[stupac2]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

The link contained in the OP does a pretty good job of summarizing the evidence, and sharing it is the entire reason I started this thread. Did you read it?

[stupac2]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

The link contained in the OP does a pretty good job of summarizing the evidence, and sharing it is the entire reason I started this thread. Did you read it?

[2006alum]

i just figured out why you are selective about banning users....

Clarify your third-person reference, because as far as I know, mods can't ban long-time users. We can only ban newly registered users who appear to be potential spammers.

[2006alum]

i just figured out why you are selective about banning users....

Clarify your third-person reference, because as far as I know, mods can't ban long-time users. We can only ban newly registered users who appear to be potential spammers.

[OutsiderFan]

The next generation is not suffering because our politicians don't have the political courage to let you die for the sake of the economy. The next generation is suffering because of decades of policies that have prioritized protecting wealth and capital for a tiny percentage at the expense of public welfare. All the stuff we are seeing now is simply an amplification of the ways the game has been rigged against young people.

This is 100% spot on. Every choice has an opportunity cost.  At the same time, all nature functions most optimally when in balance. The insistence by political forces to constantly reward capital and not balance out benefits to labor has left us on the precipice of disaster.  

We would be nowhere near economic calamity if wealth was allocated such that everyone could have at least a few months of savings to live off. The economy might sink, but a "V shaped recovery" would absolutely be possible. It's sheer fantasy that this is going to happen with so many out of work and with zero savings whatsoever. 

My #1 goal in life is to survive and not be in debt. I don't have student loan debt, credit card debt, a mortgage or car payment.  I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices for this to be reality. We should do everything possible to allocate resources in a way that allows more people to avoid debt, and set policies that prevent people from going into debt.

[OutsiderFan]

The next generation is not suffering because our politicians don't have the political courage to let you die for the sake of the economy. The next generation is suffering because of decades of policies that have prioritized protecting wealth and capital for a tiny percentage at the expense of public welfare. All the stuff we are seeing now is simply an amplification of the ways the game has been rigged against young people.

This is 100% spot on. Every choice has an opportunity cost.  At the same time, all nature functions most optimally when in balance. The insistence by political forces to constantly reward capital and not balance out benefits to labor has left us on the precipice of disaster.  

We would be nowhere near economic calamity if wealth was allocated such that everyone could have at least a few months of savings to live off. The economy might sink, but a "V shaped recovery" would absolutely be possible. It's sheer fantasy that this is going to happen with so many out of work and with zero savings whatsoever. 

My #1 goal in life is to survive and not be in debt. I don't have student loan debt, credit card debt, a mortgage or car payment.  I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices for this to be reality. We should do everything possible to allocate resources in a way that allows more people to avoid debt, and set policies that prevent people from going into debt.

[stupac2]

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

I don't know where that came from either. The odds for younger people are better, but that doesn't mean they're acceptable. The only age group that sees virtually no mortality without severe comorbidities is children (not infants, last I saw, but age 1+). At the same time treating it as a binary of "died or lived" misses that the disease itself seems to be pretty brutal, and I've seen hints that survivors may have permanent lung damage (although we obviously have no idea what the long-term prognosis is).

So it's really not so simple, and I think the idea that we're just doing this to save the boomers (and specifically the fat smoker boomers) is ridiculous. We're all in this together.

---

My #1 goal in life is to survive and not be in debt. I don't have student loan debt, credit card debt, a mortgage or car payment.  I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices for this to be reality. We should do everything possible to allocate resources in a way that allows more people to avoid debt, and set policies that prevent people from going into debt.

Eh, debt is just a tool. In some cases it can make a lot of sense (smoothing consumption over a lifetime, enabling doing something with a high upfront cost and high ROI), in many others it doesn't. I'm fully on board if you want to say that college costs should be borne more by society and less by individuals, or that we should take prices to reduce housing costs in coastal metros, but I think individuals taking on debt still makes a lot of sense to allow in general.

Although if your point is more along the lines of "it should be less difficult to avoid debt while flourishing" then sure, that's fine.

[stupac2]

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

I don't know where that came from either. The odds for younger people are better, but that doesn't mean they're acceptable. The only age group that sees virtually no mortality without severe comorbidities is children (not infants, last I saw, but age 1+). At the same time treating it as a binary of "died or lived" misses that the disease itself seems to be pretty brutal, and I've seen hints that survivors may have permanent lung damage (although we obviously have no idea what the long-term prognosis is).

So it's really not so simple, and I think the idea that we're just doing this to save the boomers (and specifically the fat smoker boomers) is ridiculous. We're all in this together.

---

My #1 goal in life is to survive and not be in debt. I don't have student loan debt, credit card debt, a mortgage or car payment.  I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices for this to be reality. We should do everything possible to allocate resources in a way that allows more people to avoid debt, and set policies that prevent people from going into debt.

Eh, debt is just a tool. In some cases it can make a lot of sense (smoothing consumption over a lifetime, enabling doing something with a high upfront cost and high ROI), in many others it doesn't. I'm fully on board if you want to say that college costs should be borne more by society and less by individuals, or that we should take prices to reduce housing costs in coastal metros, but I think individuals taking on debt still makes a lot of sense to allow in general.

Although if your point is more along the lines of "it should be less difficult to avoid debt while flourishing" then sure, that's fine.

[oregontim]

FWIW, I'm a (relatively) young person finishing up the first of two fixed-term jobs and who will be hurt by this economy when he needs to seek a new position in a year's time. I'm more than happy to face worse future employment prospects if it keeps you, my mom, my other elderly relatives, and millions of other Americans safe. But I also happen to think it keeps me, my friends, my employers, and my community safer, too. So it's not even a generational tradeoff.

So count me as at least one non-sociopath among the young folk.

Made me laugh with "non-sociopath among the young folk."

[oregontim]

FWIW, I'm a (relatively) young person finishing up the first of two fixed-term jobs and who will be hurt by this economy when he needs to seek a new position in a year's time. I'm more than happy to face worse future employment prospects if it keeps you, my mom, my other elderly relatives, and millions of other Americans safe. But I also happen to think it keeps me, my friends, my employers, and my community safer, too. So it's not even a generational tradeoff.

So count me as at least one non-sociopath among the young folk.

Made me laugh with "non-sociopath among the young folk."

[stupac2]

To the point I was making above, here's 538's weekly polling roundup with some interesting tidbits about how people feel about reopening:

But there’s real concern about a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. The Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that 71 percent of Americans are more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than too slowly, and an identical share said they want public officials to be capable of mass testing before lifting restrictions on normal activities. Similarly, 63 percent told CBS News they are more worried about reopening too fast and causing the outbreak to worsen than reopening too slowly and hurting the economy. Those results align with other surveys that found Americans are largely content with staying at home to limit the outbreak: Reuters/Ipsos found that 72 percent said people should stay at home until health officials say it’s safe, while an AP-NORC survey suggested that most are fine with the restrictions in their area — 61 percent said they were about right and 26 percent said they didn’t go far enough. The country also seems ready for such policies to remain in effect for a while longer, as Elucd’s tracker found that 65 percent expect disruptions to last at least two more months.

The AP-NORC result is particularly staggering, 87% of people say that restrictions are about right or too lenient, only 12% say they go too far (I assume there's some rounding going on there).

This doesn't directly address "if your state lifted all restrictions would you resume normal activity?" but other surveys have and found similar numbers. You just can't run an economy on 20% participation, while those 20% could spread the infection widely quickly.

It gets back to I just don't see how you reopen meaningfully without a real test/trace program in place (or a vaccine, but we'd probably hit herd immunity by then if any of these serological tests are to be trusted).

[stupac2]

To the point I was making above, here's 538's weekly polling roundup with some interesting tidbits about how people feel about reopening:

But there’s real concern about a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. The Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that 71 percent of Americans are more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than too slowly, and an identical share said they want public officials to be capable of mass testing before lifting restrictions on normal activities. Similarly, 63 percent told CBS News they are more worried about reopening too fast and causing the outbreak to worsen than reopening too slowly and hurting the economy. Those results align with other surveys that found Americans are largely content with staying at home to limit the outbreak: Reuters/Ipsos found that 72 percent said people should stay at home until health officials say it’s safe, while an AP-NORC survey suggested that most are fine with the restrictions in their area — 61 percent said they were about right and 26 percent said they didn’t go far enough. The country also seems ready for such policies to remain in effect for a while longer, as Elucd’s tracker found that 65 percent expect disruptions to last at least two more months.

The AP-NORC result is particularly staggering, 87% of people say that restrictions are about right or too lenient, only 12% say they go too far (I assume there's some rounding going on there).

This doesn't directly address "if your state lifted all restrictions would you resume normal activity?" but other surveys have and found similar numbers. You just can't run an economy on 20% participation, while those 20% could spread the infection widely quickly.

It gets back to I just don't see how you reopen meaningfully without a real test/trace program in place (or a vaccine, but we'd probably hit herd immunity by then if any of these serological tests are to be trusted).

[82lsju]

Today's outlook from the CBO

The numbers
- Real GDP is expected to decline by about 12% during the second quarter, equivalent to a decline at an annual rate of 40% for that quarter.
- The unemployment rate is expected to average close to 14% during the second quarter and 16% during the third quarter
- Interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes are expected to average 0.1 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.

For fiscal year 2020
- The federal budget deficit is projected to be $3.7 trillion.
- Federal debt held by the public is projected to be 101% of GDP by the end of the fiscal year.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56335

[82lsju]

Today's outlook from the CBO

The numbers
- Real GDP is expected to decline by about 12% during the second quarter, equivalent to a decline at an annual rate of 40% for that quarter.
- The unemployment rate is expected to average close to 14% during the second quarter and 16% during the third quarter
- Interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes are expected to average 0.1 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.

For fiscal year 2020
- The federal budget deficit is projected to be $3.7 trillion.
- Federal debt held by the public is projected to be 101% of GDP by the end of the fiscal year.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56335