Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[cutz]

@Knobby22

Just a thought here, that top graph does not paint a realistic picture, the iron ore effect may be masking the true reality.

 

[wayneL]

@Knobby22

Just a thought here, that top graph does not paint a realistic picture, the iron ore effect may be masking the true reality.

That was my initial thought too.

Also, we're only in the first quarter of this game.

 

[Junior]

Those charts are useful and it will be interesting to update those in 3 months or 6 months. I think those GDP numbers should also be read alongside COVID stimulus which has been unleashed in each country. Without COVID economic stimulus, those numbers would obviously be far worse. In Australia for example, once mortgage repayment holidays, JobKeeper and JobSeeker all unwind, we'll see the real economic damage play out.

Those charts highlight how poorly the US has coped with this. The size of their stimulus packages have dwarfed anywhere else in the world, yet it's had no impact on death rates, and the economy has taken a massive hit.

Compare that to here, where our government spending was designed to sit alongside Restrictions, and therefore effectively fund the cost of shutting down business, to stymy the spread of the virus. In the States they just unleashed the cash, AND let the virus spread. Double whammy.

 

[Sdajii]

Some facts
View attachment 108588

View attachment 108587

And as Josh Friedan said, Australia would be doing even better if it wasn't for Victoria.

When people post cherry-picking data with no context, they're probably pushing a narrative rather than trying to depict the genuine situation.

Just as an example, the country I was in before Australia just days before the lockdowns began, was Thailand. Thailand has had virtually no deaths, extremely few cases, and their economy has been utterly utterly devastated. Why? Their GPD was extremely heavily reliant on tourism, and foreign tourist arrivals have come to a halt, despite Thailand having one of the lowest total virus cases in the world (Australia has more than 10x the number of deaths Thailand has, despite Thailand having around 4x Australia's population, meaning Australia has had around 40x more deaths than Thailand per capita).

Your cherry-picked data does not include this in the picture and fails to point out that the economic harm in no country is actually related to the virus itself, it's related to the way the economy has been managed by the government and the way the global situation has changed.

If, say, global demand for iron ore or tourism or cheese or fleeb widgets is what your economy relies heavily on, and that commodity is in greater or lesser demand than before, your economy will thrive or suffer, and this has nothing to do with your country's virus numbers. If your government shuts down businesses or brings about conditions which will destroy the economy, your economy will suffer for it. If they play QE games etc, by many metrics you'll have smoke and mirrors which may make a drowning economy look like it's thriving.

It's horrible that our world has become more about pushing narratives and agendas than the pursuit of truth and fact.

 

[Knobby22]

OK give me the data for Thailand Sdajii

 

[PZ99]

So the data was released today and it shows that Australia is in its first recession since 1991.

I am shocked.


Jokes aside, the contraction was actually slightly larger than anticipated, but only by a little bit. XAO/XJO didn't care and bounced more than yesterday's entire contraction.

Probably in anticipation of more stimulus measures is my guess

 

[over9k]

Probably in anticipation of more stimulus measures is my guess

Maybe. It was absolutely nuts on the NYSE the night before though and we all know how much of a cold Australia catches whenever the usa sneezes (or in this case, the inverse).

I suspect a lot of people got the jitters the day before the release (hence the massive selloff on monday) and worst-case-scenario was priced in then.

Then all you need is the estimates to be accurate and you get a big rebound, which is obviously exactly what happened.

Or it was, you know, both.

 

[Sdajii]

OK give me the data for Thailand Sdajii

Thailand's GPD shrank year on year by a massive 12.2% in the second quarter of 2020, link to data here: https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/gdp-growth-annual

In Q1 2020 Australia declined by 0.3% while Thailand fell by 2%

Thailand's total virus deaths are 58, compared to Australia's 663 (keep in mind that Thailand's population is multiples of Australia's, meaning that Australia's total number of deaths which is on its own is more than 10x Thailand's is multiples of that per capita).

If your narrative made sense, Australia's GPD should have fallen by a figure literally dozens of times more than Thailand's, but in reality Thailand's has fallen more severely (and in real terms it's more severe than the raw numbers suggest, but that's a much longer story to get into).

You can't honestly or at least genuinely say that 663 deaths, almost all of which were of people who were soon to die, is in itself going to have a dramatic effect on an economy. You certainly can't blame 58 deaths for a 12% drop in GDP! Your figures have been cooked up to push a narrative, not the depict what's actually happening.

 

[Knobby22]

You could say that the loss of tourism was the big problem and 2% is a great result for Thailand.

 

[Sdajii]

You could say that the loss of tourism was the big problem and 2% is a great result for Thailand.

I already pointed out that the biggest problem for Thailand was the collapse of international tourism. Do you think you're clever by saying "You could say..." the obvious?

2% would have been a spectacular result, but Q2 was a loss of over 12% and Q3 will be worse. The point is, your charts are blatantly misrepresenting both the actual raw situation as well as the explanation behind the situation. It falsely says the death rate within a country is the driver of economic realities, and falsely says that the amount of death causes the amount of economic harm. Neither of these is true.

 

[over9k]

Does it actually say that though?

Or is it just pointing out that allowing the virus to kill people might actually have an economic effect and that it's not actually a tradeoff?

In other words, either you suffer economic damage from a lockdown, or you suffer both economic and human life damage from not having one.

Seems to me like you get the economic pain either way?

 

[Sdajii]

Does it actually say that though?

Or is it just pointing out that allowing the virus to kill people might actually have an economic effect and that it's not actually a tradeoff?

In other words, either you suffer economic damage from a lockdown, or you suffer both economic and human life damage from not having one.

Seems to me like you get the economic pain either way?

That's the narrative, but it's a false one.

Did you read my posts?

Do you honestly think you get a severe economic impact from knocking off a few people who are too old or sick to contribute to the economy anyway? The reality is the opposite. I'm not saying we should actively try to bring about human deaths, but those deaths actually help the economy, not harm it.

Very, very clearly, the economic harm is not being caused by the virus itself, especially not the deaths.

One aspect which does cause the correlation you're promoting (it's not by any stretch the primary metric, but it is a contributor) is that if people have an outbreak and freak out about it and thus shut down businesses and are too scared to go outside so they don't buy stuff or go to movies or out to dinner etc, the economy suffers. The exact same thing would occur if the media ran a successful scare campaign about other strains of the common cold or a completely innocuous issue or a completely fictional one.

A few old people dying doesn't reduce a country's ability to run a thriving economy. This very clearly isn't the cause of the problems. There are all sorts of things going on in the world at the moment including a cold war between China and many other nations, which has dramatically altered international trade, plus international travel being reduced, right down to things like movies not being made, etc etc. The virus itself is not what's causing the economic issues.

 

[over9k]

That's the narrative, but it's a false one.

Did you read my posts?

Do you honestly think you get a severe economic impact from knocking off a few people who are too old or sick to contribute to the economy anyway? The reality is the opposite. I'm not saying we should actively try to bring about human deaths, but those deaths actually help the economy, not harm it.

Very, very clearly, the economic harm is not being caused by the virus itself, especially not the deaths.

One aspect which does cause the correlation you're promoting (it's not by any stretch the primary metric, but it is a contributor) is that if people have an outbreak and freak out about it and thus shut down businesses and are too scared to go outside so they don't buy stuff or go to movies or out to dinner etc, the economy suffers. The exact same thing would occur if the media ran a successful scare campaign about other strains of the common cold or a completely innocuous issue or a completely fictional one.

A few old people dying doesn't reduce a country's ability to run a thriving economy. This very clearly isn't the cause of the problems. There are all sorts of things going on in the world at the moment including a cold war between China and many other nations, which has dramatically altered international trade, plus international travel being reduced, right down to things like movies not being made, etc etc. The virus itself is not what's causing the economic issues.

Oh yeah, because the voluntary isolation that people would do (see: lack of change in USA when they get reopenings) and then the endless sick days as absolutely *everybody* get it won't have any effect at all. Then combine the inability for people to see their parents/grandparents on account of the very real probability that it'll kill them and the inability for old farts to even really leave the house (not sure if you're aware of this, but the boomers have a lot of money they're just itching to spend travelling etc that they can't if the whole country is infectious) on account of how infectious the entire country has become and you have *everything* absolutely ravaged.

At least with lockdowns, we can return to normal once they're over on account of the virus being non-existent in the community. Let it spread, and you have nobody (think old farts and their caravan trips for example) able to do anything until the whole country (planet) gets vaccinated, which is going to take *years*.

In short, a few weeks of lockdown can return life to normal *years* before it would if we had to wait for a vaccine.

If we'd simply gone absolutely nuclear with hardcore lockdowns right at the start and nipped it in the bud then & there, none of this would be happening. I'm no fan of jacinda ardern, but she got things right over there, NZ is life as normal minus the tourists. So is Tasmania or indeed anywhere that did a proper lockdown/border closure early.

If not for the protesters in victoria and the ruby princess idiocy, the whole country would be like NZ is at the moment. Instead, we have this bull****.

 

[Sdajii]

Oh yeah, because the voluntary isolation that people would do (see: lack of change in USA when they get reopenings) and then the endless sick days as absolutely *everybody* get it won't have any effect at all.

You're speaking based on 6 month old guesswork. We now know most people don't catch it (the early assumption that literally everyone would be susceptible because it was new has turned out to be incorrect - most people don't contract it when exposed) and most people who do become infected show literally no symptoms or very little.

Then combine the inability for people to see their parents/grandparents on account of the very real probability that it'll kill them and the inability for old farts to even really leave the house (not sure if you're aware of this, but the boomers have a lot of money they're just itching to spend travelling etc that they can't if the whole country is infectious) on account of how infectious the entire country has become and you have *everything* absolutely ravaged.

I disagree with what you're saying, but since it's emotional rambling and off topic I won't debate it.

At least with lockdowns, we can return to normal once they're over on account of the virus being non-existent in the community. Let it spread, and you have nobody (think old farts and their caravan trips for example) able to do anything until the whole country (planet) gets vaccinated, which is going to take *years*.

Simply untrue. We can not eliminate the virus entirely. We can't go back to normal until we go back to normal. The Sweden model is the way to get back to normal. If you use the lockdown approach you have a neverending series of lockdowns with no endpoint. Look at Victoria - lockdowns eased then according to the government with the strategy you advocate, one single infection of one family started the big mess Victoria is now in, and lockdowns were implemented and the state was shut down for months anyway, destroying businesses, etc etc. Taking a Sweden model approach you never lockdown and you quickly come to a stable situation where you have a negligible rate of deaths and trivial amount of illness, with no need for lockdowns... like, say, the way we deal with the other strains of coronaviruses which we call common colds.

In short, a few weeks of lockdown can return life to normal *years* before it would if we had to wait for a vaccine.

Hello? Hello? Reality here literally demonstrating that what you are saying it utterly, utterly in contradiction to reality! Melbourne has been in extreme lockdown for much more than a few short weeks, and this isn't the first lockdown Melbourne has had! If we could have gone back to normal after a few short weeks of lockdown we'd have been back to normal after the first lockdown early this year! I really wish people like you who are so disconnected from reality could have a large dose of it inflicted on you.

If we'd simply gone absolutely nuclear with hardcore lockdowns right at the start and nipped it in the bud then & there, none of this would be happening. I'm no fan of jacinda ardern, but she got things right over there, NZ is life as normal minus the tourists. So is Tasmania or indeed anywhere that did a proper lockdown/border closure early.

NZ is one of the most remote countries in the world made up of islands! Even in virus simulations before the virus was ever spoken of, NZ was always one of the safest places. Literally even in computer games where you try to make a virus infect the world, which took no account of political differences into account, NZ was always one of the most challenging places on the planet. NZ's 'success' has nothing to do with policy, they were just in an easy position. The exact same strategy wouldn't work in most places, because most countries aren't one of the most remote countries on Earth made up of a series of islands with low population density!

If not for the protesters in victoria and the ruby princess idiocy, the whole country would be like NZ is at the moment. Instead, we have this bull****.

Utter nonsense. But, since you're obviously following narratives rather than employing critical thinking, it's clear to see why you think what you do.

 

[over9k]

You're speaking based on 6 month old guesswork. We now know most people don't catch it (the early assumption that literally everyone would be susceptible because it was new has turned out to be incorrect - most people don't contract it when exposed) and most people who do become infected show literally no symptoms or very little.

"Most people who do become infected show literally no symptoms or very little".

Yes, we know that - young people are virtually impervious, and then there's an exponentially increasing likelihood of it killing you the older you get. Therefore, if young people are most of the cases, you have an unrepresentative population sample and thus bull**** data.

I disagree with what you're saying, but since it's emotional rambling and off topic I won't debate it.

It's nothing of the sort. You think time off work on sick leave isn't costly? You think people aren't voluntarily isolating/working from home and never leaving the house unless absolutely necessary in virus infected but legally reopened areas?

You think the boomers, the ones that actually spend the money, who know they're overwhelmingly more likely to be killed by this thing, are going to just go out & spend like drunken sailors like they usually do if everywhere is infectious?

Because I've got some news for you sweetheart, plenty of places in the U.S have reopened and economically speaking it's done absolutely sweet **** all on account of what I've just described above. But hey, you go thinking that AU would behave completely different to USA or something.

Simply untrue. We can not eliminate the virus entirely.

Absolute drivel. How does a population get the virus if nobody spreads it?

Explain NZ. Go on. I'll wait.

We can't go back to normal until we go back to normal. The Sweden model is the way to get back to normal.

NZ deaths per million: 4.5

Sweden deaths per million: 570

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

If you use the lockdown approach you have a neverending series of lockdowns with no endpoint.

No you don't. NZ had a big lockdown, eradicated it, and then a total reopening. Its only new case in like three months or whatever it was was some moron flying in from overseas.

Look at Victoria - lockdowns eased then according to the government with the strategy you advocate, one single infection of one family started the big mess Victoria is now in, and lockdowns were implemented and the state was shut down for months anyway, destroying businesses, etc etc. Taking a Sweden model approach you never lockdown and you quickly come to a stable situation where you have a negligible rate of deaths and trivial amount of illness, with no need for lockdowns... like, say, the way we deal with the other strains of coronaviruses which we call common colds.

Victoria has the massive infection rate it does because of the spread out of the hotels and the BLM protests.

It has the infection that it does precisely because it didn't lock down. How are you not getting this?

Hello? Hello? Reality here literally demonstrating that what you are saying it utterly, utterly in contradiction to reality! Melbourne has been in extreme lockdown for much more than a few short weeks, and this isn't the first lockdown Melbourne has had! If we could have gone back to normal after a few short weeks of lockdown we'd have been back to normal after the first lockdown early this year! I really wish people like you who are so disconnected from reality could have a large dose of it inflicted on you.

I really wish you could understand why the infection has spread in melbourne - hotel security guards getting the virus from the very people in quarantine and then spreading it to everyone they meet plus allowing thousands upon thousands of morons to spread an infection at a protest is not a lockdown.

NZ is one of the most remote countries in the world made up of islands! Even in virus simulations before the virus was ever spoken of, NZ was always one of the safest places. Literally even in computer games where you try to make a virus infect the world, which took no account of political differences into account, NZ was always one of the most challenging places on the planet. NZ's 'success' has nothing to do with policy, they were just in an easy position. The exact same strategy wouldn't work in most places, because most countries aren't one of the most remote countries on Earth made up of a series of islands with low population density!

So they had more time to close the borders and lock the place down early and thus ensured it never got there in the first place/what little got there was snuffed out before it was able to spread?

Gotcha

Utter nonsense. But, since you're obviously following narratives rather than employing critical thinking, it's clear to see why you think what you do.

Coming from a guy that thinks allowing thousands upon thousands of people to go to a protest and hotel security guards to catch the disease and then head out into the community and give it to everyone is a "lockdown", that's genuinely amazing.

Let's take NZ out of it: Take a look at all the other states that didn't have this security guard spreading bull**** or BLM protesting morons spreading the infection(s) and see how many cases there's been. Aside from that ruby princess idiocy (newsflash, allowing that ship to dock & disembark isn't a lockdown either) there'd be absolutely nothing if not for those idiots that went to victoria and then into the other states. It would have been COMPLETELY eradicated if not for what I've just mentioned.

That's the differences between the states' approaches, and that's why victoria is the basket case that it is.

This is not complex.

 

[satanoperca]

Absolute drivel. How does a population get the virus if nobody spreads it?

This is not complex.

First statement, it is a virus it spreads, so has since the dawn of time.

Second statement, it is complex, that is why we are in the mess.

 

[over9k]

No, it isn't. If nobody with the virus has any contact with anyone else, it stays on/in that person. Hence why if you prevent anybody with it getting into your country and/or prevent those in your country with it from giving it to someone else, it's over.

 

[satanoperca]

No, it isn't. If nobody with the virus has any contact with anyone else, it stays on/in that person. Hence why if you prevent anybody with it getting into your country and/or prevent those in your country with it from giving it to someone else, it's over.

Do you live in a cage, isolated from all human contact, except internet connection?

Are you real, do you have friends, do you like to socialize, or are you old and having to contemplate the various questions that arise when one is faced with the same question/fact that we all have to deal with: death.

 

[Sdajii]

"Most people who do become infected show literally no symptoms or very little".

Yes, we know that - young people are virtually impervious, and then there's an exponentially increasing likelihood of it killing you the older you get. Therefore, if young people are most of the cases, you have an unrepresentative population sample and thus bull**** data.

The reality is that most people living are not close to death, and those that are close to death are already close to death. Obviously most of the cases will be people who are not close to death, and thus most cases are trivial. There is nothing "bull****" about this.

It's nothing of the sort. You think time off work on sick leave isn't costly? You think people aren't voluntarily isolating/working from home and never leaving the house unless absolutely necessary in virus infected but legally reopened areas?

That's not what I said, I literally declined to comment so it makes no sense to put words in my mouth. But, to address what you falsely say I said, time off work is obviously costly, but trivial illness is trivial, and people who are already close to death because they're in an old folks' home or they're in hospital close to death from cancer aren't taking time off work...

Yes, people are definitely voluntarily isolating (or being forced to, as I am) despite being at no risk and being perfectly healthy. This is indeed a huge part of why the economy is suffering. Obviously if you force a lockdown which destroys businesses and prevent people from working despite them being in perfect health, you're going to hurt the economy. That's not the virus hurting the economy, that's the insane policies hurting the economy.

You think the boomers, the ones that actually spend the money, who know they're overwhelmingly more likely to be killed by this thing, are going to just go out & spend like drunken sailors like they usually do if everywhere is infectious?

As examples, both of my parents are boomers. They're both in Victoria. One in Melbourne, one in regional Victoria. They're both forced to avoid doing their usual thing, both hate it and wish they could be out doing normal things and if it was legal they would. If there as no fearmongering campaign, yes, the majority would be spending as usual. Once you get old your time is near anyway, and what point is being alive if you're just sitting around inside too scared to go out, until you inevitably die anyway? It's appalling at how easily people have been convinced that it's better for an old person in a retirement home to be lonely in isolation, legally forbidden from seeing their loved ones, then dying anyway, rather than being able to live a normal life until their inevitable death.

Because I've got some news for you sweetheart, plenty of places in the U.S have reopened and economically speaking it's done absolutely sweet **** all on account of what I've just described above. But hey, you go thinking that AU would behave completely different to USA or something.

You're really clutching at straws if you think using the USA as an example at the moment is relevant to any other country. If you want a much more relevant example, look at Sweden. They actually did what I would have suggested and it has proven to be the correct strategy. The USA has extreme political issues causing all sorts of mismanagement, each state is dealing with the virus in different ways, they literally have widespread riots at the moment, it's just not a comparable situation.

Absolute drivel. How does a population get the virus if nobody spreads it?

Are you aware that the most extreme lockdowns in the country happened in Victoria, and *THEN* long after that, while Melbourne still had the most extreme restrictions in the country, it had an outbreak larger than the first? The largest outbreak literally occurred in the place with the strictest lockdowns. Clearly, human beings act as human beings, and so they should, and so these measures aren't particularly effective. Some of the places with the least effective measures taken have some of the lowest rates of infection (Thailand is a good example, and I just use it because it's a country I was recently spending a lot of time in and I just mentioned it for a different reason in this discussion; they have very poor hygiene standards, high population density, plenty of communal eating etc etc, yet very low infection rates). Look at Sweden with extremely low deaths after taking a sensible approach and letting herd immunity take place. It's now a proven model, it's objectively better.

Explain NZ. Go on. I'll wait.

It's literally a country with low population density, fragmented into literal islands. Even in simulations run before this virus was ever identified, even ignoring the type of government strategies used, NZ always came up as a country very likely to have minimal issues with a virus outbreak.

Victoria has the massive infection rate it does because of the spread out of the hotels and the BLM protests.

According to official data, the protests didn't contribute. If the lockdowns are so fragile that a couple of security guards doing the wrong thing ruin the whole picture, it shows that the system is too fragile to be appropriate. What you are wanting was literally used and literally failed. If a Sweden model had been used we would be able to get on with normal life and we would have no requirement for paranoia or restrictions. If a security guard did the wrong thing or whatever, it wouldn't do anything. Herd immunity would just give protection, no issue, no problem.

I really wish you could understand why the infection has spread in melbourne - hotel security guards getting the virus from the very people in quarantine and then spreading it to everyone they meet plus allowing thousands upon thousands of morons to spread an infection at a protest is not a lockdown.

Again, according to official data the protests didn't contribute, and if one or two security guards can cause the whole system to break down, it's a silly thing to rely on. You're always going to have a few people doing silly things. Humans are human, and at least a few will act like humans.

Coming from a guy that thinks allowing thousands upon thousands of people to go to a protest and hotel security guards to catch the disease and then head out into the community and give it to everyone is a "lockdown", that's genuinely amazing.

You're repeating yourself incessantly. Allowing the protest was insane if they're going to attempt a lockdown. I don't think lockdowns are the way to go, I think they're terrible, but I do agree that if you're going to have a lockdown you should do it properly. A half-hearted lockdown is insane, but here's the thing: In a country like Australia, a genuine lockdown is impossible. It might work in China where people have legitimate reason to fear being disappeared if they disobey or even openly question the government, but in Australia you'll always have people acting like they're allowed to have basic human rights. Consequently, when Victoria attempted the impossible it didn't work, and cringefully we have people acting like that is a surprise and shouldn't have been anticipated.

Let's take NZ out of it: Take a look at all the other states that didn't have this security guard spreading bull**** or BLM protesting morons spreading the infection(s) and see how many cases there's been. Aside from that ruby princess idiocy (newsflash, allowing that ship to dock & disembark isn't a lockdown either) there'd be absolutely nothing if not for those idiots that went to victoria and then into the other states. It would have been COMPLETELY eradicated if not for what I've just mentioned.

Victoria has the most dense population and coldest climate other than Tasmania (which has very low population density and a small population size). You are ignoring the primary factors which determine what a virus will do.

That's the differences between the states' approaches, and that's why victoria is the basket case that it is.

Nope, that's what you're choosing to believe, while ignoring the genuine factors at work.

This is not complex.

Complex or not, you fail to understand it.

 

[Sdajii]

No, it isn't. If nobody with the virus has any contact with anyone else, it stays on/in that person. Hence why if you prevent anybody with it getting into your country and/or prevent those in your country with it from giving it to someone else, it's over.

You can't stop people from having contact with other people. If you were to somehow force zero human to human contact of any type, yes, you would almost entirely eliminate the virus within two or three months. You would also kill a huge percentage of the world's population and leave a significant percentage of the survivors in various forms of depression and trauma. Perhaps more importantly though, it's completely impossible (which is fortunate).