it also ignores how many other deaths would result from our hospitals' complete inability to adequately care for other sick individuals.

But Mick refuted the "do nothing" option, so I'm still curious to know what the third way proposal would be outside of the public health interventions folks like OF, burger, and I keep imploring for.

[2006alum]

I think the alternative being proposed is no social distancing or mandatory business shutdowns. If you assume a 1% fatality rate, and all 327 million people in the US will eventually be infected under this scenario, that's 3.3 million deaths, plus additional deaths from people with other illnesses not being able to get medical care due to an overwhelmed medical system.

If I am reading correctly, he is proposing that it would be better to just accept the 3.3M+ deaths vs the very real economic pain that 50M+ people will be feeling due to business shutdowns. I don't think this is ridiculous or immoral in principle since we make these tradeoffs every day (the economic benefits of driving vs the deaths from automobile accidents, pollution, etc). But everyone can disagree on what the right tradeoff is.

To be clear, an estimated CFR is not inherent to a disease - it depends on treatment and intervention protocols. As countries like Italy are showing, the CFR drastically increases once a medical system cannot adequately treat every seriously ill patient. You're naive if you think it would remain at 1% if left unchecked. Moreover, it also ignores how many other deaths would result from our hospitals' complete inability to adequately care for other sick individuals.

But Mick refuted the "do nothing" option, so I'm still curious to know what the third way proposal would be outside of the public health interventions folks like OF, burger, and I keep imploring for.

[dabigv13]

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

[dabigv13]

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

[stupac2]

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[stupac2]

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[g1313]

Let me just be clear that my current personal position is that we should be continuing with distancing, and trying to relieve the economic pain that people are feeling through unprecedented levels of disaster relief / "stimulus" funding, and we will pay those consequences later - it seems like there is debate among economists on how much debt becomes a problem, and I don't pretend to be an expert to know, but given the level of disagreement there's probably not a clearly wrong answer.

I'm also aware of the consensus from the UChicago survey of economists that removing distancing and shelter in place will not improve the economic situation. I think it would be more persuasive if they could be more precise. I don't think anyone is saying it would avoid any or even most layoffs, but if we are talking about 50M people out of a job, could 10% of those jobs be saved? 20%? We've seen plenty of anecdotal examples of people (particularly younger) who seem content to proceed with business as usual.

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[g1313]

Let me just be clear that my current personal position is that we should be continuing with distancing, and trying to relieve the economic pain that people are feeling through unprecedented levels of disaster relief / "stimulus" funding, and we will pay those consequences later - it seems like there is debate among economists on how much debt becomes a problem, and I don't pretend to be an expert to know, but given the level of disagreement there's probably not a clearly wrong answer.

I'm also aware of the consensus from the UChicago survey of economists that removing distancing and shelter in place will not improve the economic situation. I think it would be more persuasive if they could be more precise. I don't think anyone is saying it would avoid any or even most layoffs, but if we are talking about 50M people out of a job, could 10% of those jobs be saved? 20%? We've seen plenty of anecdotal examples of people (particularly younger) who seem content to proceed with business as usual.

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[OutsiderFan]

If I was singularly in charge, I would immediately institute massive taxation and wealth redistribution.

It is utterly insane and stupid to send countries into perilous debt when corporations and individuals are sitting on billions if not trillions of dollars when millions upon millions are going to be suffering with nothing, many of whom did what they were suppose to do, get good grades, earn degrees, and find employment.

We play this game of Monopoly for our lives, but unlike the game that ends and starts anew, we never start over. This is why sports is so compelling.  Every year it's a new season.  You don't win your league, by 10 games, buy off the commissioner, and write the rules so you get the top 2 draft picks, and start next season with your 10 game lead. But we do this with our economic system.

You can't have 1% of the population to control 50% of the world's wealth, allow such a minority to rig the system we live in to keep the 99% of the population in servitude to them, then watch it blow up and ruin the lives of most people, and there not be immense consequences.

[OutsiderFan]

If I was singularly in charge, I would immediately institute massive taxation and wealth redistribution.

It is utterly insane and stupid to send countries into perilous debt when corporations and individuals are sitting on billions if not trillions of dollars when millions upon millions are going to be suffering with nothing, many of whom did what they were suppose to do, get good grades, earn degrees, and find employment.

We play this game of Monopoly for our lives, but unlike the game that ends and starts anew, we never start over. This is why sports is so compelling.  Every year it's a new season.  You don't win your league, by 10 games, buy off the commissioner, and write the rules so you get the top 2 draft picks, and start next season with your 10 game lead. But we do this with our economic system.

You can't have 1% of the population to control 50% of the world's wealth, allow such a minority to rig the system we live in to keep the 99% of the population in servitude to them, then watch it blow up and ruin the lives of most people, and there not be immense consequences.

[Farm93]

Once down the path of firing the pandemic response team, ignoring pandemic simulations and other similar preventative steps in Q4 2019 and January 2020 the USA was left with few options - 

1) Prohibiting activities with the country at the epicenter
That wasn't going to work against the world's second largest economy  (likely covered in those simulations POTUS didn't review)

2) Test and trace at onset in our country
Used by SARS and MERS paranoid countries (see Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia)
USA skipped this one.  Too bad as those 6 nations have a combined ~325 deaths as of April 2 2020.  

3) Social Distancing
Too weak for this particular highly contagious virus

4) Stay-at-home/quarantines
Very damaging to economic activity, but if #1, #2 & #3 are not utilized and/or are ineffective then #4 it must be.

Keep in mind the USA nationally is only doing #3, but most of the USA's citizens now live under some form of #4.


Even POTUS-45's most faithful followers in government NOW understand doing nothing (#5) will not be an option for this level of super killer.  I just wish they read up on some of those studies from POTUS 41, 42, 43 or 44 on pandemics a bit earlier in 2020.

Stay healthy everyone and self-quarantine as much as possible.

[Farm93]

Once down the path of firing the pandemic response team, ignoring pandemic simulations and other similar preventative steps in Q4 2019 and January 2020 the USA was left with few options - 

1) Prohibiting activities with the country at the epicenter
That wasn't going to work against the world's second largest economy  (likely covered in those simulations POTUS didn't review)

2) Test and trace at onset in our country
Used by SARS and MERS paranoid countries (see Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia)
USA skipped this one.  Too bad as those 6 nations have a combined ~325 deaths as of April 2 2020.  

3) Social Distancing
Too weak for this particular highly contagious virus

4) Stay-at-home/quarantines
Very damaging to economic activity, but if #1, #2 & #3 are not utilized and/or are ineffective then #4 it must be.

Keep in mind the USA nationally is only doing #3, but most of the USA's citizens now live under some form of #4.


Even POTUS-45's most faithful followers in government NOW understand doing nothing (#5) will not be an option for this level of super killer.  I just wish they read up on some of those studies from POTUS 41, 42, 43 or 44 on pandemics a bit earlier in 2020.

Stay healthy everyone and self-quarantine as much as possible.

[BostonCard]

If I was singularly in charge, I would immediately institute massive taxation and wealth redistribution.



It is utterly insane and stupid to send countries into perilous debt when corporations and individuals are sitting on billions if not trillions of dollars when millions upon millions are going to be suffering with nothing, many of whom did what they were suppose to do, get good grades, earn degrees, and find employment.



We play this game of Monopoly for our lives, but unlike the game that ends and starts anew, we never start over. This is why sports is so compelling.  Every year it's a new season.  You don't win your league, by 10 games, buy off the commissioner, and write the rules so you get the top 2 draft picks, and start next season with your 10 game lead. But we do this with our economic system.



You can't have 1% of the population to control 50% of the world's wealth, allow such a minority to rig the system we live in to keep the 99% of the population in servitude to them, then watch it blow up and ruin the lives of most people, and there not be immense consequences.

I don't know.  I don't think the German Schwarze Null (Black zero) policy of balanced budgets has served it well, and even the Germans are now abandoning it in the face of Covid-19 (https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11...a-slowdown).

The British pursued a decade of austerity, and it has hurt the NHS, which might be an issue as it responds to Covid-19.

I'm not arguing for large (unsustainable) budget deficits forever.  But the government is not like a household, and moderate deficits, especially in the face of a major pandemic are not a bad thing.

Longer term, I do agree taxes will have to go up, in order to keep the debt from going out of control.

BC

[BostonCard]

If I was singularly in charge, I would immediately institute massive taxation and wealth redistribution.



It is utterly insane and stupid to send countries into perilous debt when corporations and individuals are sitting on billions if not trillions of dollars when millions upon millions are going to be suffering with nothing, many of whom did what they were suppose to do, get good grades, earn degrees, and find employment.



We play this game of Monopoly for our lives, but unlike the game that ends and starts anew, we never start over. This is why sports is so compelling.  Every year it's a new season.  You don't win your league, by 10 games, buy off the commissioner, and write the rules so you get the top 2 draft picks, and start next season with your 10 game lead. But we do this with our economic system.



You can't have 1% of the population to control 50% of the world's wealth, allow such a minority to rig the system we live in to keep the 99% of the population in servitude to them, then watch it blow up and ruin the lives of most people, and there not be immense consequences.

I don't know.  I don't think the German Schwarze Null (Black zero) policy of balanced budgets has served it well, and even the Germans are now abandoning it in the face of Covid-19 (https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11...a-slowdown).

The British pursued a decade of austerity, and it has hurt the NHS, which might be an issue as it responds to Covid-19.

I'm not arguing for large (unsustainable) budget deficits forever.  But the government is not like a household, and moderate deficits, especially in the face of a major pandemic are not a bad thing.

Longer term, I do agree taxes will have to go up, in order to keep the debt from going out of control.

BC

[stupac2]

OF, the focus on debt is misplaced, see this Krugman column for an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opini...nkish.html

The fact we borrow in a currency that we control the supply of makes most standard intuition about debt very, very wrong. A misplaced focus on debt is partly why the recovery from the great recession was so slow. It just doesn't matter than much when you borrow in your own currency, and aren't doing totally dumb things with it.

[stupac2]

OF, the focus on debt is misplaced, see this Krugman column for an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opini...nkish.html

The fact we borrow in a currency that we control the supply of makes most standard intuition about debt very, very wrong. A misplaced focus on debt is partly why the recovery from the great recession was so slow. It just doesn't matter than much when you borrow in your own currency, and aren't doing totally dumb things with it.

[Goose]

It just doesn't matter than much when you borrow in your own currency, and aren't doing totally dumb things with it.

Can't agree with you here. It doesn't matter much when you borrow in your own currency and your economy expands enough (for whatever reason) to "water down" the debit. If the economy doesn't expand, you will in the best case inflation, which will drive the value of old debt down and make it easier to pay off. The inflation part isn't good for lots of folks, but at least their is a way forward. Worst case, people lose confidence in the currency, domestic economic activity drops, and you have a depression. Think Wiemar Republic.
The previous "recovery" wasn't effective because it was fueled by corporate and individual borrowing. I submit that we don't know how to avoid that happening again, but on an even larger scale.

[Goose]

It just doesn't matter than much when you borrow in your own currency, and aren't doing totally dumb things with it.

Can't agree with you here. It doesn't matter much when you borrow in your own currency and your economy expands enough (for whatever reason) to "water down" the debit. If the economy doesn't expand, you will in the best case inflation, which will drive the value of old debt down and make it easier to pay off. The inflation part isn't good for lots of folks, but at least their is a way forward. Worst case, people lose confidence in the currency, domestic economic activity drops, and you have a depression. Think Wiemar Republic.
The previous "recovery" wasn't effective because it was fueled by corporate and individual borrowing. I submit that we don't know how to avoid that happening again, but on an even larger scale.