Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[Sdajii]

You come across as someone very young.

Oh, you! *giggles* Flattery will get you everywhere! <3

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.

1. Numbered points in this case are stupid.

2. I'll use numbered points to demonstrate to you how stupid it is to use them unnecessarily.

3. Your first point is irrelevant since no one suggested otherwise.

4. It's comical that in your second point you feel the need to say you disagree with something I didn't actually say, especially when my own preferred option which I very briefly described is neither of the two options you imagined I said were the only two!

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?

5. Okay, where to start with this... firstly, we didn't choose this as a nation. We didn't vote on it. Many people disagree. The government made a decision, the media told people to go along with it, we were literally told via media that we had to accept giving up rights we used to take for granted, and most people either willingly or grudgingly complied. This is not in line with your incorrect assertion of "We as a nation have chosen the path of virus suppression"

Okay, you then say "Many months ago". I arrived in Australia at the end of February (intending to stay for about 2 weeks... ouch). In March we could still come and go, decisions hadn't been made as you say, especially as a nation!

6. Dry your eyes and look at reality, love. Nowhere have people been "dropping dead on the streets". You're being melodramatic. Across the globe we see a huge range of strategies from business as usual to extreme lockdowns. Through all of this, even in the worst affected countries, it's not a case of mass deaths in any meaningful way. Even with zero mitigation efforts, it's not like this is going to cause a notable reduction in the population. Look at the worst countries like Spain, USA, UK. They've only had around 500 deaths per million people in around 6 months and the vast majority of those deaths were people around the end of their life expectancy (literally around half already over it!) and the vast majority of younger ones were already critically ill, often with terminal diseases. In all those cases, the death rate has greatly reduced (the vulnerable people already close to death who were susceptible have mostly already died), even in cases where the infection rate is still increasing, showing that even if more people get it, which in many cases is actually happening, the death rate won't be an issue.

7. This is point number 7 of 7.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Oh, you! *giggles* Flattery will get you everywhere! <3




1. Numbered points in this case are stupid.

2. I'll use numbered points to demonstrate to you how stupid it is to use them unnecessarily.

3. Your first point is irrelevant since no one suggested otherwise.

4. It's comical that in your second point you feel the need to say you disagree with something I didn't actually say, especially when my own preferred option which I very briefly described is neither of the two options you imagined I said were the only two!



5. Okay, where to start with this... firstly, we didn't choose this as a nation. We didn't vote on it. Many people disagree. The government made a decision, the media told people to go along with it, we were literally told via media that we had to accept giving up rights we used to take for granted, and most people either willingly or grudgingly complied. This is not in line with your incorrect assertion of "We as a nation have chosen the path of virus suppression"

Okay, you then say "Many months ago". I arrived in Australia at the end of February (intending to stay for about 2 weeks... ouch). In March we could still come and go, decisions hadn't been made as you say, especially as a nation!

6. Dry your eyes and look at reality, love. Nowhere have people been "dropping dead on the streets". You're being melodramatic. Across the globe we see a huge range of strategies from business as usual to extreme lockdowns. Through all of this, even in the worst affected countries, it's not a case of mass deaths in any meaningful way. Even with zero mitigation efforts, it's not like this is going to cause a notable reduction in the population. Look at the worst countries like Spain, USA, UK. They've only had around 500 deaths per million people in around 6 months and the vast majority of those deaths were people around the end of their life expectancy (literally around half already over it!) and the vast majority of younger ones were already critically ill, often with terminal diseases. In all those cases, the death rate has greatly reduced (the vulnerable people already close to death who were susceptible have mostly already died), even in cases where the infection rate is still increasing, showing that even if more people get it, which in many cases is actually happening, the death rate won't be an issue.

7. This is point number 7 of 7.

This discussion has obviously reached an impasse. You can advise our government and I will just trade the fallout now.

 

[Sdajii]

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.

Haha! "Injured!"

Dry your eyes and relax a little. People get 'permanent lung damage' from the flu, common cold, etc. It's really not that bad. Extremely few people will have lung damage which is an issue. Not to belittle the unfortunate cases which will exist, but they're nothing compared to the suicides, depression, loss of business, jobs, economic damage (which itself causes deaths and suffering), etc etc caused by the shutdowns.

Other organs? Transplants? You do know this is a respiratory bug, right? Not the fictional version of Ebola in the movie Outbreak.

Consider that in the worst hit countries which have already had the big wave and thus won't have a second wave, haven't had the problems you're worrying about. You're literally advocating big problems (lockdowns) for the sake of preventing fictional problems (ie massive exaggerations of real problems).

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Haha! "Injured!"

Dry your eyes and relax a little. People get 'permanent lung damage' from the flu, common cold, etc. It's really not that bad. Extremely few people will have lung damage which is an issue. Not to belittle the unfortunate cases which will exist, but they're nothing compared to the suicides, depression, loss of business, jobs, economic damage (which itself causes deaths and suffering), etc etc caused by the shutdowns.

Other organs? Transplants? You do know this is a respiratory bug, right? Not the fictional version of Ebola in the movie Outbreak.

Consider that in the worst hit countries which have already had the big wave and thus won't have a second wave, haven't had the problems you're worrying about. You're literally advocating big problems (lockdowns) for the sake of preventing fictional problems (ie massive exaggerations of real problems).

I don't intend to waste my time with people that aren't interested in proper discussion.

Please advise our government, so I can trade and invest accordingly.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Haha! "Injured!"

Dry your eyes and relax a little. People get 'permanent lung damage' from the flu, common cold, etc. It's really not that bad. Extremely few people will have lung damage which is an issue. Not to belittle the unfortunate cases which will exist, but they're nothing compared to the suicides, depression, loss of business, jobs, economic damage (which itself causes deaths and suffering), etc etc caused by the shutdowns.

Other organs? Transplants? You do know this is a respiratory bug, right? Not the fictional version of Ebola in the movie Outbreak.

Consider that in the worst hit countries which have already had the big wave and thus won't have a second wave, haven't had the problems you're worrying about. You're literally advocating big problems (lockdowns) for the sake of preventing fictional problems (ie massive exaggerations of real problems).

Yep, you know better than all of us. We are here to listen to you on how best to deal with this now.

Please, don't stop; tell us what to do. I will forward to our National Cabinet of Ministers!

 

[Smurf1976]

People get 'permanent lung damage' from the flu, common cold, etc. It's really not that bad. Extremely few people will have lung damage which is an issue.

Unless you're directly involved working on this then neither of us knows for sure.

That said, well so far as has been reported the vast majority of the population has not been infected by this virus and yet already quite a few cases of lung damage etc have turned up. How many more cases are as yet undiagnosed is anyone's guess but it's very unlikely to be zero.

I claim no medical qualifications but it's commonsense that if a few people being infected produces identified cases of damage then there's almost certainly going to be more cases which haven't yet been identified. Likewise if we have more people infected then we'll have more cases of damage. That's just commonsense, the only real unknown is the magnitude of the problem.

 

[Sdajii]

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.

Nope, I never said you produced it, and I can't see anywhere that I may have inadvertently implied it, unless you mean when I called it "your" chart, but surely if I say "Your computer/car/etc" you wouldn't assume I meant that I thought you constructed your own computer/car/etc

Hahahahaha! Why would you feel the need to say that you're not scared of me? It's not like I was planning to come to your home, steal your roses and eat all your macaroni and cheese... or am I?

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.

I'm obviously either smarter or more honest (I strongly believe it's the latter). You again demonstrate how naive you are, believing figures despite how absurd they are, simply because someone told you they came from experts! If you want to say 'global conflict' means any form of conflict rather than military conflict, then the odds go up even higher and your 350 experts are even more stupid and/or dishonest, because obviously tensions are increased because of this situation and no dolt is stupid enough to fail to see that we're still going to have forms of non military conflict in 18 months because of it. I suppose I just said you're not a dolt, because you say that you do believe it, and I said no dolt does.

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

Heh heh heh. You bang on saying "But it came from 350 experts!!!" as though that makes it meaningful, then dismiss it. I mean, hey, shoot down your own point, I guess if you contradict yourself I will agree with you sometimes as I do here, but flip flopping is silly.

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.

I discussed a couple of examples which are blatantly obvious. To to through them all, given there are dozens, would literally require several pages and multiple hours. It's absurd of you to suggest I should do it. If you want me to discuss one or two in addition to the ones I did pick out, by all means ask for them specifically, but don't expect an epic tome. I could pick out a few which are perhaps realistic and I wouldn't argue with, such as IT breakdown

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.

The chart stated it as a probability of increase, not an amount of increase. The title of the chart is literally "LIKELIHOOD". I totally agree that it's a stupid chart, I think I've made that clear, but that's what it says.

 

[Sdajii]

Yep, you know better than all of us. We are here to listen to you on how best to deal with this now.

Please, don't stop; tell us what to do. I will forward to our National Cabinet of Ministers!

See, I haven't said I know everything about everything. What you're employing is a debating tactic people use when it's clear they're wrong. It's a bit of a bait and switch technique. Rather than saying "Yep, I was wrong about that, thanks for the discussion" you go for some nonsensical distraction, pretending that I'm saying that I know everything, and since that's obviously untrue, we should forget everything I've said, including where I've shot down your arguments. By all means if you think I have something wrong point it out, and hey, when people actually do that and I have made an error or they teach me something I'm happy to thank them, but stick to honest debating which maintain integrity.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Nope, I never said you produced it, and I can't see anywhere that I may have inadvertently implied it, unless you mean when I called it "your" chart, but surely if I say "Your computer/car/etc" you wouldn't assume I meant that I thought you constructed your own computer/car/etc

Hahahahaha! Why would you feel the need to say that you're not scared of me? It's not like I was planning to come to your home, steal your roses and eat all your macaroni and cheese... or am I?



I'm obviously either smarter or more honest (I strongly believe it's the latter). You again demonstrate how naive you are, believing figures despite how absurd they are, simply because someone told you they came from experts! If you want to say 'global conflict' means any form of conflict rather than military conflict, then the odds go up even higher and your 350 experts are even more stupid and/or dishonest, because obviously tensions are increased because of this situation and no dolt is stupid enough to fail to see that we're still going to have forms of non military conflict in 18 months because of it. I suppose I just said you're not a dolt, because you say that you do believe it, and I said no dolt does.



Heh heh heh. You bang on saying "But it came from 350 experts!!!" as though that makes it meaningful, then dismiss it. I mean, hey, shoot down your own point, I guess if you contradict yourself I will agree with you sometimes as I do here, but flip flopping is silly.



I discussed a couple of examples which are blatantly obvious. To to through them all, given there are dozens, would literally require several pages and multiple hours. It's absurd of you to suggest I should do it. If you want me to discuss one or two in addition to the ones I did pick out, by all means ask for them specifically, but don't expect an epic tome. I could pick out a few which are perhaps realistic and I wouldn't argue with, such as IT breakdown



The chart stated it as a probability of increase, not an amount of increase. The title of the chart is literally "LIKELIHOOD". I totally agree that it's a stupid chart, I think I've made that clear, but that's what it says.

Steal? To steal my ideas you must be a multi-billionaire.

I never said the chart was stupid, you have said that, again. You must be having a conversation with yourself.

Sorry, you have to go on ignore soon. You are breaching tolerance levels of stupidity.

 

[over9k]

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?

Yes that's the thing about this virus and the responses to it - most big companies have been able to access/raise the capital necessary to ride things out through mechanisms like corporate bonds, which small businesses generally can't do. Ergo, the little guys get wiped out and whatever business remains goes to the big players.

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!

Honestly man, the other guys are right - you do sound like a child. Or a loon. Your entire post can be paraphrased as "We should let everyone get it because it only kills people who were close to dying anyway".

It's nuts.

And it's also moot - governments that have controlled it are not going to just let everyone get it. We're not here discussing what the consequences should be, we're here discussing what they ARE.

How about we all get back to that and leave our personal opinions vis a vie what should be done out of things?

 

[Sdajii]

Unless you're directly involved working on this then neither of us knows for sure.

This is nonsense. I've never worked as a lawyer but I can look up any law I want to. I've never worked in building construction but that doesn't mean I have no access to construction techniques.

That said, well so far as has been reported the vast majority of the population has not been infected by this virus and yet already quite a few cases of lung damage etc have turned up. How many more cases are as yet undiagnosed is anyone's guess but it's very unlikely to be zero.

You do realise there are literally more than TEN MILLION identified cases of this virus and it's the most intensely studied virus in history, right? I mean... what exactly do you need to count as a sample? Ten million isn't enough? Keep in mind that the majority of cases go literally unnoticed with most people literally not even realising they have the virus, and those with no symptoms don't get lung damage. This is not a chronic disease, so it's not like those ten million cases are going to last several years and develop issues later; the majority of them have already recovered. We have many millions of recovered cases. We have a good grasp of what's going on.

I claim no medical qualifications but it's commonsense that if a few people being infected produces identified cases of damage then there's almost certainly going to be more cases which haven't yet been identified. Likewise if we have more people infected then we'll have more cases of damage. That's just commonsense, the only real unknown is the magnitude of the problem.

It makes sense that since it's a trivial issue per capita so far, it's going to be a trivial issue per capita going forward, in fact, prognosis for infected people is rapidly improving. Just as an example, infection rates are still rapidly increasing, but the death rate is increasing and not just as a percentage of new cases but in most countries at a total number, and globally the death rate is very stable despite the number of cases continuing to climb, with average case severity dropping rapidly, presumably due to the most vulnerable already being knocked out, sampling improvement (the situation looked worse before because of sampling error but is improving as sampling improves and we get a better idea of the true situation, improved patient management as we learn more about the virus, and I believe that we're seeing mutation making the virus less destructive (I expected this to happen, and it's in line with what you'd expect of a new virus - a less lethal, more mild virus can spread to more people and be more successful. This one started more lethal than optimal for a non chronic respiratory virus). Without a doubt, the more time goes on, the more we learn about the virus, and the more mild we realise it to be.

 

[over9k]

Let's assume that's true - governments are not going to just reopen everything and let everyone get it. They are not.

With that in mind, let's move on to the actual consequences, not our personal opinions of government actions. Our personal opinions change precisely nothing.

 

[Sdajii]

Steal? To steal my ideas you must be a multi-billionaire.

I never said the chart was stupid, you have said that, again. You must be having a conversation with yourself.

Sorry, you have to go on ignore soon. You are breaching tolerance levels of stupidity.

Who stole what? What are you on about?

You missed a reference to your own comment showing that the chart didn't make sense.

Ah, the ignore button, the tool of the coward. You have multiple choices; you could respond to my posts in a meaningful way and have a discussion, you could post something like this valueless one, ignoring the substance and forcing a stop to anything meaningful, you could simply not respond, or you could use the coward tool and blissfully post misinformation unchallenged. Your choice I suppose!

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

See, I haven't said I know everything about everything. What you're employing is a debating tactic people use when it's clear they're wrong. It's a bit of a bait and switch technique. Rather than saying "Yep, I was wrong about that, thanks for the discussion" you go for some nonsensical distraction, pretending that I'm saying that I know everything, and since that's obviously untrue, we should forget everything I've said, including where I've shot down your arguments. By all means if you think I have something wrong point it out, and hey, when people actually do that and I have made an error or they teach me something I'm happy to thank them, but stick to honest debating which maintain integrity.

I am not wrong at all; I have posted a chart from Visual Capitalist; that got it form the World Economic Forum; who asked senior risk analysts their opinion.

You have claimed that you know more than them without any evidence or a possible lead for us to consider.

Sure I am willing for someone to say the experts are wrong, however show me what you've got!

You have nothing but long, baseless and incoherent rants.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Who stole what? What are you on about?

You missed a reference to your own comment showing that the chart didn't make sense.

Ah, the ignore button, the tool of the coward. You have multiple choices; you could respond to my posts in a meaningful way and have a discussion, you could post something like this valueless one, ignoring the substance and forcing a stop to anything meaningful, you could simply not respond, or you could use the coward tool and blissfully post misinformation unchallenged. Your choice I suppose!

You have claimed that you know more than them without any evidence or a possible lead for us to consider.

Sure I am willing for someone to say the experts are wrong, however show me what you've got!

You have nothing but long, baseless and incoherent rants.

 

[over9k]

You two are arguing about a completely moot point. What any of us think should be done changes precisely nothing.

This thread is not about personal opinions reference what should be done, only what the consequences of what is being done are going to be.

If anyone reckons they can make an argument to the realisation of a benign nature of the virus resulting in lockdowns being lifted, go ahead. But I'd say there'd be a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Otherwise, this needs to stop.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Who stole what? What are you on about?

You missed a reference to your own comment showing that the chart didn't make sense.

Ah, the ignore button, the tool of the coward. You have multiple choices; you could respond to my posts in a meaningful way and have a discussion, you could post something like this valueless one, ignoring the substance and forcing a stop to anything meaningful, you could simply not respond, or you could use the coward tool and blissfully post misinformation unchallenged. Your choice I suppose!

Not sure what you're on about with stealing.

You raised it, not me.

Posters are the creators and owners of their content on this forum, from what I am aware.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

You two are arguing about a completely moot point. What any of us think should be done changes precisely nothing.

This thread is not about personal opinions reference what should be done, only what the consequences of what is being done are going to be.

If anyone reckons they can make an argument to the realisation of a benign nature of the virus resulting in lockdowns being lifted, go ahead. But I'd say there'd be a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Otherwise, this needs to stop.

This whole thread has been derailed now.

I own all my comments on Joe's property. Like parking a car in a driveway.

 

[Sdajii]

Honestly man, the other guys are right - you do sound like a child. Or a loon. Your entire post can be paraphrased as "We should let everyone get it because it only kills people who were close to dying anyway".

It's nuts.

People on the 'extreme lockdown' side may wish to see my posts in that way because they don't like them, but I've never actually said that. The fact that I think you're too far on the paranoia side doesn't mean I'm over on the extreme opposite side saying "Let's all lick each others' faces", I'm somewhere in the middle. By all means flatten the curve to a reasonable extent, but the current strategy makes no sense.

Consider this (I've already said it but you've missed it), the current strategy of mild lockdown is not possible to continue forever. This means that inevitably it will pass through the community, it's just a question of when. This was what the government was telling us until only a month or so ago! Remember 'flatten the curve'? That's literally what the government was telling you until recently, and it meant that everyone was going to get it, that was inevitable, we just want to make sure that we don't all get it at the same time. That's what the government was saying, not me. Now what they're doing is just maintaining it at such a low level that the curve will never actually play out. There is no end game. The virus won't be eliminated, it won't go through the community, we're just going to live in mild paranoia indefinitely. The virus turned out to be more mild than they expected, both in terms of contagion and severity. Do you want to have lockdowns and restrictions forever? Presumably not. So, we can't go on like this forever and we need to have that flattened curve (or, hey, we could make it a sharp curve with absolute business as usual, which few people advocate and I'm not among them).

It's really simple; this virus isn't going to be 100% erradicated. If we go back to any sort of normality, which eventually we must, we're going to have a curve. What we are doing at the moment is simply an extraordinarily expensive way to delay the inevitable, with no benefit.

And it's also moot - governments that have controlled it are not going to just let everyone get it. We're not here discussing what the consequences should be, we're here discussing what they ARE.

The government inevitably is going to let us get exposed to it, because they can only afford double dole and jobkeeper and no tourism dollars, etc etc etc for a finite time, after which we're going to be forced into some form of normality and it will spread. It is inevitable.

How about we all get back to that and leave our personal opinions vis a vie what should be done out of things?

Yay! I'll only talk about stuff you want to talk about if you only talk about stuff I want you to talk about!

 

[Smurf1976]

This is nonsense. I've never worked as a lawyer but I can look up any law I want to. I've never worked in building construction but that doesn't mean I have no access to construction techniques.

Looking up a reference to established fact is something anyone can do sure.

Obtaining accurate information regarding an evolving situation requires inside knowledge by its very nature. Only real exception is if it's plainly obvious (eg bridge has fallen down and you can see it with your own eyes) or if it's something like weather where the general public can access live data from weather stations and see for themselves that it's 50 degrees or whatever the issue of concern happens to be.

For anything else, the public is reliant upon someone intentionally releasing information and that by its very nature creates some time lag.