• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Economic Consequences of Opening the Economy Too Soon

I am in a field that is well paid, salaried, unlikely to go bankrupt (at least for a while), and that is easily adapted to working from home.

My sister works hourly in retail.

We're both taking COVID-19 seriously... but only one of us is scared about being able to afford food for herself and her kids, and whether or not she'll be evicted in a month. Luckily, my sister has a family who is willing to help her out and make sure she has what she needs for a while. But it's not sustainable long term.
Of course it is. People have been supporting family long term since forever.
I love my sister and my niece... but I really don't want them moving in with me.
But you could and would, if the alternative is that they died. Because you're not a monster or a Libertarian (but I repeat myself).
There is no "good" answer here. It's a choice between truly sucky and scary options... and all of the sucky and scary variations between them.

Sure. But it's really not hard to pick between "let my family and friends die" and "put up with the imposition of having my family and friends dependant on me". Both are things we would prefer not to happen, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
 
I'd hazard a guess that the keep the shutdown until there's a cure folks are salaried or retired, not living pay check to pay check. It's easy to be smug from that vantage point.

I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants).
It doesn't matter what I (or anyone) wants. The only question is what is necessary to avoid massive numbers of deaths.

What we want isn't in any way noticed or cared about by the virus.
It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

The pandemic started with a single case. Then it grew exponentially. So either you need to eliminate every single case; or lock down everything to stop it from spreading exponentially; Or accept vast numbers of deaths.

It would be great if there was another option. But there's not. sometimes what we want just isn't possible.

Open everything up in the "tail end of the bell curve", and you get a second wave. Unless you have changed the whole game by developing and distributing a vaccine, or a cure. Or unless you have a sufficiently excellent test to ensure that every single case is identified and quarantined.

Reality doesn't give a crap what you want.
 
It doesn't matter what I (or anyone) wants. The only question is what is necessary to avoid massive numbers of deaths.

What we want isn't in any way noticed or cared about by the virus.
It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

The pandemic started with a single case. Then it grew exponentially. So either you need to eliminate every single case; or lock down everything to stop it from spreading exponentially; Or accept vast numbers of deaths.

It would be great if there was another option. But there's not. sometimes what we want just isn't possible

There is: expand testing capacities to the point where, once the total cases are in the region of 10/million and the unidentified in the region of 1/million, you can actually test every case of it's-almost certainly-just-a-cold and in the rare cases where it isn't just a cold quarantine the patient and all their contacts, or enact a localized lockdown, while simultaneously limiting travel between cities to the necessary to make the latter effective. There will be deaths, but not *massive* deaths and it's probably more realistic to keep it in check that way for a prolonged period of time than actually elminate the virus by starving it out - as the latter would have to be achieved globally, including in places like Belarus, Turkmenistan and the US.

Of course, opening up while the confirmed new daily infections are in the 10s of thousands - and testing so spotty that we have to assume that actual new infection are in the 100s of thousands - is suicidal, but that's not the same as saying that a full lockdown is necessary with mere 100s of active infections a vast majority of which are identified and in quarantine.
 
For those who apparently can't comprehend any argument not expressed in the form of a cartoon:

View attachment 27220

OK, but that's what exactly drones and infrared cameras and massive testing of everyobody who sneezes even if they're known to be allergic to pollen or even if we're 99.99% sure it's only a cold is for.
 
For testing to work it has to be really really massive. Like everyone gets a test every 3 days or whatever the average time between infection and being contagious. And it has to be fairly instant and accurate.
Only then we can get a real picture. In reality we have imbeciles as governors of Georgia who thinks temperature measurement is a way to go and open the the essential industry of nail salon polishing.
 
For those who apparently can't comprehend any argument not expressed in the form of a cartoon:

View attachment 27220

The real reason behind the stay at home orders has been to flatten the curve, to prevent the hospitals from running out of supplies, ventilators, and beds. However, it's not going to stop the disease. I hate to say it, but we are all going to get it. Even when we come up with a vaccine, you won't be 100% protected. This nasty bug is really a souped up flu. It changes and evolves. The best thing that you can do is to boost up your immune system: exercise, sleep well, eat well, veggies, fruit, protein, exercise, don't stress, don't smoke, don't drink to extreme, and exercise! Overweight people are being ravaged by covid.
 
Another interesting article about the economic impact of the crisis: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a...rus-lets-do-the-math-2020-04-19?mod=home-page

He points out that the economic value of a life is $150,000 per year. Thus if your life expectancy is another ten years, then spending $1.5 million to save your life is economically beneficial. Such calculations may seem cruel but they are still necessary.

By his calculation based on current deaths and age distribution is $150 billion. Thus those screaming about the costs have a point. However if the virus is left unchecked, and infection rates soar to 30% with a 0.5% mortality rate, the cost soars to $5.6 trillion. And the naysayers need to shut up.

SLD
 
The real reason behind the stay at home orders has been to flatten the curve, to prevent the hospitals from running out of supplies, ventilators, and beds. However, it's not going to stop the disease. I hate to say it, but we are all going to get it. Even when we come up with a vaccine, you won't be 100% protected. This nasty bug is really a souped up flu. It changes and evolves. The best thing that you can do is to boost up your immune system: exercise, sleep well, eat well, veggies, fruit, protein, exercise, don't stress, don't smoke, don't drink to extreme, and exercise! Overweight people are being ravaged by covid.
This is from a virologist friend on another board:
There's no way to know right now, but I'm optimistic.
It's not a slam dunk - there are viruses people have been working intensively for decades to produce a (safe and) effective vaccine against and still have not succeeded. HIV and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) come to mind. But there are unusual biological details at play there.
There are "common cold" coronaviruses out there, and there are mixed reports on the nature of immunity against them. For at least one of them, it seems that having antibodies after getting infected does not give you good protection against getting re-infected. So that's a concern. In animal studies, though, it looks like antibodies against the SARS(1) virus are protective.

wrt flu vaccine being hit or miss:
That's because there isn't just one flu virus - there's a whole zoo of them, and they're constantly changing. Every year the epidemiologists monitor what's going around, and try to formulate a combination vaccine that covers the most likely strains to be an upcoming threat. But it's an inexact science. That does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2. It's a single serotype, and hasn't changed all that much in its explosive spread. Partly - mainly - this is down to a fundamental difference between influenza and coronavirus. The influenza genome consists of 8 segments - like "mini chromosomes". They are continuously re-assorting themselves out there in the wild when two different strains manage to infect the same animal, and you can wind up with a virus that inherited ability to do well in humans from one "parent", and a completely novel surface protein from an animal-oriented "parent". In which case, antibodies against all the influenza viruses that humanity is collectively immune to are not protective. Coronavirus has a single genome; it can't do that.

wrt SARS(1) vaccine:
Multiple researchers developed them, and at least some looked good in animal studies, but they were never deployed because SARS(1) did, in fact, "burn itself out" - with the help of extremely aggressive testing, contact tracing and patient isolation. I think, in retrospect, that might have been a lot easier in that case because there was not a lot of asymptomatic transmission. At least some of the candidate vaccines for COVID19 are just these SARS vaccines, taken off the shelf and tweaked to produce the CoV2 surface protein rather than the SARS version of it. The two are very similar.
 
For those who apparently can't comprehend any argument not expressed in the form of a cartoon:

View attachment 27220

The real reason behind the stay at home orders has been to flatten the curve, to prevent the hospitals from running out of supplies, ventilators, and beds. However, it's not going to stop the disease. I hate to say it, but we are all going to get it. Even when we come up with a vaccine, you won't be 100% protected. This nasty bug is really a souped up flu. It changes and evolves. The best thing that you can do is to boost up your immune system: exercise, sleep well, eat well, veggies, fruit, protein, exercise, don't stress, don't smoke, don't drink to extreme, and exercise! Overweight people are being ravaged by covid.

Thank you so much for including the bolded. It instantly lets everyone know that you haven't got an opinion worth listening to.

Coronaviruses are not influenza viruses. Covid-19 is really NOT flu, souped up or otherwise. And none of the things you listed can "boost up" your immune system, which is a good thing because a 'boosted' immune system is one of the main reasons that Covid-19 infections are fatal. "Boost your immune system" is a marketing slogan with zero basis in reality.
 
I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants). It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

I disagree. The correct approach is a gradual reopening, particularly now as we move into the warmer weather. It may not be appropriate for large cities such as New York or places where the medical services are struggling but in a lot of places the lockdown has served its purpose, i.e. to prevent the medical services being overwhelmed. People will need to be mindful of social distance, basic hygiene and keep grandma at arms length.
 
For those who apparently can't comprehend any argument not expressed in the form of a cartoon:

View attachment 27220

The real reason behind the stay at home orders has been to flatten the curve, to prevent the hospitals from running out of supplies, ventilators, and beds. However, it's not going to stop the disease. I hate to say it, but we are all going to get it. Even when we come up with a vaccine, you won't be 100% protected. This nasty bug is really a souped up flu. It changes and evolves. The best thing that you can do is to boost up your immune system: exercise, sleep well, eat well, veggies, fruit, protein, exercise, don't stress, don't smoke, don't drink to extreme, and exercise! Overweight people are being ravaged by covid.

Thank you so much for including the bolded. It instantly lets everyone know that you haven't got an opinion worth listening to.

Coronaviruses are not influenza viruses. Covid-19 is really NOT flu, souped up or otherwise.
I'm pretty certain that I read in Nature that the genome work uncovered that the SARS-COV-2 bug has spinning rims.
And none of the things you listed can "boost up" your immune system,
Sure you can. Just have a Google Meet with your antibodies and tell them, if it looks wrong, just kill the motherfucker!
...which is a good thing because a 'boosted' immune system is one of the main reasons that Covid-19 infections are fatal. "Boost your immune system" is a marketing slogan with zero basis in reality.
None of this deals with the most important issue. Some hairdresser is out of work in Michigan. We can't let the solution that saves hundreds of thousands of lives interfere with her low wage job.
 
I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants). It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

I disagree. The correct approach is a gradual reopening, particularly now as we move into the warmer weather. It may not be appropriate for large cities such as New York or places where the medical services are struggling but in a lot of places the lockdown has served its purpose, i.e. to prevent the medical services being overwhelmed. People will need to be mindful of social distance, basic hygiene and keep grandma at arms length.

Can you give me the math you used to work this out? For example, when Colorado went into lockdown, they had around 200 new cases a day. Those appear to have plateaued at just under 400 a day. If the lockdown is now declared over, it will continue an exponential trajectory just as it would have without the lockdown - but with a higher starting point. How is an exponential curve starting at 400 new cases a day not threatening to overwhelm medical services when an exponential curve starting at 200 was a month ago?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/colorado-coronavirus-cases.html
 
I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants). It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

I disagree. The correct approach is a gradual reopening, particularly now as we move into the warmer weather. It may not be appropriate for large cities such as New York or places where the medical services are struggling but in a lot of places the lockdown has served its purpose, i.e. to prevent the medical services being overwhelmed. People will need to be mindful of social distance, basic hygiene and keep grandma at arms length.

While a select few red states stick a toe in the water and people all over tire of staying at home, I’ll sit on the sidelines and watch. Now is a dangerous time.
 
I'd hazard a guess that the keep the shutdown until there's a cure folks are salaried or retired, not living pay check to pay check. It's easy to be smug from that vantage point.

I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants). It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

The problem is that the tail region is a long, long ways away. Some areas are leveling off right now, not because they've reached peak incidence in the population, but because social distancing is effective at limiting transmission. As soon as we loosen those restrictions, it will trend upward again. It's a highly contagious strain, with a really long transmission period that's frequently asymptomatic. The best plans I've seen include waves of loosening and tightening social restrictions, which puts in a manageable peak-valley cycle for about 18 months or so.

Unfortunately, that doesn't address the economic fallout. No matter what we do, I think we're looking at a pretty major worldwide depression.
 
No one on the left is arguing that people should be allowed to starve to death on account of lack of income. This kind of situation is exactly why the government ought to exist, and taxes levied. Preserving lives in the face of a natural disaster is just as noble and necessary a use of our communal power and resources as fighting some stupid-ass war would be, or building giant walls or whatever the fuck you people prefer to drop trillions on. If you think it should be down to just individuals (not government) to support each other, I think you are misguided and naive but think you should put your money where your mouth is and send the man in the photo some dosh rather than arguing for policies that are just as apt to result in his death. Consider sending him your Trump check in fact, since I assume you are valiantly refusing to accept it.

I'm not sure who you're talking to here.

I don't think anyone on the right is arguing that people should be allowed to starve to death either. They just don't have the same approach for how to solve it.

Yes, this is why the government exists, and yes, this should be a good case for using our communal resources. Unfortunately, our communal resources are currently insufficient to the need. Even with massive government intervention, we're looking at some pretty significant economic disruption. I don't think that disruption is limited to the US, I'm relatively certain it's going to be world-wide.
 
I'd hazard a guess that the keep the shutdown until there's a cure folks are salaried or retired, not living pay check to pay check. It's easy to be smug from that vantage point.

I agree it is stupid to demand full measures to remain until there is a vaccine/at least until Christmas (as bilby wants). It is equally as stupid to reopen now. We have (maybe, if numbers are correct) barely passed the peak, but we are still at the high level. So the move by my governor (GA) and some others (including SC) to partially reopen the economy this week is just criminally negligent. We need to wait until we are in the tail region of the bell curve. Now the outbreak is still too hot and any increase in mingling will heat it up again. Also we still do not have anything close to adequate testing.

The problem is that the tail region is a long, long ways away. Some areas are leveling off right now, not because they've reached peak incidence in the population, but because social distancing is effective at limiting transmission.
Agreed. The only way to reach that end quicker is an actual SHUTDOWN. Only actually essential for survival things are open. No parks, no walking outside of your yard.

We simply lack that will, and also the logistics of feeding the poor who can't stock up.
 
It doesn't matter what I (or anyone) wants. The only question is what is necessary to avoid massive numbers of deaths.

For consideration: deaths caused by what?

It seems as if you're focusing on the deaths directly caused by COVID-19, and not really giving much consideration to the potential deaths caused by secondary effects of an economic shutdown. I posted a couple of WoTs in a different thread, that probably belong here, so I'm going to copy them over.
 
From a different thread...
I skimmed a pile of posts, and skipped several pages. So apologies if some of this has already been covered.

1) Comparing COVID to Flu.

Yes, the flu kills on the order of about 12,000 people in the US per year. Currently, COVID deaths are at approximately 4 times that amount. Bear in mind that flu deaths are spread over a fairly long season, starting in early September and running through March or April (depending on part of the country and the temperatures). That's roughly a 9-month period, although it certain peaks between November and February. COVID, on the other hand, has resulted in over 40,000 deaths in about a month and a half. That's a considerable difference in mortality rate. There is no question that COVID has a higher case fatality rate than influenza does.

Flu has a relatively short incubation and transmission period. Most people are contagious immediately before they begin exhibiting symptoms, and during the first several days of illness. COVID, however, seems to be contagious for about a week prior to the infected individual showing any symptoms, and in some cases it's contagious for a couple of weeks in people who are asymptomatic. That makes it much easier for flu to be contained through normal behavior, and makes COVID much harder to avoid.

Influenza viruses, in general, last only a very short time outside of the human body. They deactivate pretty quickly on almost all surfaces. COVID-19 seems to be pretty robust, and seemingly can survive for many hours on almost any surface. This means it's a lot easier to pick up COVID even if you're not around someone sick, just from contact with everyday objects that someone has previously handled.

Flu symptoms generally last about a week, longer on rare occasions. Hospitalizations from flu are quite rare, and are frequently for people who are already at risk. Once hospitalized, a flu patient only stays in the hospital for a few days, at which point they've either recovered or have died. COVID symptoms last several weeks in many cases, and have a roughly 20% hospitalization rate for symptomatic patients. A hospitalized COVID patient has about a 33% chance of ending up in ICU. Hospitalized COVID cases are in the hospital for two to three weeks... and about half of ICU cases die.

Flu tends to be worst in older people and in very young children. Those are the ages most likely to be hospitalized and to die. COVID has had very little effect on children (who are largely asymptomatic and almost never die), but hospitalization is similar at all adult ages. Older people are significantly more likely to die from COVID than other ages.

Influenza mutates quickly, but generally, once a person has been exposed to a specific influenza strain, they develop long-lasting immunity to that strain. Coronavirus mutates slowly... but exposure to many coronaviruses does not confer lasting immunity. Coronovirus, along with rhinovirus make up the largest bulk of seasonal colds, and the lack of long-term immunity after exposure is part of why there's no vaccine for them.

So... to recap: COVID has already killed about 4 times as many people in less than two months than Influenza usually kills in an entire year. It is more contagious, and materially harder to avoid getting than the flu. There's a significantly higher likelihood of being hospitalized with COVID, and both the illness and the hospitalizations last significantly longer than with flu. To top it off, we have treatments for influenza that are highly effective, including seasonal vaccines. We have no vaccines or treatments for COVID-19. There's a reasonable likelihood that exposure to COVID-19 will not result in long-term immunity.

There is absolutely no question that COVID-19 is significantly and materially more dangerous than influenza.
 
Back
Top Bottom