Coronavirus Thread

[takethepoints]

I think it's more likely that we couldn't develop a vaccine for those two outbreaks, just like we couldn't develop a vaccine for HIV, although I think efforts continue even now for HIV. In all 3 though developed treatments meant that we didn't have to develop vaccines. How many years has it been since work started looking for a HIV vaccine, and there is still none. There is no guarantee at all that a Covid vaccine will ever be found.

You could be right. I think it is more likely that we didn't develop a vaccine for HIV because we developed effective anti-viral drugs for it. If you can live a normal life span with HIV by taking drugs regularly, then there's very little incentive to do a full scale effort to develop a vaccine. Indeed, there's an active disincentive to do so. There's also the nasty way that HIV hides out in the body; diseases like that are hard to develop antibodies for. But that's not what this one does, at least so far. I think we'll develop a vaccine and probably more then one. How effective they will be is something we'll have to wait to see. I think the final story on this will be a lot like the polio vaccines.

 

[takethepoints]

ttp, I'm pretty sure we tried like hell to produce a vaccine for each, but I get that they ultimately were "controlled", yet they are still with us.

Sorry, I was having trouble with posting replies here. I had - I thought - eliminated a reply to your post. I looked at it again and saw nothing to contend with.

 

[GoldZ]

This is sarcasm, right? Tell me you don’t really believe that. Krugman has been wrong more often than the local weatherman....

It isn't me, it's DeLong with his tongue in cheek. He actually disagrees with Krugman fairly often. His problem is that Krugman is usually able to dispose of his objections pretty quickly.

But I don't know where you get the idea that Krugman is wrong very often. When it comes to economic questions, he is usually right and he seldom spouts off on anything else. Of course, when he does he's no better then the rest of us. Now, if what you means is that you disagree with him, that's another matter. But that, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not Krugman's right.[/QUOTE]
On Krugman always being right.......my Harvard MBA professor told us that Websters should include under the definition of economists, those who are almost always wrong!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You could be right. I think it is more likely that we didn't develop a vaccine for HIV because we developed effective anti-viral drugs for it. If you can live a normal life span with HIV by taking drugs regularly, then there's very little incentive to do a full scale effort to develop a vaccine. Indeed, there's an active disincentive to do so. There's also the nasty way that HIV hides out in the body; diseases like that are hard to develop antibodies for. But that's not what this one does, at least so far. I think we'll develop a vaccine and probably more then one. How effective they will be is something we'll have to wait to see. I think the final story on this will be a lot like the polio vaccines.

The polio vaccine took years to develop, but, as horrible as polio was (much worse than Covid), we never shut down the country.

 

[takethepoints]

It isn't me, it's DeLong with his tongue in cheek. He actually disagrees with Krugman fairly often. His problem is that Krugman is usually able to dispose of his objections pretty quickly.

But I don't know where you get the idea that Krugman is wrong very often. When it comes to economic questions, he is usually right and he seldom spouts off on anything else. Of course, when he does he's no better then the rest of us. Now, if what you means is that you disagree with him, that's another matter. But that, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not Krugman's right.

On Krugman always being right.......my Harvard MBA professor told us that Websters should include under the definition of economists, those who are almost always wrong![/QUOTE]
Well, in predictions for some things (recessions, growth rates), yes. They are a good deal better then the rest of us when it comes to explaining what's going on with the economy, however, and they can do well with empirical predictions if the data is good. That's why they get paid so much. I think your MBA prof had economist envy, a well known disease among social scientists.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It isn't me, it's DeLong with his tongue in cheek. He actually disagrees with Krugman fairly often. His problem is that Krugman is usually able to dispose of his objections pretty quickly.

But I don't know where you get the idea that Krugman is wrong very often. When it comes to economic questions, he is usually right and he seldom spouts off on anything else. Of course, when he does he's no better then the rest of us. Now, if what you means is that you disagree with him, that's another matter. But that, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not Krugman's right.

On Krugman always being right.......my Harvard MBA professor told us that Websters should include under the definition of economists, those who are almost always wrong!

Just off the top of my head, Krugman was wrong about the Eurozone collapsing, he was wrong to advocate inflating the housing market in the early to mid 2000s, he has wrongly predicted deflation many times, he predicted the sequester would kill US economic growth, he predicted the stimulus bills of 2009 would keep unemployment below 8%, he predicted globalization would be good for American workers, and he predicted that if Trump won the election it would trigger a severe and long global recession. I know I am probably missing another 10-15. He's a very smart guy. His problem is that he is a political commentator and he lets it pollute his economic thinking.

 

[gthxxxx]

Only one comment on this, since I think most of it, even where I disagree, is defensible.

Stagflation had more to do with a and c then b. During the 70s we didn't have high unemployment, except in the two recessions, (see https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506), though it was higher then it was in the last few years. The main problem was that inflation was high and growth low. That hasn't been a problem for at least two decades. Today we have the far more dangerous situation: low growth and low inflation. That's why we have to pump as much cash into the economy as possible now. The Fed has already done its part; the finance system was seizing up and they put in around $3T. But that won't help much going forward. It's up to Congress to provide the rest.

Isn't the economic danger of low growth largely a self-made problem by the government via the shutdown orders? I mean, there would be lower growth than pre-Covid without any government interference, but arguably not near the extent as today. The infusion of cash is to keep the country alive yet inactive, so won't the end result then be low growth and high inflation?

 

[takethepoints]

The polio vaccine took years to develop, but, as horrible as polio was (much worse than Covid), we never shut down the country.

I don't know about you, but every kid in my neighborhood got shut down most of the day every summer.

Also, polio was a much different disease then this one. It tended to crop in pockets with no discernible pattern (except that it had a slight tendency to reappear in places it had been before) and it never reached pandemic proportions either here or elsewhere. Here's a terrific article on that and on how we beat it:

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/c622/salk_trial.pdf

I read this decades ago and it has stayed with me ever since.

 

[Boaty1]

Again, look at the world map. Yes, it exists in places already (or previously) in their summer months, but not to the degree that it has in colder climes.

Or just look at Florida, Texas and California. 3 states with pockets of high density areas, but low death numbers per capita. It could be a coincidence that all are warmer climates. But I doubt it.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I don't know about you, but every kid in my neighborhood got shut down most of the day every summer.

Also, polio was a much different disease then this one. It tended to crop in pockets with no discernible pattern (except that it had a slight tendency to reappear in places it had been before) and it never reached pandemic proportions either here or elsewhere. Here's a terrific article on that and on how we beat it:

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/c622/salk_trial.pdf

I read this decades ago and it has stayed with me ever since.

My family never lived in fear of polio. Maybe they were naive, but so were apparently all the other families around me.

 

[takethepoints]

On Krugman always being right.......my Harvard MBA professor told us that Websters should include under the definition of economists, those who are almost always wrong!

Just off the top of my head, Krugman was wrong about the Eurozone collapsing, he was wrong to advocate inflating the housing market in the early to mid 2000s, he has wrongly predicted deflation many times, he predicted the sequester would kill US economic growth, he predicted the stimulus bills of 2009 would keep unemployment below 8%, he predicted globalization would be good for American workers, and he predicted that if Trump won the election it would trigger a severe and long global recession. I know I am probably missing another 10-15. He's a very smart guy. His problem is that he is a political commentator and he lets it pollute his economic thinking.

Well … he did predict the EU collapse and way before anyone else, he was right about deflation (you do know that we are still in a deflationary economy, right?), and he was right about globalization (it has been good for US workers and the economy overall and bad for certain groups). I don't know what you mean about inflating the housing market; a cite would be handy. Here's what Krugman says:

Hope this works. You need to have an NYT subscription to get to this. Well, it does, sorta.

 

[GoldZ]

Exactly. I have a feeling those promoting this long term shelter in place idea are:

1. Already very wealthy

2. Have no problem working from home.

I was up till 4am last night not because I'm worried about getting the virus, but because I saw study saying that this recession will be at least 3 times as bad as what happened in 2008. I already see mortgages going unpaid, millions filing for unemployment every week, businesses going belly up and it makes me wonder about the long term impact this virus will have on my economic situation. I can deal with the .00001% I'm going going to die from this thing. That doesn't keep me up at night. My ability to keep my business rolling and provide for my family is the FAR greater concern for me.

Your right in that the economic angle is very real. However, whether someone is wealthy or not, can work at home or not, is young or not.....almost everyone has parents and grandparents that are central to their f'ing existence. Ok? And no, they can't all be so conveniently hidden from our lives. They need care from the .00001%.
As for "hiding" them, we tried, in nursing homes and assisted care facilities....how'd that work out?
In a choice as difficult as this one, I for one could give a flying fk about what politicians have to say, because they are as far out of their depth as a typical dawg grad trying to design a bridge. Why don't we rely on people like Drs. Fauci and Brix, who at this point considering they are very intelligent people, understand that economic pressures are also very serious.
Rules change out of necessity, which is why I wouldn't want to be a debt collector or a landlord, because as a collective society we won't allow 200 Million fellow Americans to live under a bridge and starve. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders, so keep on disagreeing with us more cautious ones, and stay safe AND keep your elders safe.
Z

 

[GoldZ]

Well … he did predict the EU collapse and way before anyone else, he was right about deflation (you do know that we are still in a deflationary economy, right?), and he was right about globalization (it has been good for US workers and the economy overall and bad for certain groups). I don't know what you mean about inflating the housing market; a cite would be handy. Here's what Krugman says:

Hope this works. You need to have an NYT subscription to get to this. Well, it does, sorta.

PK presents a LOT of predictions....and like The Great Swarmi, he touts his wins and ignores his losses.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well … he did predict the EU collapse and way before anyone else, he was right about deflation (you do know that we are still in a deflationary economy, right?), and he was right about globalization (it has been good for US workers and the economy overall and bad for certain groups). I don't know what you mean about inflating the housing market; a cite would be handy. Here's what Krugman says:

Hope this works. You need to have an NYT subscription to get to this. Well, it does, sorta.

The EU didn’t collapse. We don’t have deflation and aren’t even close. The toll on manufacturing industries due to globalization has been devastating. Krugman is frequently wrong, and also pompous, which is quite the combination.

 

[takethepoints]

Isn't the economic danger of low growth largely a self-made problem by the government via the shutdown orders? I mean, there would be lower growth than pre-Covid without any government interference, but arguably not near the extent as today. The infusion of cash is to keep the country alive yet inactive, so won't the end result then be low growth and high inflation?

No! We have been on a low growth path since 2007-8. Neither the US or the rest of the world have recovered from that yet.

And the cash we give people right now (here, at least) is not what you call a princely sum. Further, many of us are hunkering on expenditures. There's no real danger of inflation unless a) the banks are willing to take on massive new debt and b) people suddenly decide to not pay their presently outstanding debts. Most of the cash in question is being used for outstanding obligations and to keep food on the table. If anything we might face a long term shortage of demand as the economy slowly gets back up to speed after we get a vaccine. That's one reason for relief now.

 

[takethepoints]

The EU didn’t collapse. We don’t have deflation and aren’t even close. The toll on manufacturing industries due to globalization has been devastating. Krugman is frequently wrong, and also pompous, which is quite the combination.

It did, economically. Look again. We do. Look again at recent inflation and growth figures. Manufacturing was already in the dumper by the 1980s, largely because You-Know-Who decided that we needed a "strong dollar". But, in fact, the economy has survived the slow decrease in manufacturing industry just fine. Until 2007-8, that is.

As to being pompous, I usually translate that as "not willing to suffer fools gladly". Krugman certainly fits that.

 

[Techster]

True story: When I was a kid, I thought the pool game Marco! Polo! was based off of polio the disease. Some dude named Marco must want to catch polio in the pool!!!

Then I read a history book in 2nd grade and found out Marco Polo was historical explorer/merchant. It was a disappointing day for me...but it made sense because you were trying to catch "Polo" not avoid it like polio.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It did, economically. Look again. We do. Look again at recent inflation and growth figures. Manufacturing was already in the dumper by the 1980s, largely because You-Know-Who decided that we needed a "strong dollar". But, in fact, the economy has survived the slow decrease in manufacturing industry just fine. Until 2007-8, that is.

As to being pompous, I usually translate that as "not willing to suffer fools gladly". Krugman certainly fits that.

LOL. We've had a growing economy (prior to the virus) for what, a decade? And inflation even using our bastardized figures has been > 2%. In the last 20 years, according to government statistics, Food has increased 60%, Healthcare costs have increased 97%, Housing costs have increased 60%, and goods and services have increased 70% (dentist, lawn care, barbers, etc. etc.). That's not deflation.

Here are Krugman's exact words on the need for the Fed to inflate the housing market, to create a bubble there in order to get out of the post dot-com/911 malaise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The next $500B package just passed Congress, with 6 of the 100 Senators voting.

We may have a really really good number today in the US on new cases. We're at 17k right now. We may finish in the low 20ks, a number we haven't seen in 3 weeks.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Krugman is a clown, a widely referenced clown, but a clown nevertheless. Even Economists with flaky economic theories realize this guy is off the chart loony.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngo...economics-paul-krugman-rejected-by-his-peers/