Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[satanoperca]

Simply put, the world has gone mad.

Too much information in the hands of idiots is dangerous.

The economic impact of poor decisions is going to be large.

 

[over9k]

I know man. I don't know why policy makers don't just consult reddit.

 

[qldfrog]

Note, new curfews. Again letting the virus run means destruction of the economy. the USA economy has really suffered and its not going away.

Israel is in big trouble and there are some very angry business people upset with the government for letting it get out of control.
Now going back into full lockdown. People are furious the government took so long to act and now complete shutdown.

'Atmosphere of rebellion': Israel orders a second virus lockdown many have vowed to ignore

Israel is the first country to order a second, nationwide coronavirus lockdown. But with protesters filling the streets, Government ministers openly revolting and businesses vowing to keep trading, authorities fear a rebellion.

www.abc.net.au

Many other nation states that let the virus run are now putting up restrictions.
It always spreads among the youth first then into the general populace and combined with the two week lag befor death the government always seem to leave it too late. France will be next.

Some good news today, no deaths in Victoria. So all those people who would have died anyway are still alive

Are they?
Does this country knows you can actually die from other cause than covid?

 

[Knobby22]

Are they?
Does this country knows you can actually die from other cause than covid?

We are talking economic damage.
The effect of letting it run causes economic damage. Didn't mention deaths except as an aside in Victoria with a wink. Just a side effect.

Israel were a success, then they let it run. Now look at them, a basket case.

 

[Sdajii]

We are talking economic damage.
The effect of letting it run causes economic damage. Didn't mention deaths except as an aside in Victoria with a wink. Just a side effect.

Israel were a success, then they let it run. Now look at them, a basket case.

Israel is yet another example of the trend we are increasingly seeing as time goes on. Some of us were saying it from the start and most of those who demanded that it wasn't the case are still digging their heels in, but take a look at your own example here.

Lockdowns are only expensive ways to kick the can down the road before getting hit anyway. Whether or not you think the deaths are the cause of the economic damage, you can see that Israel put work into avoiding the virus spreading, then... it happened anyway.

You can not lock down forever because it is economically (as well as socially etc) devastating. The virus exists. The virus will not be eliminated. Lockdown only works while you're locked down. Eventually you need to come out of lockdown. When you do, you're out of lockdown, and it's just a matter of time before whatever would have happened without lockdown will happen, because you're not in lockdown. The damage of the virus (however extreme you do or don't consider it to be) will come anyway, it's just a question of how soon you want to get through it and how much damage you want to cause in the mean time. If the world took a Sweden approach, we'd already be through it and the whole world would be getting on with normal life. Sweden is still there, it's not like they had half the population die or anything (or 5% or 0.5%, or 0.00005% of the people who would have otherwise been not old and not dying anyway). Sweden has had a negligible death rate, even if you count all Swedes who die with the virus as having died of the virus, even if they were asymptomatic. Inevitably, the world needs to get back on its feet, we're just causing harm (economic along with other harm) delaying this process.

To put Sweden's number of virus deaths (around 6,000) into context, close to 60,000 people in Sweden have died this year, about the same number as last year or the year before. About 10% of the people who died this year had the virus at the time. Most would have died this year without the virus.

People are acting like 6,000 old and sick people dying is some sort of unprecedented tragedy, ignoring the fact that these were mostly going to be among the approximately 90,000 people who die each year in Sweden even if they never caught the virus.

The numbers are there, extremely clear now, and anyone who bothers to look can see them.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Israel is yet another example of the trend we are increasingly seeing as time goes on. Some of us were saying it from the start and most of those who demanded that it wasn't the case are still digging their heels in, but take a look at your own example here.

Lockdowns are only expensive ways to kick the can down the road before getting hit anyway. Whether or not you think the deaths are the cause of the economic damage, you can see that Israel put work into avoiding the virus spreading, then... it happened anyway.

You can not lock down forever because it is economically (as well as socially etc) devastating. The virus exists. The virus will not be eliminated. Lockdown only works while you're locked down. Eventually you need to come out of lockdown. When you do, you're out of lockdown, and it's just a matter of time before whatever would have happened without lockdown will happen, because you're not in lockdown. The damage of the virus (however extreme you do or don't consider it to be) will come anyway, it's just a question of how soon you want to get through it and how much damage you want to cause in the mean time. If the world took a Sweden approach, we'd already be through it and the whole world would be getting on with normal life. Sweden is still there, it's not like they had half the population die or anything (or 5% or 0.5%, or 0.00005% of the people who would have otherwise been not old and not dying anyway). Sweden has had a negligible death rate, even if you count all Swedes who die with the virus as having died of the virus, even if they were asymptomatic. Inevitably, the world needs to get back on its feet, we're just causing harm (economic along with other harm) delaying this process.

To put Sweden's number of virus deaths (around 6,000) into context, close to 60,000 people in Sweden have died this year, about the same number as last year or the year before. About 10% of the people who died this year had the virus at the time. Most would have died this year without the virus.

People are acting like 6,000 old and sick people dying is some sort of unprecedented tragedy, ignoring the fact that these were mostly going to be among the approximately 90,000 people who die each year in Sweden even if they never caught the virus.

The numbers are there, extremely clear now, and anyone who bothers to look can see them.

I think the maximum suppression strategy is a path to economic suicide. I am not saying to let the virus go out of control; rather that we should suppress the virus relative to our health care/system capacity until we get a vaccine or the virus becomes endemic.

Even if we get a vaccine, I probably won't take it because I am only 36.

 

[Knobby22]

I think the maximum suppression strategy is a path to economic suicide. I am not saying to let the virus go out of control; rather that we should suppress the virus relative to our health care/system capacity until we get a vaccine or the virus becomes endemic.

Even if we get a vaccine, I probably won't take it because I am only 36.

Here are your odds (from New York death results) as of May 13. Obviously pretty good. One within those rare 30 year old range deaths was the male Broadway star with a young family who succumbed with no underlying issues (posted previously). Can't help bad luck.

AGE​	Number of Deaths	Share of deaths	With underlying conditions	Without underlying conditions	Unknown if with underlying cond.	Share of deaths of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old​	9​	0.06%​	6​	3​	0​	0.02%​
18 - 44 years old​	601​	3.9%​	476​	17​	108​	0.8%​
45 - 64 years old​	3,413​	22.4%​	2,851​	72​	490​	3.7%​
65 - 74 years old​	3,788​	24.9%​	2,801​	5​	982​	6.5%​
75+ years old​	7,419​	48.7%​	5,236​	2​	2,181​	14.3%​
TOTAL​	15,230​	100%​	11,370 (75%)​	99 (0.7%)​	1,551 (24.7%)​	25.3%​

​

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Here are your odds (from New York death results) as of May 13. Obviously pretty good. One within those rare 30 year old range deaths was the male Broadway star with a young family who succumbed with no underlying issues (posted previously). Can't help bad luck.

AGE​	Number of Deaths	Share of deaths	With underlying conditions	Without underlying conditions	Unknown if with underlying cond.	Share of deaths of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old​	9​	0.06%​	6​	3​	0​	0.02%​
18 - 44 years old​	601​	3.9%​	476​	17​	108​	0.8%​
45 - 64 years old​	3,413​	22.4%​	2,851​	72​	490​	3.7%​
65 - 74 years old​	3,788​	24.9%​	2,801​	5​	982​	6.5%​
75+ years old​	7,419​	48.7%​	5,236​	2​	2,181​	14.3%​
TOTAL​	15,230​	100%​	11,370 (75%)​	99 (0.7%)​	1,551 (24.7%)​	25.3%​

​

Calculating my odds of death from the virus based on the New York statistics
Age bracket 36 years old with no underlying conditions:
17 deaths with no underlying conditions +108 deaths unknown underlying conditions
= (125 deaths in my assumed category / 15,230 total deaths) x 100
= .82% chance of death if I get the virus

With a chance less than 1% of fatality; I will take my chances rather than put a vaccine into my body that has been rushed with potentially unknown side effects.

 

[over9k]

It's a shame I can't just go & get this thing & give it to my grandmother. It'd be a great way to knock her off & get the inheritance early.

I mean, she IS old. Her life doesn't matter.

 

[SirRumpole]

265 Australian economists back suppression of covid before economic considerations.

Open letter from 265 Australian economists: don’t sacrifice health for ‘the economy’

Leading Australian economists in four countries have signed an open letter calling on the national cabinet to think carefully before easing restrictions ‘for the sake of 'the economy’.

theconversation.com

 

[satanoperca]

Here are your odds (from New York death results) as of May 13. Obviously pretty good. One within those rare 30 year old range deaths was the male Broadway star with a young family who succumbed with no underlying issues (posted previously). Can't help bad luck.

AGE​	Number of Deaths	Share of deaths	With underlying conditions	Without underlying conditions	Unknown if with underlying cond.	Share of deaths of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old​	9​	0.06%​	6​	3​	0​	0.02%​
18 - 44 years old​	601​	3.9%​	476​	17​	108​	0.8%​
45 - 64 years old​	3,413​	22.4%​	2,851​	72​	490​	3.7%​
65 - 74 years old​	3,788​	24.9%​	2,801​	5​	982​	6.5%​
75+ years old​	7,419​	48.7%​	5,236​	2​	2,181​	14.3%​
TOTAL​	15,230​	100%​	11,370 (75%)​	99 (0.7%)​	1,551 (24.7%)​	25.3%​

​

GREAT WORK

For the ages of 75+ with no known underlying conditions, it would be interesting to explore this further, if the data was available, ie autopsies. Somehow I think at least 50% of this group with no underlying conditions would have underlying conditions.

 

[satanoperca]

So this is 100% a man-made economic disaster.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

265 Australian economists back suppression of covid before economic considerations.

Open letter from 265 Australian economists: don’t sacrifice health for ‘the economy’

Leading Australian economists in four countries have signed an open letter calling on the national cabinet to think carefully before easing restrictions ‘for the sake of 'the economy’.

theconversation.com

If these economists were put on JobSeeker allowances; I wonder if their opinion would change. Going from a hundred thousand plus a year to $800 a fortnight would make them think twice. These economists have cushy jobs in academia, banks or government. They are disconnected from reality, as such their opinion is compromised.

I agree with keeping the international borders closed while this virus rages across the planet; but this idea of maximum suppression, COVID free, and/or COVID elimination is really just an impossible task. We need to be realistic about what we are dealing with.

The reality is that this virus will likely spread through the entire global population before an effective vaccine is produced. I agree with suppression relative to the capacity of our health care system; whilst maintaining closure of international borders to ensure our hospital beds are available for Australians.

This discussion needs to be intelligent; I hope people who are making pathetic statements about their grandmothers; just start thinking before they type.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Simply put, the world has gone mad.

Too much information in the hands of idiots is dangerous.

The economic impact of poor decisions is going to be large.

I would like to see a journalist ask Scomo or his Chief Health Advisor:

Is it likely that this virus will spread throughout the entire country, with maximum suppression, before we get an effective vaccine?

If they don't have an answer, then they should go do some statistical health analysis to find out.

If the answer is YES; then logically we should keep our international borders shut and only apply a level of suppression relative to our health care capacity.

 

[Knobby22]

GREAT WORK

For the ages of 75+ with no known underlying conditions, it would be interesting to explore this further, if the data was available, ie autopsies. Somehow I think at least 50% of this group with no underlying conditions would have underlying conditions.

The virus puts the body under stress like red lining a car.
Boris passed the stress test but struggled. Needed supplementary oxygen, probably would not have made it otherwise.

If you are older it is more likely something will fail and your immune response will be weaker in any case.

If you are unfit that would be enough even without an underlying condition. You could just be unlucky.

 

[Junior]

If the world took a Sweden approach, we'd already be through it and the whole world would be getting on with normal life. Sweden is still there, it's not like they had half the population die or anything (or 5% or 0.5%, or 0.00005% of the people who would have otherwise been not old and not dying anyway). Sweden has had a negligible death rate, even if you count all Swedes who die with the virus as having died of the virus, even if they were asymptomatic. Inevitably, the world needs to get back on its feet, we're just causing harm (economic along with other harm) delaying this process.

To put Sweden's number of virus deaths (around 6,000) into context, close to 60,000 people in Sweden have died this year, about the same number as last year or the year before. About 10% of the people who died this year had the virus at the time. Most would have died this year without the virus.

People are acting like 6,000 old and sick people dying is some sort of unprecedented tragedy, ignoring the fact that these were mostly going to be among the approximately 90,000 people who die each year in Sweden even if they never caught the virus.

The numbers are there, extremely clear now, and anyone who bothers to look can see them.

Hi Sdajii, you talk about Sweden a lot. The latest economic data shows a 8.3% contraction in their economy for the June quarter, by far the biggest downturn since GDP records began 40 years ago. Is there evidence that their approach has protected their economy, jobs etc.? Otherwise they have taken a double hit, an economic hit, and high death rate.

Furthermore, if you're going to accept living with the virus, you need to lock away all your elderly from the rest of society. And those elderly who aren't locked away, will be stuck at home and living in fear of contracting teh virus anyway. It's a massive price to pay, so you'd want to see a very strong case that it's worthwhile from an economic and quality of life perspective.

Aside from the pain we are going through in Melbourne, which will end soon, I'm looking at how the rest of Australia (and New Zealand) are functioning, and it seems like a far better outcome thus far, compared with the likes of Sweden or the US.

 

[satanoperca]

@Junior, while you may be correct, Sweden has taken a hit to GDP, they are almost through it.
But a GDP figure cannot be looked in isolation.
How much did their govnuts stimulate the economy this year.
I bet my bottom dollar, if you remove all the state and fed stimulus from Oz, our GDP hit would be even larger.

 

[SirRumpole]

I bet my bottom dollar, if you remove all the state and fed stimulus from Oz, our GDP hit would be even larger.

Of course it would have been, that's what the stimulus was for !

 

[satanoperca]

Of course it would have been, that's what the stimulus was for !

Exactly my point, it has to be paid back, unless you have money tree, dragging on our GDP figures for years to come.

 

[Knobby22]

@Junior, while you may be correct, Sweden has taken a hit to GDP, they are almost through it.
But a GDP figure cannot be looked in isolation.
How much did their govnuts stimulate the economy this year.
I bet my bottom dollar, if you remove all the state and fed stimulus from Oz, our GDP hit would be even larger.

I looked it up
Sweden is spending heaps, they are a socialist country after all.

Paying half of business rents, big support payments where workers get 90% of their previous salary. $30 billion at the start $70 billion announced recently called the restart the economy plan.
Much more stuff. Just google Swedish Stimulus. They make Morrison look tight fisted.