This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

Jump to new

That issue has been raised repeatedly on this forum. Sjajii has still not acknowledged it in terms of how crippling COVID is/will be to our economy/society.

On the positive side I think there is cause for hope with the range of vaccines seemingly close to distribution and quicker cheaper COVID tests
 

Do those stats factor in the population that have caught it / recovered / never tested ? I reckon those figures are inaccurately skewed to the downside.
 
Just to get away from all the doctors talking about the pathological characteristics and pathogenesis of a virus who have invaded this economic thread.

We are doomed. Unemployment. Bankruptcies. Civil unrest. Loss of US Empire as a stabilising economic influence. Disrupters such as Turkey, Israel, N.Korea, to name a few going to war or being attacked.

Pestilence, War, Famine.

October beckons.

Beware its Ides.

gg
 

Thanks, I needed that.
 
Looking for bright spots in these dark times ?
300x reduction in the number of flu cases


ABC News

Dr Sutton said the restrictions in place have lead to a huge decrease in the amount of flu in Australia from April to August.

"For April-August in Australia, [we have had] 300 times less flu transmission - it has never happened anywhere in the world.

"At the beginning of the year we are getting northern hemisphere cases, we still have people travelling into Australia, but with the end of international travel, effectively, and all of the measures we have had in place from March onwards.

"That has shown you can stop a really infectious virus from transmitting in the community. So these measures we have in place and all of the awareness raising we have done.

"But coronavirus is more deadly and infectious than flu, 10 or so times more deadly than the flu.

"[However] we have saved hundreds of lives from flu this season because of the actions we have taken for coronavirus."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08...-news-victoria-nsw-aged-care-covid19/12562286
 
cutz said:
Do those stats factor in the population that have caught it / recovered / never tested ? I reckon those figures are inaccurately skewed to the downside.
Click to expand...
They have. You can see how they worked it out on worldometer.
 

Keep in mind that these figures only count the observed/identified cases. As we've seen masses of evidence for, most people don't get symptoms at all or don't get symptoms which are even significant enough for people to bother seeking help or get tested. When people are mass tested, unknown cases are found. Most people aren't getting tested, thus, we know there are many many many people with the disease uncounted in the statistics.

On the other hand, if someone dies of it, they are very much noticed. A death is always something people realise happened. At the moment, deaths are all being tested. Even if someone is literally on their death bed about to die after a multi year battle with cancer, they are often being counted as a virus death if they happened to have the virus.

Taking both these factors into account and considering that together they multiply, the real figures of the danger are far, far less. We can't get an exact figure on them because it's impossible to get a numerical figure on exactly how many people have it and are not identified, but by all accounts the number is large.

Whether people who die of it really should be counted as deaths is more a case of shades of grey. If a perfectly healthy 40 year old caught it and died, sure, that would be black and white virus death (we haven't actually had even one such case in Australia and by all accounts such cases are extraordinarily rare). If someone is literally just about to die of cancer and they catch the disease just before their death, or if they die of a car accident while infected, in reality they did not die of the virus and it's realistically black and white (they were going to die anyway), but there are at least some cases like these which are being counted as virus cases.

Then there are shades of grey such as an elderly person of 94 years of age who can't walk or live unassisted and is not long for this world, who died of the virus, but presumably only had a few more senescent months left at best. This is a very typical scenario among the deaths, and these all get recorded as virus deaths, but in reality should scare no one (and incidentally, these people would be better off without the restrictions because I would argue that it would be nicer to die today among family and loved ones rather than spend 5 more months isolated from anyone who cares about you while bedridden and miserable in isolation, then dying alone).

After all of this, the number of deaths of people mostly unhealthy in their 60s and 70s who possibly would have survived without the virus are relatively few. It's worth noting that obesity has a much higher incidence of both death and lifelong negative health impacts than the virus, and we could save far, far more lives and make people much more healthy with far less effort and money and zero net negative economic impact by simply doing more to encourage people to have healthier lifestyles which would eliminate these comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc. But ignoring that, this category of people are the only ones worth paying particular attention to when looking at the big picture, assuming we care about keeping people healthy and alive.

The last category are the people who die or have long term affects despite being otherwise healthy and under 60. These are extremely rare and by any reasonable measure, their number is completely and utterly dwarfed by the number of deaths which will be caused through suicide, poverty, etc etc, and let's not forget that depression which is now epidemic in Melbourne and rapidly increasing across the country, is often a chronic/lifelong disease once it has occurred, alcoholism is a serious health issue which kills people, it takes about 60 days for a behaviour to become an established habit according to psychologists and alcohol consumption is skyrocketing (as is illicit drug use, which was as predictable as anything ever could have been), suicide, etc etc. Not to mention loss of employment etc.
 

As I said in the very post you quoted and were responding to, if you want to assume that it was imported somehow, you have to accept that unless all international trade of goods is all but stopped, the virus is going to come back anyway, lockdowns will continue to be necessary indefinitely, and there can be no resumption of a normal way of life anyway. Given what we know, it is far more likely that it was silently lingering in the population, unnoticed (hardly surprising since most people get no symptoms or very mild symptoms, and if you don't think a bit of a cough is something to be scared of, you won't be scared just like literally every other time you've ever had a very mild cough).
 
Sdajii said:
After all of this, the number of deaths of people mostly unhealthy in their 60s and 70s who possibly would have survived without the virus are relatively few.
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion ?

I doubt if you have sufficient access to individual case details to make any assumption about whether people in that age range would have survived or not, and to what age ? There are a lot of people with comorbidities that are treatable who live long and productive lives. The cure rate for most common cancers is improving and things like asthma are quite treatable but the person would be under severe risk if they got covid.



The effects of depression due to lockdowns can't be denied, but treatment is available and the bottom line is that we are all in the same boat and we can help each other out.
 
I wish all the doctors and epidemiologists would get off this bloody thread so that the economic effects of coronavirus can be discussed.

There is a thread in General Chat for discussing the virus.

Q. Take the known facts about Coronavirus longterm.
A. There are no known facts longterm.
Q. How long will it go for.
A. Nobody knows.
Q. A vaccine.
A. None yet.
Q. Soon.
A. Probably not.
Q. A tablet.
A. Nope
Q. How will this affect the economy.
A. It will go to hell in a basket.
Q. Will we get any warning of a sudden deterioration in the economy.
A. Nope.
Q. Will there be civil disruption and a breakdown in law and order.
A. Yep.
Q. How will all this affect the economy.
A. It will go to hell in a basket.

gg
 
SirRumpole said:
The effects of depression due to lockdowns can't be denied, but treatment is available and the bottom line is that we are all in the same boat and we can help each other out.
Click to expand...

Go have a look at the increase in mental illness in Australia over the last 20 years, if there are treatments, they are not doing a good job.

And for those that need to deal with mental disorders, "we are in all it together" hardly helps.
 

Sorry GG, you are correct.

So I will get back onto the topic, if this is killing the weak, then how much should the economy pay to save a life?
 
I just keep wondering who are all the medical people getting sick and dying from Covid ?

Also like to know about the hundreds of care workers in Aged care centres who have been affected. Enough deaths and serious illnesses there.

This doesn't just affect the old and sick. Could we respect the Chief Heath officer Brett Sutton in Victorias' comments when he noted that COVID is 10 times more dangerous than the flu ?

In terms of economic impact ? How do we run our society if our medical and social care facilities are overrun with COVID illnesses and the staff also come down sick and die?
Seriously ?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...d-19-outbreaks-in-residential-disability-care
 
SirRumpole said:
So you can't have healthy 70 year olds ?

Graphs like that are too simplistic to draw any conclusions from.

And to keep some people happy...

$$$$$$$$$$
Click to expand...

As GG said, this is the economic threads, so yes it is all about money.

and yes you can have fit 70year old, but they are few and far between.
 
Here's a brutal economic measure for you:

Old farts are massively economically costly. The more of them that are bumped off, the less the burden on the healthcare system.
 
Yes.

I would add that lockdown dogma will double the economic effect.

1/ From the lock down itself

2/ Subsequent lockdowns of either a mandated or population self imposed nature.

This is why the Swedish model will win in the end, one hit and done... more or less.
 
The Education Sector of the Australian economy may not be of much interest to the catether bag crew of this thread, but it has been hammered by the contraction in delivery of face to face and of foreign students returning to their homelands.

A new pilot is being started in Adelaide in September to quarantine and return to their studies foreign students.


https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-to-restart-in-september-20200816-p55m8t.html

gg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
367
SirRumpole
Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Smurf1976
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
10K
divs4ever
M
Cooling Australian Property Market Signals Economic Trends
Replies
1
Views
1K
Joe Blow
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
573
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...