Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[qldfrog]

overall strategy is working

Irreconcilable difference is what it is called in divorces.
No point arguing.

 

[Sdajii]

And compensation is available for business and individuals concerned.

Yes, some will fall through the cracks, they always do, but the overall strategy is working.

You do realise that compensation is paid for, right? You know that the government doesn't have a magical money tree in the backyard of Kirribilli House, right?

*facepalm*

 

[SirRumpole]

You do realise that compensation is paid for, right? You know that the government doesn't have a magical money tree in the backyard of Kirribilli House, right?

*facepalm*

It's called natural resources, natural gas, coal, iron ore, gold, bauxite... but the guvnuts think all this stuff belongs to foreign companies

 

[SirRumpole]

Irreconcilable difference is what it is called in divorces.
No point arguing.

You are correct.

 

[Sdajii]

It's called natural resources, natural gas, coal, iron ore, gold, bauxite... but the guvnuts think all this stuff belongs to foreign companies

What you are saying here is that since Australia is fortunate enough to have plenty of natural resources, it's okay to shut everything down and tell people to stay inside and not, you know, work or have businesses or do anything productive, and that won't hurt the economy.

Please understand that this does not make sense. Yes, Australia is blessed with great natural resources, but they are not the single thing which drives the economy and losing a large amount of the economy does indeed harm the economy.

 

[SirRumpole]

What you are saying here is that since Australia is fortunate enough to have plenty of natural resources, it's okay to shut everything down and tell people to stay inside and not, you know, work or have businesses or do anything productive, and that won't hurt the economy.

Please understand that this does not make sense. Yes, Australia is blessed with great natural resources, but they are not the single thing which drives the economy and losing a large amount of the economy does indeed harm the economy.

You asked how we should pay for the lockdowns as far as the compensation payments, I gave you an answer.

Of course the economy is going to be hurt, but there is a way back.

 

[Sdajii]

You asked how we should pay for the lockdowns as far as the compensation payments, I gave you an answer.

Either your imagination is running wild and detaching your mind from reality, or you're deliberately taking me way out of context. I know it's possible to play insane, destructive, irresponsible economic games to make the payments, I'm not questioning whether or not it's possible, I'm saying it's insane. If I ever asked that question it was obviously rhetorical and pointing out that it will be incredibly destructive.

Of course the economy is going to be hurt, but there is a way back.

The way back will not commence until we cease causing the problem.

 

[basilio]

and losing a large amount of the economy does indeed harm the economy.

Sdajii you appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Essentially that is why rational discussion with you is a pointless exercise.

You refuse to recognise that we cannot actually have a properly functioning economy in a society that is rightly fearful of a rapidly spreading disease that kills and incapacitates millions of people.

That is the fundamental problem at the basis of this issue.

Until this is worked out we cannot safely have mass travel. We cannot safely have mass public events whether they are sporting, cultural or political. We cannot work together without space and protection.

The degree of restrictions we have to enforce is determined by our success in limiting the spread of this virus and/or effectively treating it.

 

[Sdajii]

Sdajii you appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Essentially that is why rational discussion with you is a pointless exercise.

You refuse to recognise that we cannot actually have a properly functioning economy in a society that is rightly fearful of a rapidly spreading disease that kills and incapacitates millions of people.

You refuse to accept that the fear is unjustified. Without a media campaign telling people to be fearful, they would not be fearful.

That is the fundamental problem at the basis of this issue.

It seems that we can agree that the fear is a fundamental part of the issue. At least we have that common ground. It should be clear that the media is causing the fear. The virus itself is not doing anything particularly tangible to the economy, and even with zero mitigation it wouldn't. The overwhelming majority of deaths are old people in nursing homes. They do not contribute to the economy. In saying that I am not saying they have no value, I am addressing the topic (damned if I do and damned if I don't; as can be seen by anyone bothering to look at this thread objectively, I have been one of the main people trying to keep it on topic, it goes way off thread when I'm not here, but I get accused of dragging it off topic, yet here you accuse me of looking at the 'price not value' when I relate things to the topic, ie, the economy!)

Until this is worked out we cannot safely have mass travel. We cannot safely have mass public events whether they are sporting, cultural or political. We cannot work together without space and protection.

I'd be more than happy to travel, and I believe it should be an option available for those who wish to take it. Mass crowds, sure, I'd personally be happy to see them avoided for the time being. Either way, these two issues are hardly the sum of the problem at hand.

The degree of restrictions we have to enforce is determined by our success in limiting the spread of this virus and/or effectively treating it.

See, this is absolute tunnel vision and is transparently ignorant, by definition of the word. You are suggesting (or at least implying, deliberately or not), as many are, that the only measure of success is by limiting the spread of a virus which for most people is asymptomatic, and for very few is serious. To say this is the measure, while ignoring the fact that you're literally causing a bigger problem than the one you are trying to mitigate, and you're not doing all that much to mitigate the problem anyway, is to ignore the big picture.

Why do you not see any problem in causing problems? Why are the problems we are causing not important?

To address the thread's topic, clearly the fear and restrictions are almost the entire cause of the economic problems. Despite you thinking it or trying to pretend it's the case, I do not think the economy is the only issue, it's just the topic of the thread. You on the other hand act like the only problems we need to care about are those caused by the virus, even if other problems are bigger than those problems.

Surely the goal should be to minimise the total amount of damage experienced by the population. If we are to err one way or the other, surely it should be in whichever direction allows us to retain as much freedom, rights and liberty as possible.

 

[SirRumpole]

You refuse to accept that the fear is unjustified. Without a media campaign telling people to be fearful, they would not be fearful.

How many medical experts can you quote saying that the virus is innocuous and we should be opening up the economy again ?

This is a health issue first, and I'd rather go to a doctor than a civil rights activist where my health is concerned.

 

[Smurf1976]

Pointing out that it has a contribution to the economic issues is totally valid, but it's absurd to say it's the main cause, or even more insane, to try to justify further economic destruction.

I'm not claiming it's the only or even main issue, just that the situation has highlighted flaws and weaknesses of which reliance on a single foreign supplier is one.

Risks like that were always going to end badly at some point and that has now occurred and the weakness which has long been present has been exposed.

The overall situation is a disaster I agree and there's no question that a hospitality business, for example, is stuffed through no fault of their own. There's nothing they could reasonably have done to avoid the situation.

I'm increasingly convinced that this is going to have an impact which varies between the states though. I'll probably upset someone but I'll say what I'm thinking - Victoria's long had issues with rules, regulations, enforcement and so on and that has become all too apparent amidst this crisis.

Anyone who knows me will know that I've never been keen on Melbourne as a city and that the "rules and enforcement" culture is the reason. It's easily missed but once you've noticed it it's impossible to not keep noticing it over and over since it permeates everything from building regulations to music festivals. NSW has gone down the same track in recent years too - in contrast SA and Tas are far more relaxed with just about everything.

Nothing personal, I don't hate Victorians, just never liked the underlying approach that governments there have long taken. Broad brush, one size fits all, no tolerance - that comes up in everything from speed limits to controlling crowds. In contrast the smaller states tend more toward precision, no problem with checking things individually and having rules to suit, try to find some humour amidst it all somewhere. That seems to be working better when it comes to compliance and keeping people on side.

 

[Sdajii]

How many medical experts can you quote saying that the virus is innocuous and we should be opening up the economy again ?

This is a health issue first, and I'd rather go to a doctor than a civil rights activist where my health is concerned.

I'm literally going by the official figures. Most people either show no symptoms, are naturally immune, or have a very mild disease. I'm not making that up, we now have the data to show this.

Of the people who do get significantly sick, most are elderly. Sure, that's a vague term, but we can certainly see that even in countries with no healthcare system to speak of, the majority of deaths are elderly of people who were going to die anyway (such as the Australian man in his 30s who died recently... who as we later found out was already at the end of a two year battle with cancer!).

Clearly your mind is made up that the virus is the only thing to be concerned about and that no other threat and no other danger and no other hardship can be compared to it. I can acknowledge the risks the virus does cause, but we now have enough data to show that they're not that bad. It's not like we need to consult medical professionals for breaking news which wasn't available yesterday, we have a heap of official data now. It's very clearly and tangibly much more mild than the initial models assumed, and the lockdowns were based on.

 

[Knobby22]

What are the latest official figures?

 

[sptrawler]

I was wondering, they say we are all in this together, does that mean when everyone is unemployed they all get welfare?

 

[Knobby22]

According to worldometer the death rate if you catch it is 1.4% or 1 in 72. Boris Johnston showed how real it is. I think everyone was hoping it wasn't too bad.

If you are under 65 the odds of dying with no pre existing conditions is one in 1,150. Wish I could get those odds in tattslotto.

 

[Knobby22]

I was wondering, they say we are all in this together, does that mean when everyone is unemployed they all get welfare?

How annoying has that add become!

 

[sptrawler]

How annoying has that add become!

Yes it is all starting to show how ridiculous our social structure is, there are people complaining not enough is being done, there are others who wont go back to work and then there are those who just want to complain.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm literally going by the official figures. Most people either show no symptoms, are naturally immune, or have a very mild disease. I'm not making that up, we now have the data to show this.

The official figures don't show those who have had the disease but have suffered after effects, strokes heart and lung damage, persistent chronic fatigue... These are all economic costs as well as health costs and well worth reducing in the population.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ovid-19-s-lingering-problems-alarm-scientists

 

[Junior]

Forcing people to not open their business, that is, to say they must shut their doors, is not exposing a weakness linked to supply lines. It doesn't matter what your supply line is if you can't open your shop!

If travel is impossible or if the media scares people into not doing it, it does not expose a weakness in supply lines, it is destruction of an industry!

If the government says citizens can not work at a local abattoir to process locally-produced meat, and there is a meat shortage (this is the exact case right here right now), it is the creation of a problem, not an exposure of a preexisting weakness.

Do I really need to go on with examples? Do you honestly believe the insanity you are going along with?

You say you hope we've learned a lesson. It honestly seems that you need a lesson in critical thinking if you think locking down an economy is not the cause of economic problems and you would have some anomaly in your head which would cause you to attempt to push such a ridiculous spin story.

As New Zealand has shown us, this virus is so mild that if you believe it is not there, it does not hurt your economy! Yet once you find it, if you so choose, you can lock yourself down and wreck your economy! 102 days of believing it was gone, not trying to prevent it, and it wasn't doing anything. If you want to disbelieve that and think it somehow arrived on imported goods, you accept that it is so insanely contagious that there is no point trying to contain it anyway. However you look at it, the mainstream narrative you're advocating does not hold water. At some point we need to accept that mistakes were made (is it really difficult to believe that high level authorities made mistakes? Does anyone think that's unprecedented or surprising or something?) and move forward with sanity. That is when the economy can recover. Or, finding an excuse to save face (ineffective vaccine is the most likely way).

So...you’re saying the virus has been circulating and spreading in NZ this whole time, and they never eliminated or stamped it out? I would have thought it’s pretty clear it was reintroduced recently given the 100% negative test results they had in NZ for 100 odd days.

Is there any proof or evidence supporting this? Or just a manufactured “fact” you have invented to support your narrative?

To be clear I’m not supporting or promoting NZ strategy on this, just pointing out that yet again your arguments are not based on any real evidence or data.

 

[qldfrog]

So...you’re saying the virus has been circulating and spreading in NZ this whole time, and they never eliminated or stamped it out? I would have thought it’s pretty clear it was reintroduced recently given the 100% negative test results they had in NZ for 100 odd days.

Is there any proof or evidence supporting this? Or just a manufactured “fact” you have invented to support your narrative?

To be clear I’m not supporting or promoting NZ strategy on this, just pointing out that yet again your arguments are not based on any real evidence or data.

It is not sure yet if it was there all the time or reimported
Reimporting it would be the nice option for the governments but no real proof yet .
Remember that the virus was already present in Europe in October as per later tests done and noone really realised
That's a fact i believe no one contests?
For most people it is indeed benign and so the issue in detecting it as it it spread like fire among younger healthier population