Post Corona...

[qldfrog]

It's difficult to quantify these things, and this being the case we will likely have to disagree without being able to provide anything solid to back ourselves up.

I think it's fair to say that if medical professionals get sick they should get first priority access to medical care. The disease is mostly a problem for the elderly and most medical practitioners are not elderly.

Even if you want to flatten the curve, etc, medical practitioners are going to be constantly exposed to the virus through the entire course of events anyway. Social distancing and isolation etc works for regular people, but the sick ones in bad condition still go to the hospital, exposing medical staff. They are the ones who don't benefit from these measures anyway.

We have how many cases in Australia now? Bugger all, effectively. If we stop all social distancing, the virus will go through the community and run its course and we can get back to normal while living relatively normal lives in the meantime. As it is, social distancing and a shutdown of the economy will need to last indefinitely. It won't completely eliminate the virus, it will just keep it at a very low level. What's the long term plan then? To keep us in isolation without the ability to work, study, socialise, date, have normal hobbies and freedom of movement, for as long as it takes for a medical miracle which provides a silver bullet cure? It makes no sense. Even if it was just a tiny handful of cases in Australia, as soon as we went back to normal it would spread, so, either we go back to normal now or we continually destroy the economy, mental health, etc etc (worse than an unbridled wave of the virus IMO, and I think this will be overwhelmingly clear within a month or two) while merely delaying the inevitable anyway.

Look at the winners and losers of all this and ask yourself if there's a motive the winners may have for engineering this incredibly destructive situation, which really doesn't seem to be providing any benefits.

@Sdajii in french hospitals, 33 pc of people in ICU are less than 60y old
Not just elderly or do you consider anyone above 40/50 useless to society
These die if the medical system collapses

 

[jbocker]

Destroying the economy, causing millions of people to lose their jobs, businesses, hobbies, relationships, etc, forcing people to stay inside with people and causing a dramatic increase in domestic violence etc (even at the best of times domestic violence involves physical assault and murder, and this will dramatically increase it), massively increased rates of depression due to lack of vocation and socialisation, etc etc etc, is very clearly going to cause far more damage in terms of both death and suffering than the virus ever would, let alone the difference between whatever the virus would have caused and what it will cause with these draconian measures.

To look at the maximum possible benefit, we have to say what was the worst case scenario of the virus itself (generally said to be a 3.4% death rate of those who get infected, and obviously not everyone would get infected). We're not going to reduce the impact to a 0% infection rate or 0% fatality rate, so the damage mitigation of the virus is dramatically lower than that. The vast majority of people who would have been killed by the virus were elderly folks not long for this world anyway. Now, as it is, we're still going to have a percentage of people getting the virus including those elderly people etc. But, we are forcing literally everyone to suffer, most dramatically. Children, teenagers, young adults and every other demographic will be suffering from psychological depression, many from domestic violence, financial distress which will cause long term financial suffering, educational disruption, no doubt some of those elderly and other vulnerable folks have already died due to logistical difficulties, the economic destruction is going to cause hospitals etc to lose funding and become less effective (causing deaths from all causes, not just the virus)...

In short, I was saying over a month ago that the human reaction was going to cause far more harm than the virus, but it is now utterly obviously that the absurd reaction will cause far, far more harm, and despite how obvious that is, we are being expected to anticipate and want draconian rules for an extended period of time.

It's a sad display of human stupidity that most people can't see it already, but my question was: at what point will it be obvious to most people that these measures are causing more harm than good?

By all means, encourage good hygeine etc. We shouldn't be shaking hands, we should cough into our elbow, etc etc, but to destroy the economy and take such crazy action, causing far more death and suffering than it prevents is insane, and we need to be asking why this is happening.

Thanks Sadjii for clarifying. Just wondering what your view would be if for some reason 20-40 year olds were the greater % of deaths. Or if it were equally weighted across all the generations.
I appreciate that the measures are unprecedented but I would be surprised to think that there will be more deaths than the 10s of thousands we already lost to the virus. I trust that the human spirit will prevail, and if it don't then maybe we are gone regardless what measures are made.
I am sure we will develop a far better way to deal with this before the next time something like this happens, that wont be so draconian. In the meantime while we are in this fight we should do what we can to keep people in good spirit, ease their stresses. I am not denying we will have ongoing problems.

 

[jbocker]

@Sdajii in french hospitals, 33 pc of people in ICU are less than 60y old
Not just elderly or do you consider anyone above 40/50 useless to society
These die if the medical system collapses

I hate to think they are useless to society. Maybe our future answer lies in Soylent Green. (a '70s movie that was set in 2022) and maybe then many will become runners as in Logans run (A later '70s movie)

 

[jbocker]

I am not denying we will have ongoing problems

There is something that really is worrying me, far more than dying (I think). if it should happen to me in this environment, I will leave my loved ones in illness then probably never get to see or touch my wife the kids and grandies. Finally in your last days surrounded by medical people dressed in plastic bags. Your family are left without their goodbyes and attend a cold funeral without the presence and loving support of friends.
It is gut wrenching to think of this happening to younger casualties. What devastating effect is this on poor medical staff.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is the death rate if hospitals have capacity.

Let it rip uncontrolled, run out of capacity, then it ends up circa 10%. Hence Italy currently at 11.7% and Spain at 8.9%.

Then there's those who live but with lung damage. There doesn't seem to be a figure for that but it won't be zero.

I could be wrong but I do have serious doubts that Australians would accept circa 1 million deaths, and however many more in ongoing poor health for life, even if doing so did bring about whatever benefit in economic or practical terms. It's just too far against Australian culture to accept that.

I agree.

If the virus is allowed top run its course, the medical system will be overwhelmed. People who need medical treatment for other problems won't get it because all the beds will be serious covid patients.

It's just not in our psyche to deny people medical attention just because they are old, if people need urgent medical attention, they get it.

It's a tough time but as has been said before, it could well make us stronger in terms of what we can do for ourselves and a more realistic appraisal of our international relations.

 

[SirRumpole]

What's the long term plan then?

The long term plan is to produce a vaccine and or other treatment to lessen the effects or reduce the spread.

So it may not happen for a while, but with the resources put in it's likely it will happen, maybe within a year.

 

[qldfrog]

Agree with you within year. Sadly not within 3 months

 

[matty77]

It will be 12 to 18 months for a vaccine, and then it needs to be administered. There are still arguments on if you can catch it twice or not - so if we get a vaccine will it really work or is this going to be a seasonal death flu?

The medical system in Italy has been overwhelmed and they just cant keep up with the number of cases and also the medical staff are getting sick as proper protection was not done early enough. Also Italy Dr have confirmed they are having to choose who to save - elderly are not on that list and if its between an 80 year old that has a 50/50 chance to live with a miracle and a young person with 90/10 then are not treating the old person. Think about this.... its like a war time scenario...

You would never think that would happen in AUS but when you have no choice hard decisions need to be made lets hope it doesnt get to that here and we flatten the curve. We are doing better then Italy at this stage, but South Korea are doing even better...



s: https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/heal...irus-cases-rising-slower-than-europe-c-769440

I just hope "post corona" comes sooner rather then later.

 

[barney]

we will likely have to disagree without being able to provide anything solid to back ourselves up. It won't completely eliminate the virus, it will just keep it at a very low level.

I understand your sentiment … how long do we keep countries "shut". Its a difficult question.

In the short term, finding out how much restriction is needed to keep the infection rates manageable is the priority in Aus. (We don't want to risk turning into Italy (6-800 deaths per day for nearly two weeks … scary stats)

Once they have control of the rate of infection, I imagine the social belt will probably be loosened a bit and monitored to see the effect. (That would probably get a very mixed reaction in itself) However, as you say, we cant simply shut the country down for an extended period without some serious problems developing.

Without medications to fight the V, we have to accept that it will continue to spread … Our only defence is trying to control how quick.

The level of social restriction vs the manageable level of infection relative to the economic and social impact on communities is a tough balancing act. As a community I think we have to accept that the number crunchers are making what are hopefully the right decisions as it all unfolds. ​

 

[Bazzi]

We hope this virus goes away the soonest. With the racked debt across multiple countries the obvious long term solution is recovering the money through higher taxes in different categories but curious on thoughts if with this debts are we going to enjoy more peaceful years ahead with no war between countries (to not rack more debt due to war cost) or this situation could fuel a war to recover money from somewhere?
I pray it is the rosy world for our future generation...

 

[MovingAverage]

the obvious long term solution is recovering the money through higher taxes in different categories

The amount of money being pumped into global economies is absolutely staggering and of a scale never ever seen before. I just can't see how raising taxes will ever repay the debt in a palatable time frame--the sun will have burnt out by the time this debt is repaid. This is the level of debt that can only ever be payed over many many generations. The other big issue with raising tax (and I'm no economist) is that it is a double edge sword...raise taxes too high and you will absolutely hold back economic growth and make the country unattractive to foreign investment. You can't grow an economy by jacking up taxes. My predication on the tax issue (I know nothing so pay no attention to me) is that unless countries around the world all agree on a common "global" tax structure, you will get countries aggressively competing against each other to reduce their tax structures (corporate) to attract foreign investment and businesses. This has already occurred (Ireland in the 90s, Singapore and all of the remote islands we affectionately call tax havens) and I think it may occur post corona but at a level we haven't seen before. I doubt we will ever see countries agree on a global tax structure so I reckon we will see a lot of countries in a race to reduce their corporate tax rates for foreign countries.

 

[matty77]

A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?

 

[basilio]

A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?

Not a silly question at all... The answers depend on who one speaks to and how the question is framed.

I'll throw my two cents in.
For the next 6-8 months many governments madly create credit to keep businesses alive, people in their homes, food on the table. These monies end up being in the trillions - say 25% of GDP.

So after 8 months every countries Reserve bank has bought multi billion dollars of Government bonds.
So I suggest they just write them off as bad debts or perhaps good debts...

Coronavirus: RBA to buy government bonds to dodge recession
The Reserve Bank made two extraordinary moves today, firing its last bullets in an attempt to pull our economy back from the brink of recession.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/eco...n/news-story/923705e7d0e691fc23c47bc45e5359fe

 

[MovingAverage]

Not a silly question at all... The answers depend on who one speaks to and how the question is framed.

I'll throw my two cents in.
For the next 6-8 months many governments madly create credit to keep businesses alive, people in their homes, food on the table. These monies end up being in the trillions - say 25% of GDP.

So after 8 months every countries Reserve bank has bought multi billion dollars of Government bonds.
So I suggest they just write them off as bad debts or perhaps good debts...

Coronavirus: RBA to buy government bonds to dodge recession
The Reserve Bank made two extraordinary moves today, firing its last bullets in an attempt to pull our economy back from the brink of recession.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/eco...n/news-story/923705e7d0e691fc23c47bc45e5359fe

So who on earth will buy a government bond if you know it will never be repaid. Perhaps I’m over simplifying things, but would you by shares in a company if you know you could never ever sell them and that advertised dividends would never be paid. The current situation isn’t that different...what country or organisation would buy Aust government bonds if they knew they were never going to be repaid. Not repaying government bonds will have a major impact on our credit rating and that will have significant major street level consequences for all of us—I’m sure that will kickstart inflation as our dollar would really be worthless. Must admit I don’t fully understand how all this money is circulating the global but one thing I suspect is that the simplistic approach of just writing off debt will have major implications. We are indeed heading into extremely complex economic times.

 

[MovingAverage]

A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?

It’s not that different to your personal circumstances...what happens if you don’t pay your gas, electricity, mortgage, credit cards etc. you’ll get a pretty **** credit history and no one will lend you money or give you credit and if on the off chance someone is brave enough to loan you money or give you credit you’ll pay a hefty interest rate and you’ll have offer some serious security. It’s not that different for countries

 

[basilio]

So what happes if the Reserve Bank just buys Government Bonds (as I suggested ) There are no private bond holders here.

I agree it is all very hard to work out. Clearly it is much simpler to put a few million people out of work onto the streets and collapse the banking system into the process.
Perhaps ?

 

[MovingAverage]

So what happes if the Reserve Bank just buys Government Bonds (as I suggested ) There are no private bond holders here.

I agree it is all very hard to work out. Clearly it is much simpler to put a few million people out of work onto the streets and collapse the banking system into the process.
Perhaps ?

Where does the reserve bank get the money from...does it literally fire up the money printing factories (that will fuel inflation and potentially devalue our dollar) or does it raise the money by selling government bonds—if so we better repay them otherwise no one will buy them? We are in unchartered waters that is for sure.

 

[SirRumpole]

A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?

It always amuses me (in a sarcastic sort of way), that when financial crises occur the Australian dollar plummets because people take money out of the Australian economy towards the "safer" waters of the US, a country which has a debt to GDP ratio of 105% , compared to Australia at 40%.

Of course these figures would be substantially changed now, but it looks like the US will never "repay" its debt, while Australia under Howard/Costello at least made an effort.

 

[matty77]

While I agree Howard/Costello made an effort they did it by selling a lot of assets, short term gain for long term pain?

My question was more the scenario that, if you took Australia and the USA right now, you could pretty much say both counties will never repay debt, ever. But does this actually matter or is this just the new norm?

 

[MovingAverage]

a country which has a debt to GDP ratio of 105% , compared to Australia at 40%.

IMHO the debt to GDP ratio is not really an indicator of a country’s ability to pay down its debt. Not sure if it’s relevant, but just think about the mindset of those involved in the management of serious smart money/assets...they often take a very dim view of entities/companies (think countries) with low debt but good cash flow. Maybe that’s why in times of global economic uncertainty the money flows out of Oz and into the US. Just a thought.