Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[over9k]

You talking U.S or australia there trawler?

Aus is reopening intranationally and I expect there to be a "bubble" with NZ as well. Everyone are just keeping the border with victoria closed. VIC will get it under control eventually, just months after everyone else. This has already been announced.

If you're talking USA, then yeah, they're boned.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Great question.

Would love to know what our PM and premiums answer would be?

Something along the lines of IHN F..king Idea.

Let it ripe, you cannot defeat it, nor isolate it. This is the biggest joke is mismanagement of a crisis, well a claytons crisis, a crisis that is not really a crisis.

If you bothered to read what I have just written, then you will see the path.

1. All states go back to business as usual without COVID restrictions while domestic and international borders remain closed.
2. Once all states have gone back to business as usual, without COVID restrictions, with minimal new COVID cases, for a reasonable duration of time; then we open up our domestic borders.
3. Once all our states have gone back to business as usual, without COVID restrictions, with minimal new cases for a reasonable duration of time, with no domestic border closures; then we can look at opening up our international borders with other select nations.

Opening up our international borders will not happen unless our nation and the respective nation agree on all the specific conditions and rules of international travel while the world is struggling to deal with the virus. Sort of like a WhatsApp group; the group doesn't want someone allowed into the group, who is going to infect the rest of the group.

 

[over9k]

Everything's going to reopen for interstate movement but with the international and victorian borders remaining closed. This has already been announced. The only question is whether we see travel to/from NZ being implemented in a similar fashion - i.e without victoria. I reckon we will. I own some AIA.

 

[sptrawler]

You talking U.S or australia there trawler?

Aus is reopening intranationally and I expect there to be a "bubble" with NZ as well. Everyone are just keeping the border with victoria closed. VIC will get it under control eventually, just months after everyone else. This has already been announced.

If you're talking USA, then yeah, they're boned.

My post was just my feelings as to where Australia is ATM, as I said it is uncharted waters, so the fallout will be interesting IMO. Trying to guess if or where the

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Everything's going to reopen for interstate movement but with the international and victorian borders remaining closed. This has already been announced. The only question is whether we see travel to/from NZ being implemented in a similar fashion - i.e without victoria. I reckon we will.

People from NSW and Victoria have been crossing the border unrestricted for weeks. Gladys said the other day that it's OK, we will deal with the outbreaks. Yes; we will deal with the outbreaks by going into lockdown again.

Open up the domestics borders without NSW and VIC, and make sure that our NSW and VIC border is closed properly this time; if we aren't capable of being disciplined in managing this, to avoid further economic destruction.

 

[Sdajii]

I think you responded to the wrong post/image buddy. Anyway; if you have a problem, it is with the expert risk analysts, not me.

The spiral chart, obviously. I made specific references to it. And if you failed to realise I have a problem with those 'expert analysts' after bluntly indicating that those analysts are clearly wrong, there's something wrong with your English or reading comprehension. If you agree with those analysts you're incredibly naive.

 

[rederob]

In reality the lack of overseas tourism coming into Australia may not have a massive effect, as it isn't a huge money generator, as opposed to the extra money Australians will be spending due to not being able to travel overseas.

International tourism direct spend was over $60B last year, and you can double that for total direct tourism spend.
Not sure how much local tourism will occur in Australia this year as border closures will have a huge impact this year. Gold Coast businesses are still doing it tough.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

The spiral chart, obviously. I made specific references to it. And if you failed to realise I have a problem with those 'expert analysts' after bluntly indicating that those analysts are clearly wrong, there's something wrong with your English or reading comprehension. If you agree with those analysts you're incredibly naive.

You made specific reference to the World Economic Forum research questions to senior risk analysts, but you responded to the S&P table for Chinese bank estimated credit costs. Which indicates to me that you are just firing off posts without thinking too much.

So we are supposed to take your opinion over a group of ~350 senior risk analysts? I always keep an open mind, but you have hardly swayed my opinion with your comments.

 

[Sdajii]

The virus isn't out of control in NSW!

Point being that we must keep our domestic border closed so that we can get back to business and open up our restaurants, pubs, cinemas, and so on. Or we can just open up the border, and let the virus run out of control, that will risk overwhelming our hospital system, and force us back into full lockdown again which will cause more economic pain.

It depends what you mean by 'control'. Unless we are stupid or being facetious, obviously when we say the virus is out of control we mean in a global sense the genie is out of the bottle and we're not going to eradicate it. Obviously no one fails to realise that there are individual locations which don't have it, or only have it in isolated, contained cases. I'm not sure which of these reasons caused you to point out that it is 'under control' in NSW, but it's not even true anyway; the virus is not on a path to elimination in NSW. It could be done with extreme measures, but those measures are not being taken to control it, thus it's not under control, unless you simply mean that it's being kept at a low level, but then you're back to my original point which that the approach has no end game; without an elimination strategy you simply have a destructive state of semi lockdown which lasts indefinitely. Eventually you need to either eliminate it or go back to business as usual.

If we have the virus run out of control, lockdown becomes pointless because the virus is already everywhere. This would be far better than the current situation of indefinite semi lockdown because at least there's an end game of some sort. The 'flatten the curve' proposal was reasonable as long as the flattening was done to a reasonable extent, but we've now abandoned that strategy and we're being lead to be terrified of having a curve at all, and instead we are told to want this insane indefinite situation. You need an endgame; either choose to have business as usual, or flatten the curve, or eliminate the virus. I would opt for a reasonable flatten the curve game, much like Sweden has done, but I would accept either of the other two options even though they aren't my choice, because at least they're options with outcomes. What we are doing is an extremely destructive way of delaying the choice of one of these three possible options.

 

[Sdajii]

Yeah this whole "the virus can't be controlled and lockdowns are therefore futile and it's also harmless therefore lockdowns are also pointless" narrative absolutely boggles my mind.

It absolutely can be controlled and it's absolutely harmful/fatal increasing exponentially with age.

Indeed, it's more harmful the older a person is. So much so that it almost exclusively kills people who are very close to dying anyway! Look at the average age of virus deaths and compare them to the average life expectancies of the countries those deaths take place in; they're almost exactly the same! This virus isn't effectively doing serious damage!

 

[Sdajii]

You made specific reference to the World Economic Forum research questions to senior risk analysts, but you responded to the S&P table for Chinese bank estimated credit costs. Which indicates to me that you are just firing off posts without thinking too much.

It's clear what I was responding to, you're just being obtuse. Stay on topic, don't be silly.

So we are supposed to take your opinion over a group of ~350 senior risk analysts? I always keep an open mind, but you have hardly swayed my opinion with your comments.

Not at all, the fact that any reasonable person can see how absurd those figures are means any reasonable person can see that these so-called experts are either not actual experts, or they are for some reason being disingenuous. I don't for a moment expect anyone to take my word for it in this case.

Do you honestly think that there is only a 2.3% increase in the chance of global conflict? Seriously? I mean, I'm not asking you to blindly believe me, I'm pointing out that any attempt at critical thinking which anyone smarter than an average pin cushion is capable of shows this to be untrue. Same deal with most of the figures on your spiral chart. I'm encouraging people to compare their own rational thinking with what we are being told 'experts' are saying, in order to encourage people not to blindly follow garbage they're being told. Not everyone is as naive as you, you're clearly someone I can't convince to think independently, but perhaps someone closer to the fence may be encouraged into the correct side where people are brave enough to use critical thinking rather than blindly believe blatant lies.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

It's clear what I was responding to, you're just being obtuse. Stay on topic, don't be silly.



Not at all, the fact that any reasonable person can see how absurd those figures are means any reasonable person can see that these so-called experts are either not actual experts, or they are for some reason being disingenuous. I don't for a moment expect anyone to take my word for it in this case.

Do you honestly think that there is only a 2.3% increase in the chance of global conflict? Seriously? I mean, I'm not asking you to blindly believe me, I'm pointing out that any attempt at critical thinking which anyone smarter than an average pin cushion is capable of shows this to be untrue. Same deal with most of the figures on your spiral chart. I'm encouraging people to compare their own rational thinking with what we are being told 'experts' are saying, in order to encourage people not to blindly follow garbage they're being told. Not everyone is as naive as you, you're clearly someone I can't convince to think independently, but perhaps someone closer to the fence may be encouraged into the correct side where people are brave enough to use critical thinking rather than blindly believe blatant lies.

Let's take this one point at a time. First let's start with the spiral chart.

1. It is not my spiral chart

2. It is based on the response of ~350 senior risk analysts

3. I am not blind or naive at all; it is simply a chart that each individual can assess, believe or disregard as they please. In fact I embrace critical thinking.

4. If you wish to disregard expert opinion openly, at least make a comment on what you think is correct. So what is your percentage on the chances of an increase or decrease in long term military conflicts, not global conflict, and why?

Global conflict suggests WW3!

 

[sptrawler]

International tourism direct spend was over $60B last year, and you can double that for total direct tourism spend.
Not sure how much local tourism will occur in Australia this year as border closures will have a huge impact this year. Gold Coast businesses are still doing it tough.

That is interesting, shows how figures can be rubbery.

8.7 million

Key findings. Australia saw record numbers of international visitors aged 15 years and over for the year to December 2019 with 8.7 million arrivals - 2% more than the previous year. This supported a 3% growth in total trip spend, which reached a record $45.4 billion.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/products/961B6B53B87C130ACA2574030010BD05

There is no doubt there are businesses that are doing it tough, but are they listed companies? or will their losses be to a degree absorbed with government spending? that is what I meant by localised pain, rather than a figure that is felt on the share market.
On the other hand, these businesses may have a dramatic effect on sectors of the share market and working out which sectors, is what I was meaning.

Meanwhile 9 million tourists come here, and 10 million Australians go overseas, so those 10 million may in reality holiday in Australia?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

It depends what you mean by 'control'. Unless we are stupid or being facetious, obviously when we say the virus is out of control we mean in a global sense the genie is out of the bottle and we're not going to eradicate it. Obviously no one fails to realise that there are individual locations which don't have it, or only have it in isolated, contained cases. I'm not sure which of these reasons caused you to point out that it is 'under control' in NSW, but it's not even true anyway; the virus is not on a path to elimination in NSW. It could be done with extreme measures, but those measures are not being taken to control it, thus it's not under control, unless you simply mean that it's being kept at a low level, but then you're back to my original point which that the approach has no end game; without an elimination strategy you simply have a destructive state of semi lockdown which lasts indefinitely. Eventually you need to either eliminate it or go back to business as usual.

If we have the virus run out of control, lockdown becomes pointless because the virus is already everywhere. This would be far better than the current situation of indefinite semi lockdown because at least there's an end game of some sort. The 'flatten the curve' proposal was reasonable as long as the flattening was done to a reasonable extent, but we've now abandoned that strategy and we're being lead to be terrified of having a curve at all, and instead we are told to want this insane indefinite situation. You need an endgame; either choose to have business as usual, or flatten the curve, or eliminate the virus. I would opt for a reasonable flatten the curve game, much like Sweden has done, but I would accept either of the other two options even though they aren't my choice, because at least they're options with outcomes. What we are doing is an extremely destructive way of delaying the choice of one of these three possible options.

You come across as someone very young. Anyway, it is my opinion:

1. This is not a black and white conundrum, as such it is a very complicated solution that must be formulated for the best/optimal outcome.

2. I don't subscribe to the solutions that you propose of either it is complete business as usual with opening of international and domestic borders or complete shutdown.

3. We as nation have chosen the path of virus suppression many months ago and for us to radically change our strategy, it will come at a greater economic cost. You don't think the majority of people will lock themselves in and become hermits if people are dropping dead on our streets?

 

[Smurf1976]

World Economic Forum surveyed 347 senior risk analysts on the post-COVID world:

Perhaps the most alarming bit is that rather a lot of the less likely things on that chart still seem pretty likely to occur.

 

[Smurf1976]

Look at the worst hit countries, their average age of virus deaths is around the same age as their countries' average life expectancies.

What is the average age of those injured but not dead?

The ones with stuffed lungs or other organs and who'll need a transplant within the next few years?

And do we have enough organs to ensure all these people receive a transplant and that it's a quick procedure?

I don't know the answers there but those who suffer organ damage seem to be a bigger concern than those who die in the short term. We're going to be needing a lot of lungs and so on for years to come if this gets out of hand and we're going to need a lot of doctors and so on doing transplants and a lot of $ socialising the cost.

 

[qldfrog]

What is the average age of those injured but not dead?

The ones with stuffed lungs or other organs and who'll need a transplant within the next few years?

And do we have enough organs to ensure all these people receive a transplant and that it's a quick procedure?

I don't know the answers there but those who suffer organ damage seem to be a bigger concern than those who die in the short term. We're going to be needing a lot of lungs and so on for years to come if this gets out of hand and we're going to need a lot of doctors and so on doing transplants and a lot of $ socialising the cost.

@Smurf1976, i respect you highly and i know both you and i like facts and figures/ numbers.i really recommend you start digging actual casualty, stays in hospital and real severe illness numbers.
Age condition of the dead..
You will be happily surprised, trust me on that one..avoid the sensation numbers from both News and our ABC, look at the latest discoveries in term of people having had it and not registering on current 2 common tests: blood/nasal and you will discover that it is indeed very contagious but mostly benign, even counting scars lungs etc.
I was initially VERY scared as i was looking at the Chinese handling in real time, the more i know about it, the more serene i am.figures are good...even better under warmer climate and high vit D.
You work night shift in a cold and wet environment.. abattoir..yes be scares
You are 95 and hardly surviving..yes..not good
But otherwise..
I let you DYOR and hopefully look at the figures objectively

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

@Smurf1976, i respect you highly and i know both you and i like facts and figures/ numbers.i really recommend you start digging actual casualty, stays in hospital and real severe illness numbers.
Age condition of the dead..
You will be happily surprised, trust me on that one..avoid the sensation numbers from both News and our ABC, look at the latest discoveries in term of people having had it and not registering on current 2 common tests: blood/nasal and you will discover that it is indeed very contagious but mostly benign, even counting scars lungs etc.
I was initially VERY scared as i was looking at the Chinese handling in real time, the more i know about it, the more serene i am.figures are good...even better under warmer climate and high vit D.
You work night shift in a cold and wet environment.. abattoir..yes be scares
You are 95 and hardly surviving..yes..not good
But otherwise..
I let you DYOR and hopefully look at the figures objectively

This virus can blowout within weeks, if we aren't careful, we are holding it by throat in Australia. Why should we let it go? Let it run rampant. We are now free to do business with limited restrictions in our states, with the exception of international and domestic travel. We are the envy of the world, with the way we have dealt with this.

 

[Sdajii]

Let's take this one point at a time. First let's start with the spiral chart.

1. It is not my spiral chart

You posted it, I'm commenting on it. What's your point when you say you didn't produce it? Think about that. If you are dissociating from it, it shows that you are coming to terms with how flawed it is. Otherwise, why do you feel the need to point this out? I didn't say you produced it, no one here thought you did...

2. It is based on the response of ~350 senior risk analysts

Again, you demonstrate how naive you are; blindly trusting something because someone told you it's authoritative, in spite of how clearly flawed it is.

3. I am not blind or naive at all; it is simply a chart that each individual can assess, believe or disregard as they please. In fact I embrace critical thinking.

Heh heh heh heh heh. You literally follow "It's based on 350 senior risk analysts" as a standalone point of importance with "I am not blind or naive... I embrace critical thinking" despite the fact that last week's lawn clippings have enough critical thinking ability to see that your spiral chart is garbage, and point #2 demonstrates how naive you are, and point #1 shows that deep down you know it.

4. If you wish to disregard expert opinion openly, at least make a comment on what you think is correct.

Heh heh heh... I'm actually honestly now wondering if you're an adult of moderate intelligence. I literally already gave examples which were clearly wrong.

So what is your percentage on the chances of an increase or decrease in long term military conflicts, not global conflict, and why?

Obviously it would be absurd of me to say the percentage is 58.32% higher, but just take a look at what's going on with global tensions, threats, etc etc, even here in Australia with China with threats being exchanged, Australian mainstream media taking blunt shots at China, etc etc, and consider that Australia is by no means the hottest part of the world in terms of potential conflict, and it's pretty obvious that the increase is more than two and a bit percent.

Global conflict suggests WW3!

Ooooh, you used bold text! Impressive! Give yourself a blue star sticker! Next time try to use bold for something other than pointing out that you spotted a largely irrelevant implication though.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

You posted it, I'm commenting on it. What's your point when you say you didn't produce it? Think about that. If you are dissociating from it, it shows that you are coming to terms with how flawed it is. Otherwise, why do you feel the need to point this out? I didn't say you produced it, no one here thought you did...



Again, you demonstrate how naive you are; blindly trusting something because someone told you it's authoritative, in spite of how clearly flawed it is.



Heh heh heh heh heh. You literally follow "It's based on 350 senior risk analysts" as a standalone point of importance with "I am not blind or naive... I embrace critical thinking" despite the fact that last week's lawn clippings have enough critical thinking ability to see that your spiral chart is garbage, and point #2 demonstrates how naive you are, and point #1 shows that deep down you know it.



Heh heh heh... I'm actually honestly now wondering if you're an adult of moderate intelligence. I literally already gave examples which were clearly wrong.



Obviously it would be absurd of me to say the percentage is 58.32% higher, but just take a look at what's going on with global tensions, threats, etc etc, even here in Australia with China with threats being exchanged, Australian mainstream media taking blunt shots at China, etc etc, and consider that Australia is by no means the hottest part of the world in terms of potential conflict, and it's pretty obvious that the increase is more than two and a bit percent.



Ooooh, you used bold text! Impressive! Give yourself a blue star sticker! Next time try to use bold for something other than pointing out that you spotted a largely irrelevant implication though.

1. Yes; you said I produced it. I produce many things from innovative ways to burn waste to new financial products. That particular chart is not mine and if I did I would claim it, I am not scared of you or anyone else to claim what is mine.

2. Again; you think you are better than these risk analysts, but have clearly stated that you disagree without any sound or reasonable intelligent response as to why they are wrong. In fact, you are getting mixed up between the terms of global conflict and military conflict.

3. I never said that I agreed, merely just stated that this is their response.

4. Where is your alternative response to the expert response? You don't have one other than stating that they are wrong. It is like me saying that political analysts are wrong with predicating a Clinton victory in 2016, yet I stated that Trump would win; a clear and precise alternative to expert opinion. You have done nothing of the sort.

5. Are you talking about percentages of an increase in military conflict or the percentage of increase global conflict; there is a huge difference and it looks like you are having difficulty in differentiating between the two.