Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (58 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
because it sums up 
I agree with what you're saying, but government stimulus can still help you get out of a tough situation, as long as it does not take too long. I mean, two months of this and we're probably fine. Half a year? I doubt it. Longer? We're fucked.
And in the long run, as a society, we will recover regardless of what happens. That's not my worry. But any severe recession or big societal change has casualties. And I'm guessing that these will far outnumber the direct victims of corona.
And in the long run, as a society, we will recover regardless of what happens. That's not my worry. But any severe recession or big societal change has casualties. And I'm guessing that these will far outnumber the direct victims of corona.
A poor social safety net, and certainly completely missed infrastructure for technical interventions a la South Korea, however, extends the danger and severity of the plague. This instigates stronger and longer measures for lockdown. So there is a degree of causality here. They are not totally unrelated.
How is that? With the right policy, protections, and practices in place, a shutdown could be mitigated if not eliminated sooner.
This is the big lie about the "your job or your life" bargain that a number of officials are peddling in the U.S. Sick people, fearful people, and dead people make for a poor economy.
Driving isn't the right analogy because health insurance has preventative capabilities whereas car insurance is for damages after the fact. But his point is more like how uninsured drivers make the roads that much more dangerous for all drivers let alone for the insured. A better example would again be fire departments. If people had insurance policies that provided fire companies, and they lived next door to people who didn't have fire insurance or fire companies, that makes even the insured bear the risk of being burned down by a neighbor's fire if he's uninsured.
I'm not sure how expectations of that would change because of a virus.
The guy said that if we had the right policy structure in place, a depression could be avoided. How? If you shutdown an economy for two years, you have a depression since you have recessions quarter over quarter. The government can't really change that unless they reopen the economy.
Essentially, his point is that if you die in a car accident, you died because some people have no insurance.
Doesn't make any sense, but that's not his job.
The guy said that if we had the right policy structure in place, a depression could be avoided. How? If you shutdown an economy for two years, you have a depression since you have recessions quarter over quarter. The government can't really change that unless they reopen the economy.
Essentially, his point is that if you die in a car accident, you died because some people have no insurance.
Doesn't make any sense, but that's not his job.
This is the big lie about the "your job or your life" bargain that a number of officials are peddling in the U.S. Sick people, fearful people, and dead people make for a poor economy.
Driving isn't the right analogy because health insurance has preventative capabilities whereas car insurance is for damages after the fact. But his point is more like how uninsured drivers make the roads that much more dangerous for all drivers let alone for the insured. A better example would again be fire departments. If people had insurance policies that provided fire companies, and they lived next door to people who didn't have fire insurance or fire companies, that makes even the insured bear the risk of being burned down by a neighbor's fire if he's uninsured.
Important to also note:
"The results differed across the state with the largest concentration of positive antibody tests found in New York City at 21.2%. In Long Island, 16.7% of the people tested were positive and in Westchester, where the state’s first major outbreak originated, 11.7% of the tests were positive. The Covid-19 pandemic across the rest of the state is relatively contained with just 3.6% of positive test results."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new...ents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html
To be expected considering the reported case numbers. ~20% brought city hospitals to near capacity, so it seems we did just enough and are roughly a third of the way towards herd immunity.
"The results differed across the state with the largest concentration of positive antibody tests found in New York City at 21.2%. In Long Island, 16.7% of the people tested were positive and in Westchester, where the state’s first major outbreak originated, 11.7% of the tests were positive. The Covid-19 pandemic across the rest of the state is relatively contained with just 3.6% of positive test results."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new...ents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html
To be expected considering the reported case numbers. ~20% brought city hospitals to near capacity, so it seems we did just enough and are roughly a third of the way towards herd immunity.
So deaths are at 1060 per million in NYC or 0.106% of the population and coronavirus infections estimated at 13.9% from this study, which would put coronavirus mortality rate in New York State right now at 0.76% or at least 7.5x that of seasonal flu (between 0.05-0.1% in the US each year).
Significantly lower than earlier estimates of 2-3%, but significantly higher than recent estimates of down around 0.1-0.2%
- - - Updated - - -
You and me, baby... 
Significantly lower than earlier estimates of 2-3%, but significantly higher than recent estimates of down around 0.1-0.2%
- - - Updated - - -
So deaths are at 1060 per million in NYC or 0.106% of the population and coronavirus infections estimated at 13.9% from this study, which would put coronavirus mortality rate in New York State right now at 0.76% or at least 7.5x that of seasonal flu (between 0.05-0.1% in the US each year).
Significantly lower than earlier estimates of 2-3%, but significantly higher than recent estimates of down around 0.1-0.2%
- - - Updated - - -
You and me, baby...
Significantly lower than earlier estimates of 2-3%, but significantly higher than recent estimates of down around 0.1-0.2%
- - - Updated - - -
You and me, baby...
The article suggested that a depression could be avoided with proper social safety nets (money to consumers). That's inherently false since depressions are long-term recessions, and recessions are a lack of GDP growth. No amount of government spending will solve a problem that is actually created by government, which is what the shutdown is. We can talk about pandemic preparedness all we want, but really, no government has truly been prepared for this, nor can they stop economic contraction when they place restrictions on economic activity. Hell, even if economies were totally open at this point, consumer confidence being low could still throw us into recession.
Conversely, lots of papers have been written on how the great depression could have been avoided by injecting liquidity into the banking system. Banks went under, people couldn't get credit, and money and jobs disappeared. That's why current and former Fed chairs claim they need monetary policy measures to pump liquidity into the system, which is basically cheap or free money to banks. Keynesian economists like Bernanke and Stiglitz argue this all the time. Compared to previous economic calamities, the response to Covid from the Fed and Treasury has widely been considered the fastest in history, thus staving off a potential credit lockdown. But for some reason, you don't see Stiglitz mention that -- wonder why? I don't even agree with the premise, but clearly Stiglitz has an agenda.
Conversely, lots of papers have been written on how the great depression could have been avoided by injecting liquidity into the banking system. Banks went under, people couldn't get credit, and money and jobs disappeared. That's why current and former Fed chairs claim they need monetary policy measures to pump liquidity into the system, which is basically cheap or free money to banks. Keynesian economists like Bernanke and Stiglitz argue this all the time. Compared to previous economic calamities, the response to Covid from the Fed and Treasury has widely been considered the fastest in history, thus staving off a potential credit lockdown. But for some reason, you don't see Stiglitz mention that -- wonder why? I don't even agree with the premise, but clearly Stiglitz has an agenda.
