Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[over9k]

You guys are putting the cart before the horse here:

If the lockdowns work and the virus is re-controlled, things will actually return to a (relative) normal. If not, aus goes the way of the USA where people will only do anything (work, order food, buy stuff) face-to-face when they have no other choice.

We've got another week or two of watching the news like a hawk before we'll know whether the genie was irretrievably let out of this proverbial bottle. In the meantime, we get to see if the whack-a-mole approach works.

 

[qldfrog]

Anyone knows the reasoning preventing Australian to get OUT?
Multiple examples in the news of binational having to request exemption from gov to be able to leave?
I just realised if i have any death/illness in my family in Europe, i probably can not leave here in time.
And i can land in France or most of Europe wo issue.
Coming back is another matter but my problem is the de facto house arrest of Australia
Maybe that's the way for Australia to solve the coming brain drain?

 

[Sdajii]

I think we follow through with our national strategy; if it is my call.

Australian citizens have been warned for months to come home. They stay abroad now, or they pay for a complete lockdown quarantine on return. Our domestic borders remain welded closed until we have the virus under control in all states and territories; there is no international travel for the foreseeable future.

We either stay the course and protect our domestic economies, within the national economic interest, to open up without taking steps back, or we don't do it at all.

It's not your call, this doesn't at all make sense as a response to what you were responding to, your comment about foreigners currently outside Australia is strange in its irrelevance (with very few exceptions those outside Australia have made the choice to remain outside Australia because they are expats with businesses, family, etc outside Australia with no desire to come back any time soon anyway. As an Australian who has spent almost all of the last 6 years outside Australia other than since the end of February this year, I know many such people).

We are not protecting our domestic economies by shutting them down! The economy is literally what we have decided to sacrifice! If we did nothing at all to mitigate the virus we would obviously have an economy in far better shape!

In a totalitarian regime you can have people do whatever the government tells them to do. In a democracy this is impossible. The recent mass protests on tens of thousands of people *given the go ahead by the government!* is a clear demonstration that the government in a democracy like Australia has so little power that in many cases it will not even attempt to stop people doing the most extreme things possible to take backwards steps, highlighting the fact that erradicating the diseases is impossible (it was never even the goal, it was flatten the curve, not eradicate the virus). Back in March when the lockdowns started it was obvious that governments were preparing for worst case scenario. Now in Q3 we have ample evidence to show that the virus is far, far more mild than they expected; most people literally get no symptoms at all. The curve was flattened to the point of it literally never having an end point, meaning the economy will be retarded indefinitely (until we wake up and change tack).

This thread is about what will happen to the economy due to the virus, and to the human response. We now know the answer to the former is almost zero. The answer to the latter depends on how quickly the governments want to deal with their U-turn and how they will try to save face, given that an effective vaccine almost certainly will never come and at some stage we need to let the virus run its course, which won't really be a big deal anyway to many people who weren't already terminally ill.

 

[SirRumpole]

which won't really be a big deal anyway to many people who weren't already terminally ill.

Are your parents and grandparents still alive ?

Do you have a good relationship with them ?

 

[Sdajii]

Anyone knows the reasoning preventing Australian to get OUT?
Multiple examples in the news of binational having to request exemption from gov to be able to leave?
I just realised if i have any death/illness in my family in Europe, i probably can not leave here in time.
And i can land in France or most of Europe wo issue.
Coming back is another matter but my problem is the de facto house arrest of Australia
Maybe that's the way for Australia to solve the coming brain drain?

My guess is that the more Australians allowed to leave, the more who will want to come back, and while it's one thing to deny our human right of freedom of movement in terms of leaving and that's ethically and legally wrong but practically fine, it's legally, ethically and most relevantly to them practically impossible to prevent people coming home. The obvious solution is just to allow people their human right of freedom of movement. I personally know several people separated from their spouses and second hand know many people separated from their families and many (including myself) who have lost their businesses due to the travel ban alone.

There are plenty of smaller reasons (countries not wanting to look responsible for exporting the virus, for example) but primarily, it's a case of not wanting people to leave and come back, and if they make exceptions for some there will be many more demanding exceptions for themselves. I'd be wanting to do the same if not for the fact that the places I want to go to won't allow anyone in anyway.

 

[Sdajii]

Are your parents and grandparents still alive ?

Do you have a good relationship with them ?

My own personal situation is irrelevant to the big picture. You are trying to point out my oldest relatives in order to illicit an emotional response. If emotion was making me irrational it would be because I had elderly relatives so old that they were likely to die if they caught the virus, which would mean they were near the end of their lives anyway.

As it is, both my parents are within a few years of the average life expectancy of Australia. They'll probably both get exposed to the virus before they hit the average life expectancy of Australia (which is about 82.3 years). Given what we now know about the virus, they'll probably not get sick and if they do they'll probably live through it. My own personal situation is irrelevant, but since you ask, my parents are both in good health for their age meaning they'll probably survive, but given their age, if they are unfortunate ones who become symptomatic, they'll likely need hospital treatment. Keep in mind they are elderly and elderly people have a guarantee of not having a long life ahead of them in any circumstances. Given what we knew in March I'd have said there was about a 20% chance of my mother dying this year. Given what we know now, I'd say the chance of her dying of the virus is negligible and the chance of her dying of something completely unrelated to the virus (stroke, heart attack, any of the other things old people are prone to dying of) is much higher.

The fact that your attempt to make an argument is based on an attempt at illiciting an emotional response rather than rational argument demonstrates things well.

 

[SirRumpole]

My own personal situation is irrelevant to the big picture.

But it's relevant to your assessment of the situation.

If the hospitals are full of covid patients then your mother may not the get treatment she needs after a heart attack/stroke cancer diagnosis , nor may you if you have a road accident or are assaulted in the street.

 

[Sdajii]

You guys are putting the cart before the horse here:

If the lockdowns work and the virus is re-controlled, things will actually return to a (relative) normal. If not, aus goes the way of the USA where people will only do anything (work, order food, buy stuff) face-to-face when they have no other choice.

We've got another week or two of watching the news like a hawk before we'll know whether the genie was irretrievably let out of this proverbial bottle. In the meantime, we get to see if the whack-a-mole approach works.

How can the lockdowns possibly work? They only work if they happen forever. Read this post of yours and think about it carefully. You are saying you want a situation where people are too scared to do anything face to face to avoid a situation where people are too scared to do anything face to face. Look at America, people aren't too scared to do things face to face other than those in fear due to the propaganda.

Your argument, of course, is that if we are forced into lockdown, the virus won't spread and... well, then what? We remain to scared to do anything face to face forever? Do you ever want people to do things face to face again? Because as soon as lockdown ends and life goes back to normal, the virus spreads anyway.

The alarmists seem to not realise the simple fact that unless you completely erradicate this virus from the whole planet (impossible, surely everyone realises that by now), lockdown is only a temporary strategy. We know it is economically impossible to maintain, eventually the financial system will collapse, the government relies on that financial system to exist, the government is the thing imposing the lockdowns, so eventually you're going to have a weakened government/economy with the virus spreading anyway, and then we will see that it's really not that bad anyway and we caused all this trouble without justification.

 

[Klogg]

Are your parents and grandparents still alive ?

Do you have a good relationship with them ?

Yes (2 of 4 grandparents, both 85+).
Yes .

I still think lockdowns are ridiculous. I don't expect the majority of the population to stop living, in order to protect my parents and/or grandparents.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes (2 of 4 grandparents, both 85+).
Yes .

I still think lockdowns are ridiculous. I don't expect the majority of the population to stop living, in order to protect my parents and/or grandparents.

People are still living. If this includes going to the pub and getting smashed, I'm sure they can live without that for a while.

 

[Klogg]

People are still living. If this includes going to the pub and getting smashed, I'm sure they can live without that for a while.

It includes travelling, working (many are now unemployed as a result of lockdwons), leisure, family and social gatherings. You know, the things that make life worthwhile and enjoyable.

Sure, they're physically alive. That's not the same as living.

 

[qldfrog]

unless you completely eradicate this virus from the whole planet (impossible, surely everyone realises that by now), lockdown is only a temporary strategy

That is the key, you need an actual strategy and waiting for a working vaccine is not one LOL.
A serious issue we have here is the fact most Australians live in their bubble and their only outside view of theworld will be News or ABC news...both alarmist for different but convergent reasons

I highly recommend fellow asf readers watch the European news on SBS Italian, Spanish, French, German to get back in the idea that the world is actually restarting, @over9k I would recommend this to you as well so that you do not waste the gains you got, or at least preserve some before the pending reverse.

 

[Sdajii]

But it's relevant to your assessment of the situation.

No, it is not. Only an emotionally feeble person would see it that way.

If the hospitals are full of covid patients then your mother may not the get treatment she needs after a heart attack/stroke cancer diagnosis , nor may you if you have a road accident or are assaulted in the street.

At my mother's age, a stroke or heart attack would probably be fatal anyway, as would be cancer. If you want to talk about my mother specifically (which is a stupid thing to do but you persist in doing so) she is extremely mistrustful of conventional medicine, an extreme anti vaccer, she said many years ago that she will never have a breast scan and will never get checked or treated for breast cancer (probably the only type of cancer she'd be likely to get which could be cured without coming back and killing her not much later anyway).

The chances of me hanging in the balance of life and death after such an incident and dying for lack of treatment due to the virus are so incredibly remote. Sure, it's possible, but so is the possibility that due to lack of healthcare funding due to economic collapse the system doesn't function properly and I die in such a situation.

You are using a very emotional way of thinking, just cherry picking extreme hypotheticals without weighing up their likelihood and comparing them to other hypotheticals and their likelihoods. If you use that way of thinking you will easily justify almost literally any position you can think of, regardless of how incorrect it is. You should wear chain mail trousers and socks every day, because you might be bitten by a snake. I've had two friends killed by snakes (yes, really) and another friend who almost died and has permanent injury after being bitten by a cobra in an Asian market when reaching for some vegetables in the pile the snake was hiding in (yes, really). So I suppose you should wear chain mail gloves too if you go shopping in Asia, and the government should enforce this rule. What if you or someone you loved were to die from snake bite? It's literally something which could happen and you're currently not taking any precautions for. Even if you don't die, you could have permanent loss of taste and/or smell, or permanent kidney damage, or any of a large number of other permanent issues. We need chain mail trousers for everyone and chain mail gloves while shopping for fresh produce, right?

 

[SirRumpole]

No, it is not. Only an emotionally feeble person would see it that way.



At my mother's age, a stroke or heart attack would probably be fatal anyway, as would be cancer. If you want to talk about my mother specifically (which is a stupid thing to do but you persist in doing so) she is extremely mistrustful of conventional medicine, an extreme anti vaccer, she said many years ago that she will never have a breast scan and will never get checked or treated for breast cancer (probably the only type of cancer she'd be likely to get which could be cured without coming back and killing her not much later anyway).

The chances of me hanging in the balance of life and death after such an incident and dying for lack of treatment due to the virus are so incredibly remote. Sure, it's possible, but so is the possibility that due to lack of healthcare funding due to economic collapse the system doesn't function properly and I die in such a situation.

You are using a very emotional way of thinking, just cherry picking extreme hypotheticals without weighing up their likelihood and comparing them to other hypotheticals and their likelihoods. If you use that way of thinking you will easily justify almost literally any position you can think of, regardless of how incorrect it is. You should wear chain mail trousers and socks every day, because you might be bitten by a snake. I've had two friends killed by snakes (yes, really) and another friend who almost died and has permanent injury after being bitten by a cobra in an Asian market when reaching for some vegetables in the pile the snake was hiding in (yes, really). So I suppose you should wear chain mail gloves too if you go shopping in Asia, and the government should enforce this rule. What if you or someone you loved were to die from snake bite? It's literally something which could happen and you're currently not taking any precautions for. Even if you don't die, you could have permanent loss of taste and/or smell, or permanent kidney damage, or any of a large number of other permanent issues. We need chain mail trousers for everyone and chain mail gloves while shopping for fresh produce, right?

Well that's a pretty emotive response in itself.

People take precautions in dangerous situations, like we now find ourselves in.

Social isolation is a precaution in an infectious disease situations, but your solution is to do nothing, I don't think that is credible.

 

[Klogg]

Well that's a pretty emotive response in itself.

People take precautions in dangerous situations, like we now find ourselves in.

Social isolation is a precaution in an infectious disease situations, but your solution is to do nothing, I don't think that is credible.

That's just it. I should be able to take the precaution I see fit.

If you want to lock yourself in a room for 3 months (social isolation), go for it. I'm not interested.
I'll take the risk, and will even foot the medical bill if that were an option, should I get severely ill.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's just it. I should be able to take the precaution I see fit.

If you want to lock yourself in a room for 3 months (social isolation), go for it. I'm not interested.
I'll take the risk, and will even foot the medical bill if that were an option, should I get severely ill.

And how many people are you going to infect in the meantime ?

If your friends got it and ended up in hospital I doubt if they would be too happy with you.

 

[Sdajii]

People are still living. If this includes going to the pub and getting smashed, I'm sure they can live without that for a while.

This is not the only thing which has been banned. I'm literally not legally allowed to visit a friend or have a friend visit me. I am not legally allowed to go to my favourite local places to go for a walk. I can not in any way legally share a meal with a friend for the next six weeks. I have lost my business and almost everything I owned at the start of this year. I could go on and on. There are many things I miss, there are many things I should be allowed to do but am not. Getting smashed at the pub is not among those things. I have committed no crime and I am in perfect health.

Flawed as it is, you love to use personal examples or specific anecdotes and seem to understand things through them. My life has been ruined (I'm working my way back up, but many in my shoes have already killed themselves). I have multiple friends who have lost their relationships. One of my friends was unable to be present for the birth of his own first child last month. I have friends who have been separated from their wives and children for months. I have suicidal friends, at least one of whom will probably kill himself this year (he's separated from his wife). I personally know some people and second hand know of many, who have become unable to care for their young children properly, or in some cases almost at all (especially the ones with wives and children outside Australia - I've spent the last 6 years outside Australia so I know more people in this situation than most Australians would). I have been dealing with plenty of people who have sold their financial futures; ridiculous as it is, I've been working in a sales role, it has been remarkably easy, the easiest I've seen it in over a decade. The last sale I made, two days ago, was to a woman who like many of those I've dealt with over the last couple of months is paying using her superannuation! For completely and utterly non essential purchases she wouldn't have made at all if not for the ridiculous lockdowns and the ability of the super sale at deflated price to fund it. When she retires she's going to be in a difficult financial position, and as members of this forum know better than the average member of the community, poverty is a literal killer.

Does any of the above bother you at all?

 

[Klogg]

And how many people are you going to infect in the meantime ?

If your friends got it and ended up in hospital I doubt if they would be too happy with you.

1) Your choice to be near me. You don't need to go out in public
2) My friends dont have to visit me

People have choices. Or they SHOULD have them - but governments the world over think they're doing everyone a favour.

 

[Sdajii]

And how many people are you going to infect in the meantime ?

None of them will be people who chose to lock themselves up, isolated in a room!

If your friends got it and ended up in hospital I doubt if they would be too happy with you.

How would he give it to his friends if they had chosen to lock themselves up in a room? He'd only be able to give it to people who chose to interact with him and take that risk.

I would love to have that choice! I would take it! If I ended up in hospital I would say okay, I took that risk. What is the point of living if you spend your life locked up and paranoid?

 

[SirRumpole]

Does any of the above bother you at all?

Well, let's look at an alternative, the US.

Unemployment is at record levels also, and the virus is running wild.

They have achieved a double disaster at least we seem to have minimised one of those disasters, for now.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-09/us-records-historic-job-losses-due-to-coronavirus/12230602