Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[spooly74]

Herd immunity is not the way to go. The Swedish experiment is failing and the USA one is going to be nasty. There is no way that their economy is going back to normal for years on this route and they will be looking jealously at Australia and NZ before too long. We need a treatment before this route is considered.

It's too early to called Swedish model a failure.
They'll inevitably be better off re: second wave and at the beginning of the month along with the Dutch (who initially, IIRC started with a herd approach) are the only countries to have their death predictions downgraded by 40% in comparison with comparable European countries.
The major disaster for Swedes has been with deaths in nursing homes but that a common element across the board...eg Spain with nearly 70% of deaths in nursing homes.

http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates

 

[Knobby22]

What about the John Hopkins University part? That is really the basis of the post.

 

[spooly74]

What about the John Hopkins University part? That is really the basis of the post.

I didn't quote that in the response but it's using a business as usual approach to the numbers while I believe that keeping the vulnerable properly isolated (where we have failed miserably) allows the young to gain a larger % of herd immunity to the population.
If 70% of the population is required for herd immunity and 70% of the population are extremely low risk then open it up to the less vulnerable.
The Global average age for death is around 80 years old & with proper quarantine this can be reduced dramatically until quality treatments or a vaccine becomes available.

 

[Knobby22]

I didn't quote that in the response but it's using a business as usual approach to the numbers while I believe that keeping the vulnerable properly isolated (where we have failed miserably) allows the young to gain a larger % of herd immunity to the population.
If 70% of the population is required for herd immunity and 70% of the population are extremely low risk then open it up to the less vulnerable.
The Global average age for death is around 80 years old & with proper quarantine this can be reduced dramatically until quality treatments or a vaccine becomes available.

Extremely low risk? Not if you are in the age range of 45-74 and especially with existing medical pre conditions. Also the new found link to children where it attacks their hearts is worrying.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
https://theweek.com/speedreads/913720/covid19-now-believed-attack-kids-kidneys-hearts-nerves-not-just-lungs

But the more important point (in economic terms) is the length of time to get the herd immunity -18 months away at best, the New York example is particularly relevant, all that death yet no-where near herd immunity. People aren't going to willingly catch this. The implications are enormous.

You can open up the economy as much as you want but if you have not got it in control then people will not risk their life. I think Australia is on a much better route.

Of course - once a treatment is found - then everything changes.

 

[qldfrog]

Herd immunity is not the way to go. The Swedish experiment is failing and the USA one is going to be nasty. There is no way that their economy is going back to normal for years on this route and they will be looking jealously at Australia and NZ before too long. We need a treatment before this route is considered.

Seriously carefully read the following from the John Hopkins University of Medicine, one of the USA's premier medical research universities.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/early-herd-immunity-against-covid-19-a-dangerous-misconception

We have listened with concern to voices erroneously suggesting that herd immunity may “soon slow the spread”1 of COVID-19. For example, Rush Limbaugh recently claimed that “herd immunity has occurred in California.” As infectious disease epidemiologists, we wish to state clearly that herd immunity against COVID-19 will not be achieved at a population level in 2020, barring a public health catastrophe.

Although more than 2.5 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide, studies suggest that (as of early April 2020) no more than 2-4% of any country’s population has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19). Even in hotspots like New York City that have been hit hardest by the pandemic, initial studies suggest that perhaps 15-21% of people have been exposed so far. In getting to that level of exposure, more than 17,500 of the 8.4 million people in New York City (about 1 in every 500 New Yorkers) have died, with the overall death rate in the city suggesting deaths may be undercounted and mortality may be even higher.

Some have entertained the idea of “controlled voluntary infection,” akin to the “chickenpox parties” of the 1980s. However, COVID-19 is 100 times more lethal than the chickenpox. Someone who goes to a “coronavirus party” to get infected would not only be substantially increasing their own chance of dying in the next month, they would also be putting their families and friends at risk.

To reach herd immunity for COVID-19, likely 70% or more of the population would need to be immune. Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold. Put another way, even if the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 confirmed cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity. If current daily death rates continue, over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.

Just a note @Knobby22 to say I appreciate good unbiased and informative posts like that.

 

[basilio]

Where is COVID 19 taking us ?
This type of pandemic as well as other scenarios has been well researched.

Some analysts warned of the economic impacts of a pandemic like COVID-19. Here's what they think might happen next
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...s-recession-what-comes-post-covid-19/12256246

 

[basilio]

Analysing the cost vs benefit of COVID 19 shutdown.

The costs of the shutdown are overestimated – they’re outweighed by its $1 trillion benefit
As Australia begins to relax its COVID-19 restrictions there is understandable debate about how quickly that should proceed, and whether lockdowns even made sense in Australia in the first place.

The sceptics arguing for more rapid relaxation of containment measures point to the economic costs of lockdowns and appeal to the cold calculus of cost-benefit analysis to conclude that the lives saved by lockdowns don’t justify the economic costs incurred to do so.

Their numbers don’t stack up.
https://theconversation.com/the-cos...e-outweighed-by-its-1-trillion-benefit-138303

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Analysing the cost vs benefit of COVID 19 shutdown.

The costs of the shutdown are overestimated – they’re outweighed by its $1 trillion benefit
As Australia begins to relax its COVID-19 restrictions there is understandable debate about how quickly that should proceed, and whether lockdowns even made sense in Australia in the first place.

The sceptics arguing for more rapid relaxation of containment measures point to the economic costs of lockdowns and appeal to the cold calculus of cost-benefit analysis to conclude that the lives saved by lockdowns don’t justify the economic costs incurred to do so.

Their numbers don’t stack up.
https://theconversation.com/the-cos...e-outweighed-by-its-1-trillion-benefit-138303

Well ole Trump is as we speak carrying out the experiment for us.

gg

 

[basilio]

Well ole Trump is as we speak carrying out the experiment for us.

gg

I posted the story in good faith and, in theory..., according to the metrics used by the authors, the thousands of people who die represent a trillion dollar loss to the economy

But please note the metrics value each US life at $10m and Australian lives at around $4.9m.

WOW!! Bet you didn't know we were all so "valuable"..

As far as the US and Trump goes the assisted euthanasia experiment he is allowing is happening largely in
1) Nursing homes
2) Poorer crowed black and latino communities
3) Crowded prison systems.
4) Big industrial meat packing/chicken processing industries

Yes there will be many others who die but if your sufficiently ruthless you can pass these off as collateral damage and call them Free Enterprise warriors into the bargain.

The only universe in which US citizens who dies from COVID19 will be "valued "at $10m each will be in the gigantic lawsuit pinned on the Chinese government for reparation damages. Otherwise we will not see these deaths. They will be underreported by fudging criteria on death certificates, overlooked when the happen and called fake news if ever called out.

 

[qldfrog]

Well ole Trump is as we speak carrying out the experiment for us.

gg

indeed will be interesting to see the final results between democrat states with mandatory isolation and the republican states with a more individualistic view.
Both in term of morbility and economic impacts
Funny how the hoarders/ doom preps were seen as right wings nutters to laugh at 6 months ago whereas now the leftists are the ones endorsing the approach

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I posted the story in good faith and, in theory..., according to the metrics used by the authors, the thousands of people who die represent a trillion dollar loss to the economy

But please note the metrics value each US life at $10m and Australian lives at around $4.9m.

WOW!! Bet you didn't know we were all so "valuable"..

As far as the US and Trump goes the assisted euthanasia experiment he is allowing is happening largely in
1) Nursing homes
2) Poorer crowed black and latino communities
3) Crowded prison systems.
4) Big industrial meat packing/chicken processing industries

Yes there will be many others who die but if your sufficiently ruthless you can pass these off as collateral damage and call them Free Enterprise warriors into the bargain.

The only universe in which US citizens who dies from COVID19 will be "valued "at $10m each will be in the gigantic lawsuit pinned on the Chinese government for reparation damages. Otherwise we will not see these deaths. They will be underreported by fudging criteria on death certificates, overlooked when the happen and called fake news if ever called out.

Nobody really knows how the USA will go imo.

You may be discounting the bankruptcies and disruption to business and goods flow.

Then again if any country is to pick up again quickly it will be the USA with their work ethic.

gg

 

[Dona Ferentes]

An interesting development with so many working from home

Seeing as so many people are working from Home now, what happens if you trip and fall in your new workspace?
Are you covered by WorkCover?
Will WorkCover premiums go up down or stay the same?
With all these new workplaces, will the workplace health and safety inspectors be allowed to check it out?
And if they are, who pays for any alterations to a "dangerous environment" identified in the new workplace?

- asked Mick

Of course there have been court cases already Hargreaves and Telstra Corporation Limited [2011] AATA 417.
Does workers compensation cover employees working from home?

If you injure yourself while working from home, you may be entitled to compensation through a no-fault insurance scheme like WorkCover - the outcome of your claim will depend on whether it can be shown that your injuries occurred in the course of your employment.

For example, in one case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that Telstra had to pay the medical and legal costs of an employee who was injured while working from home. The employee, named Dale Hargreaves, was working from home and left her computer to go downstairs to retrieve some cough medicine. On her way she slipped and fell down the stairs, injuring her shoulder.

While Telstra denied liability due to Ms. Hargreaves' remote working location, the Tribunal ruled the fall occurred during her employment and deemed it like any employee taking a break at work.

Working from home: employer obligations

Employers have a duty of care when it comes to their workers undertaking their tasks from home. The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 says that employees working from home are still covered when injury occurs.

Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure their employee’s safety, including making sure an employee’s home area meets workplace health and safety requirements, and completing a risk assessment.

An employer should also provide a working from home policy which:

• gives clear instructions on how to perform your duties safely;
• states when or how the employer will inspect the home environment; and
• provides information on when and how employees should report potential health and safety issues.

Employees also have a responsibility to look after their own safety. They should designate a work area that family and other members of the public aren’t allowed to enter during their hours of employment.

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.a..._must_i_do_when_workers_are_working_from_home

 

[moXJO]

Analysing the cost vs benefit of COVID 19 shutdown.

The costs of the shutdown are overestimated – they’re outweighed by its $1 trillion benefit
As Australia begins to relax its COVID-19 restrictions there is understandable debate about how quickly that should proceed, and whether lockdowns even made sense in Australia in the first place.

The sceptics arguing for more rapid relaxation of containment measures point to the economic costs of lockdowns and appeal to the cold calculus of cost-benefit analysis to conclude that the lives saved by lockdowns don’t justify the economic costs incurred to do so.

Their numbers don’t stack up.
https://theconversation.com/the-cos...e-outweighed-by-its-1-trillion-benefit-138303

Wasn't sure about the use of these numbers.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2020/05/18...d-holden-bruce-preston-and-neil-bailey-ooops/

They make three big mistakes. One is a rookie mistake, two are less serious but still bad mistakes.

The rookie mistake is that they use the statistical value of life for someone who dies of corona. Yet, the statistical value of life holds for a whole life, ie 80 years of life. By contrast, the corona victims would have expected to live only 3-5 years more. So one should only count 5% of the 5 million as the appropriate value of those years, ie 4 years out of the 80 in a full life. That, after all, is how the statistical value of life estimates are used in government allocation decisions. Holden and Preston seem just not to know this, thus confusing their molehill for a mountain. Using the statistical value of life properly would get them a “saving” of only 45 billion Australian dollars of the lock downs, which is 4 times less than they themselves claim is the economic loss.

So if Richard Holden and Bruce Preston are scientifically honest they should immediately update their own figures and own up to the fact that using their own methodology they themselves now think the economic collapse costs at least 4 times more than the lock downs saved.

They make 2 more mistakes, less serious, but still grave. Another mistake they make is that they essentially assume that the recession is over within a year: they quote the IMF numbers on the 8 trillion US dollars the world economy is expected to lose from now till then end of 2021 and essentially apportion Australia its share of the world economy in that loss (about 1.5%). Yet, that is a mighty strange argument because it would be the only deep recession ever that would not only be over within 18 months, but where the economy would have recovered all of its lost ground as well within 18 months. So not merely is everyone who lost a job then re-employed, but we’ve even caught up with the growth we would have had. The IMF is certainly not predicting that.

A much more realistic economic forecast is to think it will take years to recover lost ground and that we’ll thus have a lower GDP than otherwise long after 2021. Stock markets thus look far further than merely 2021 and have tanked far more than 8 trillion. So a more reasonable market-based estimate of the discounted losses to the world economy over the next 10 years is then 50 trillion. That was already clear 2 months ago. This is just basic macro-economics.

Thus a more reasonable assumption on what happens in this depression mean the economic damage is 6 times higher than these authors say. So not only is the benefit of the lives saved 20 times lower than the figure they use, but the economic damage is probably 6 times higher. These two mistakes together conveniently change the cost-benefit ratio of these authors by a factor of 120.

Their third mistake is to presume a whole 1% of Australians would have died without lock downs. Let me merely suffice to say that 1% deaths due to the corona virus is 40 times higher than the death toll in the US. It is 30 times higher than the death toll in Sweden. It is over a 1,000 times higher than the death toll in India, Indonesia, the whole of Africa, etc. It is hence an outlandish assumption. It might have been reasonable in February 2020 to still buy into these apocalyptic numbers, but no longer. No country, whatever policy they have pursued, has even 1/10th of the number of casualties these authors claim would have happened without the lock downs. And that in a country which only had a few hundred cases anyway before it locked down!

So if you add a factor 10 exaggeration on the death toll avoided by the lock downs, the 3 mistakes by these two authors conveniently change the cost-benefit ratio by a factor of 1200 in the direction of making the lock downs look sensible. I hope they have the honesty to admit this and rectify their position accordingly. It would be even better if they would then also have a look at the many other costs of the lock downs: abused women, the suffering of the lonely, the cancelled hospital services, etc. Yet, to do that properly needs a WELLBY approach, which might be a bit much to ask of them.

Holden and Preston could have done even worse and write a Conversation piece like Neil Bailey, who argued the huge reduction in economic resources will not have any effect on lives at all. It is a somewhat strange argument for an economist to make because it basically says government expenses, including all health services, have no health benefits. One wonders why we even bother to have hospitals then? That truly bizarre assumption allows Neil Bailey to say the economic collapse will not cost any lives via reduced government services. As I have calculated several times now, the economic collapse will cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of corona virus victims in Australia alone, and many millions worldwide. At least Preston and Holden are aware of that fact!

In conclusion, I am happy to see more economists finally starting to look at numbers in order to come to statements on costs and benefits of lock downs and other policies. Its where the Conversation should be. Correcting for their rookie mistake in not knowing what the term “statistical value of life” actually stands for, Richard Holden and Bruce Preston have basically concluded the economic damage is at least 6 times higher than a generous estimate of the benefits of the lock downs. Correcting for their further mistakes in applying standard macro-economics and the fatality rates pertaining to this virus, they would have come to the conclusion that the costs of lock downs outweigh the benefits by a factor of 240 in Australia. I hope they have the honesty to own that position from now on.

Even with the above it feels like they ignored the cost of the virus running through society freely.

 

[qldfrog]

My view is that we have learnt a lot in the last 3 months.decision were made which were not justified, yet blame is not welcome, 8 would preefer a :
We made a prudent decision, we might have gone too far in retrospective, and i believe people would understand that.
I would.
No need to lie and fudge figures, only idiots or some radical members here do not accept change

If the temperature factor is real, we were mostly safe and could have just isolate vulnerable populations, on the other end, we may just start facing issues down south.
Let's look again in august.i think Morrison overall did a proper job and acted as he should have.now let's move on and learn from it.

 

[sptrawler]

We are starting to see the green shoots of a post virus Australia IMO, the Governments renewables roadmap and an increase in domestic manufacturing is on the cards. Hooray
The debate will probably be about the time and cost of getting the energy mix right between gas and renewables, gas is easier because it only requires a pipe, renewables are better but would take a lot longer to fruition.
Just my opinion.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...0-p54uwd.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true

 

[Humid]

We are starting to see the green shoots of a post virus Australia IMO, the Governments renewables roadmap and an increase in domestic manufacturing is on the cards. Hooray
The debate will probably be about the time and cost of getting the energy mix right between gas and renewables, gas is easier because it only requires a pipe, renewables are better but would take a lot longer to fruition.
Just my opinion.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...0-p54uwd.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true

After a double-whammy of fossil fuel leaders getting paid by the government to recommend fossil projects, the ABC reports that Angus Taylor has released the government’s 30 year Technology Investment Roadmap.

While the discussion paper considers the potential of more than 140 technologies, including hydrogen, renewables, biofuels and (surprise surprise) gas and carbon capture, The Age’s Nick O’Malley notes that it also “includes no goals, no discussion, no prediction of how much less carbon the nation will emit over the coming years should Taylor’s roadmap be followed.”

FURTHER: The Guardian reports that a leaked draft report by a the COVID-19 Commission’s manufacturing taskforce — headed by Dow Chemical executive Andrew Liveris — recommends the Morrison government use taxpayer funds to “create the market” for gas and build fossil fuel infrastructure that would operate for decades. Three for three, baby!

 

[sptrawler]

After a double-whammy of fossil fuel leaders getting paid by the government to recommend fossil projects, the ABC reports that Angus Taylor has released the government’s 30 year Technology Investment Roadmap.

While the discussion paper considers the potential of more than 140 technologies, including hydrogen, renewables, biofuels and (surprise surprise) gas and carbon capture, The Age’s Nick O’Malley notes that it also “includes no goals, no discussion, no prediction of how much less carbon the nation will emit over the coming years should Taylor’s roadmap be followed.”

FURTHER: The Guardian reports that a leaked draft report by a the COVID-19 Commission’s manufacturing taskforce — headed by Dow Chemical executive Andrew Liveris — recommends the Morrison government use taxpayer funds to “create the market” for gas and build fossil fuel infrastructure that would operate for decades. Three for three, baby!

Yes it sounds good, hopefully the momentum is maintained, the problem with these big bold moves they tend to fizzle out when bean counters get involved.
Hopefully this time it is different.

 

[basilio]

Be interesting to see how the owners and investors of the big shopping centres fare as foot traffic and sales crash.
Shopping centre landlords set to be among the biggest coronavirus losers

When the dust eventually settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be winners and there will be losers. Retail landlords are shaping up to be among the biggest losers.

Key points:

• Many retailers say they have struggled to negotiate rent reductions with their shopping centre landlords
• Retail giant Premier Investments stopped paying rent while its stores were closed and is now seeking to negotiate much lower rents going forward
• Analysts say the stream of new retailers that has allowed landlords to squeeze small shops out of existence is drying up

"Everybody else has felt that this is a ground-breaking time where we have to behave differently, do things differently, change your business model," retail strategist Nancy Georges told the ABC.

"Landlords are not doing that."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...rds-among-biggest-coronavirus-losers/12271266

 

[basilio]

The collapse in bank dividends and almost certainly property market dividends will be playing havoc with investors and retirees.

It will also also result in a substantial revaluation of assets which don't return income.

Retirees face financial ruin as coronavirus slashes share dividends
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...l-ruin-as-coronavirus-slashes-share-dividends

 

[tech/a]

What a beat up this is

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ine/12278432&usg=AOvVaw2SwoWiUy_gwxdzhCQmR1ZK

Firstly the budgeted amount was announced well BEFORE businesses were repeating for Job Keeper so the REASON is just rubbish

The estimates were based on worst case scenarios for budgeting purposes.
Australia handled and is handling COVID as good as anyone on the planet.

So best case is now the worst case.
Spin is for a bungle for political gain —— same old same old.

Personally all I see is a reward for a job well done from EVERYONE.