Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[Dona Ferentes]

every so often, if I want a giggle, here I am.

.
read 3 or 4 days worth
.
.
.
Bye

 

[satanoperca]

You (and many others) are saying we should just let it spread to reduce the impact on the economy. (That is the narrative). Simplified, but not factually correct.

It hasn't worked.
Brazil has had to cut its iron output, USA is a mess, while most of Australia is doing pretty good except for Victoria due to government stuff ups. South Korea's economy, Norway, Taiwan,etc. all going strong.
Really, the tired is still in, if you think everything is okay, let's get rid of jobkeep and jobseeker, let's see how say QLD is going without tourism. You are making a call way to early.

A vaccine is looking closer so it looks like the countries that have treated it seriously are going to do a lot better. Better economies, better after effects (little post Covid syndrome).
There is a difference between looking closer, has been achieved and then is effective.

It doesn't matter how deadly it is in the end, what matters is peoples reactions and if they are too scared, the effect is the same.

Agreed, it is all about the sentiment that drives markets.

Comments are in red

 

[satanoperca]

Sure if people want to accept facts.

The economic consequences of the Trump/USA approach to covid is a 32% reduction in GDP.

The economic consequences of Australia's approach is 10% reduction in GDP over the same period (links in a previous post).

Where would you rather live ?

I tried to clone myself, didn't work, so I can only live in one place at a time, bummer.

Couldn't care about the USA, all I care about is Australia, selfish prick that I am.

As for the 10% drop in GDP, the tide is still in, as I have stated before, wait until the govnuts stop feeding the people cocaine and industries and we will see the real economic damage this so called virus has caused.

Until then ....

 

[Sdajii]

Your argument makes sense only if you're seeing that some level of virus, lockdowns and so on is a desirable thing.

My argument is based upon having zero of either.

Had we shut the borders when the problem first became apparent overseas, the challenge faced by Melbourne and Sydney would have been no greater than the problem dealt with in remote areas. No cases, just don't let any in, done.

Once we brought the virus into the country, that's when lockdowns etc became necessary to try and control it but you don't need any of that if you don't have a virus here in the first place.

Given the problem was known to exist overseas, that was the time to shut the borders and implement proper quarantine for any returning residents. Instead we still had flights and cruise ships arriving even as the problem was headline news.

Once the virus was in the community, that's comparable to the first spark which leads to the bushfire. That's the point where the nightmare begins and it's the point you ideally want to avoid if at all possible. Perhaps it may already have been too late at that point but it's at least plausible that it wasn't given the lack of known cases in Australia at the time.

If the only problem we had was a lack of international travel well then that wouldn't be great but it would be drastically better than the situation we actually have right now. A purely economic problem that could be at least partially worked around by encouraging Australians to travel domestically versus lockdowns.

We could have given every worker two weeks' extra leave on the condition that they travel at least 200km from home for that period and stay at a commercially operated hotel, motel, caravan park etc. Split the cost of that two weeks between business and government - both would have taken a bit of a hit but been drastically better off than what we've ended up with and it would have worked around much of the economic problems of the international cut-off.

I know which I'd rather.

I think this thinking is flawed for several reasons.

Firstly, we can't just shut down all international travel on a knee jerk reaction as soon as there's the first hint of any virus anywhere. That's just not possible for all sorts of reasons.

Secondly, it was likely already in Australia when we first heard about it.

Thirdly, it wouldn't keep the virus out anyway. If you think New Zealand had the virus mysteriously come in from outside the country after being virus free for over 100 days, then you must accept that it is impossible to keep out (note of course that for almost the entire planet, this isn't an option because most nations are not islands). If you don't believe that this is so incredibly capable of reaching New Zealand without requiring a live human host, then it has been lurking in the population of New Zealand undetected for over 100 days, in which case you must accept that this is an incredibly mild virus and the propaganda/scare campaigns are the only significant problem, in which case lockdowns and travel bans are inappropriate.

We always were going to have to allow Australians to be repatriated. At the very first hint of the virus there were countless Australians away on holidays, business trips, etc. I'm an Australian citizen who was outside the country at the time. Having spent almost all of the previous six years outside Australia I know countless Australians in various situations out of the country. You can't just snap your fingers and immediately stop people travelling. This may seem to be the case if you're someone with a regular job who only leaves the country to go to Bali every year or two for a week at a time, but there are so many people coming and going for so many reasons and you can't logistically or ethically stop them all with no notice. You say that it would only be an economic problem. Heh. It's actually a little painful to see that attitude existing when I personally know so many people who have been isolated from their families which depend on them, cut off from their way of life, etc. Not just Australians who can't get to their wives and children abroad, but I have foreign friends trapped in Australia with no money, no way to get home, and extremely challenging living circumstances. After all I've lost and the nightmare I went through earlier this year, I still know others who went through worse and in some cases continue to, because of travel bans.

Even if you do successfully stop the virus ever getting into the country (which was never at all possible), you must remain isolated indefinitely.

The virus just isn't that bad. I'm not advocating doing nothing, but even doing nothing wouldn't have been as bad as the current situation. The number of people I know who have been severely affected by this is huge. The number of people I know even in the USA (and there are several people I keep in regular contact with in the USA) who have been affected by the virus is tiny - one single person who has had it, and I can count the number of second hand cases I know of on my fingers, all of whom made complete recoveries. That's including the worst affected country on the planet.

It's amazing that people can look at this situation and not see that the cure is worse than the disease.

And even if you want to say "If only!" and "We shouldda...", we didn't, and here we are now, with the virus in effectively every country, including island nations such as Australia and New Zealand, even NZ, one of the most remote countries on the planet which went through some of the most extreme measures and supposedly had it completely eliminated for over 100 days, has it spreading now. So clearly, never letting it in was never an option, and either way, here we are, and we need a way forward, not regrets about what we should have done (especially if they're clearly wrong).

 

[macca]

Yes, but it has to be tested on someone.

In the other thread on Covid I linked an interview with Bill Gates where he said he thought it was OK for 100% of the people to have side effects from it

leave me out of that one

 

[SirRumpole]

In the other thread on Covid I linked an interview with Bill Gates where he said he thought it was OK for 100% of the people to have side effects from it

leave me out of that one

The government wants to make it mandatory. I'm not sure I like that. Some people are likely to have an allergic reaction and we don't have a compensation scheme like other countries.

 

[qldfrog]

The government wants to make it mandatory. I'm not sure I like that. Some people are likely to have an allergic reaction and we don't have a compensation scheme like other countries.

if it is working, let people worried about being sick take a dose, but please please I am not yet in a China jail, do not force that crap on me; or worse, on kids this would be worse than 1984

 

[SirRumpole]

if it is working, let people worried about being sick take a dose, but please please I am not yet in a China jail, do not force that crap on me; or worse, on kids this would be worse than 1984

Maybe people who think that getting the virus is nothing to worry about would test it, after all it couldn't be that bad could it ?

 

[macca]

Maybe people who think that getting the virus is nothing to worry about would test it, after all it couldn't be that bad could it ?

I think it really should be tested in the normal way for the normal time

The side effects could last for decades

 

[wayneL]

So the economy is in a holding pattern waiting for a vaccine, questions remain about how harmful the vaccine will be or how foreign actors will use the gullible to sow doubt about the vaccines.

Hope everyone understands the amount of people already injected with the testing for vaccines before its released to not only see if it creates an adverse reaction in the patient but also to see if the bodies response is showing an effect defence against the virus.
This is all done quite early in the testing stages.

Just saying the obvious.......

Stage 1 and 2 vaccine trials are relatively easy to breeze through, it's stage 3 where almost all vaccines, and all drugs for that matter fall over.

It is here, because of the much larger sample size, where s*** starts going wrong.

(The stuff you learn having CSIRO scientists as clients, eh?)

 

[satanoperca]

Maybe people who think that getting the virus is nothing to worry about would test it, after all it couldn't be that bad could it ?

F---k stop being so righteous.

All viruses that can lead to death are bad, but we are discussing individual cases, but rather the economic cost to an economy and those that provide to it.

You really are stupid.

 

[SirRumpole]

F---k stop being so righteous.

All viruses that can lead to death are bad, but we are discussing individual cases, but rather the economic cost to an economy and those that provide to it.

You really are stupid.

The economic benefit of a working vaccine would be enormous, but you obviously believe the virus is mostly harmless so a vaccine would be a waste of time. Speaking of wastes of time , corresponding with you and your mate is just that so I'll take your advice a press the button.

 

[Joe Blow]

F---k stop being so righteous.

You really are stupid.

I think we can do without the swearing and the insults.

Constructive debate and discussion requires neither.

No more please.

 

[satanoperca]

The economic benefit of a working vaccine would be enormous, but you obviously believe the virus is mostly harmless so a vaccine would be a waste of time. Speaking of wastes of time , corresponding with you and your mate is just that so I'll take your advice a press the button.

You can even teach a dead dog new tricks, ignore button.

And when you have found a working vaccine, please inject yourself, but before then, stop putting words in other people's mouths, no one has said that the virus is harmless, if it was we wouldn't be discussion the economic destruction that it is going and has caused.

 

[satanoperca]

Joe, with regard to you, I think you need to read through the posts before you assume that I and others are getting frustrated with the denial of some posters.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe, with regard to you, I think you need to read through the posts before you assume that I and others are getting frustrated with the denial of some posters.

OK, let's run the last exchange twice and see which version is more conducive to constructive and respectful discussion.

First version, with swearing and insults:

Maybe people who think that getting the virus is nothing to worry about would test it, after all it couldn't be that bad could it ?

F---k stop being so righteous.

All viruses that can lead to death are bad, but we are discussing individual cases, but rather the economic cost to an economy and those that provide to it.

You really are stupid.

Second version, without swearing and insults:

Maybe people who think that getting the virus is nothing to worry about would test it, after all it couldn't be that bad could it ?

All viruses that can lead to death are bad, but we are discussing individual cases, but rather the economic cost to an economy and those that provide to it.

Which version is better?

 

[satanoperca]

Will leave it alone. Back to sunshine and lollipops.

 

[noirua]

Jim Rogers: People Have No Idea How Bad the Coming Crisis is Going to Be
16 August
Https://jimroger.blogspot.com/2020/08/jim-rogers-people-have-no-idea-how-bad.html
Https://youtu.be/aPsxZ0b0wro

 

[Junior]

Will leave it alone. Back to sunshine and lollipops.

whatever happened to Professor Robots?

 

[Smurf1976]

Firstly, we can't just shut down all international travel on a knee jerk reaction as soon as there's the first hint of any virus anywhere. That's just not possible for all sorts of reasons.

I can see much of your argument except this bit.

At some point there will be another pandemic that's a given. They are not an unexpected occurrence and with more people, higher living densities and so on they're likely to become more frequent not less.

The next one may be more or less serious than this one in terms of medical effects. It might have a 0.1% death rate or at the other extreme it might reduce Australia's national population by 50%+

It will happen again, the only question's about the details.

There's no proof as to exactly when the first case arrived I agree but it's undeniable that the virus came to Australia aboard a plane or ship from overseas. It's a fact that we know which ship exactly brought many cases and that even the airlines, who are not medical authorities, expressed concerns at what was going on at the time.

Now I could be wrong I acknowledge that but based on all I've seen, this looks to be a case of government not wanting to risk losing $1 billion so we delayed and lost $100 billion instead. Made up figures but order of magnitude that's the sort of thing we're looking at. Too worried about tourism and universities so we ended up stuffing the entire economy.

All of that won't fix it now but it's a lesson which needs to be learned. Clinging to the past and not wanting to jump off what's failing is hugely expensive in business and this seems to be a case of that. Cut off the tourism and "education" leg and save the rest versus having the whole body infected. We chose the latter.

Pandemics happen and we need to be ready to pounce when they do. A country needs to be alert for pandemics just as anyone doing something which depends on weather needs to pay attention to what's going on and a share trader needs to pay attention to whatever they're trading. Ignorance might be short term bliss but beyond that it ultimately ends in disaster. A time does come where getting out is the right move.

Arguments that we "can't" plant a different crop that'll do well with less water or that we "can't" exit our positions and go short or at least to cash look pretty flimsy once the wheels have fallen off the whole thing and all that's left is dust.

Go forward to say 2025 and the pandemic has passed and the economy's still recovering nicely. Then some disease outbreak occurs wherever and they lockdown a city - do we chance it that we dodge a re-run of this whole saga? Or do we quarantine arrivals there and then to limit the damage? I think most would vote for the latter.....

If I suspect my house is on fire, I'm having a heart attack or the car's brakes are failing then I'll act accordingly until such time as it's proven to not be the case. I won't be chancing it in order to avoid the comparatively trivial cost and inconvenience of verifying the situation.