Coronavirus Thread

[Boaty1]

I wasn’t using conjecture, I was using the data. You can see what percentage of the workforce is what age and line that up against age-risk profiles we’ve seen with the virus. I’m just saying if you’re a 40 year old in good health and so your risk of a bad health outcome with the virus is almost zero, you probably would rather earn a living and not go bankrupt. And yes be careful along the way.

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.

 

[dtm1997]

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.

A couple of questions:

• What kind of business do you own/run?
• What assumptions support that reopening will support your return to normal revenue generation?

I'm asking because I think once things reopen, we can't assume a return to normalcy/the way things were/The world hasn't changed.

 

[gthxxxx]

1. No, there isn't. I believe you are thinking of secular stagnation. That's different. We haven't had "stagflation" since the 1970s and there's absolutely no evidence of it now.

My statement about stagflation was referring to this:

Besides, in a recession there are no inflationary pressures.

My limited understanding of stagflation is that the following occurs:
a) slow economic growth
b) high unemployment
c) high inflation rate
(a) and (b) are pretty much a given. A $2 trillion relief bill that gets mostly depleted within a month with presumably a lot more coming seems a pretty good indicator for (c), but I defer to ppl with more expertise in this area.

2. The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't include multiplier effects. The whole reason for the recent relief spending - Krugman's right to characterize it that way - is to keep demand for what services can be used at something like a stable base. Only something like, yes, and the amount of relief we spend will probably have to be more then Krugman says here, but $2T every 2 months? Not likely.

My analysis was simply the numbers that Krugman himself said and the rate at which the existing $2T relief bill has been depleted since the article. Not to mention, Krugman also stated that the $2T bill was not enough, and based off his comment about Denmark's government, if he had his way, it would be closer to 75% of $20 trillion, i.e. $15 trillion. I personally agree that it won't be $2T every 2 months because that status quo is not sustainable, hence the increasing demand for opening the economy back up.

3. True. But we never had a pandemic of an extremely contagious and deadly viral disease to contend with either. [...] But both massive relief subsidies and shutting down economic activity that spurs infection rates make excellent sense. The way to think about combatting the virus is to think of it like a war; you don't worry about the consequences of spending as much money as it takes to win until the war is over.

I lack your certainty in each of those points. In the economic thread, I did pose a question that I couldn't think of a precedent for a government in history to effectively (wholesale? indiscriminately? widespread?) pay its population to stop consuming/producing from an originally (thriving?) economy, so I have no idea what's the theoretical outcome.

 

[684Bee]

A couple of questions:

• What kind of business do you own/run?
• What assumptions support that reopening will support your return to normal revenue generation?

I'm asking because I think once things reopen, we can't assume a return to normalcy/the way things were/The world hasn't changed.

You’re right. Don’t think we can. And here’s 2 reasons why:

1. Fear of litigation. Need some changes and protections here.

2. People that are otherwise healthy and not old and, therefore, at pretty low risk, choosing not to participate in commerce, due to an overblown fear. These people need to be shown that they can get out and participate in commerce, of course in a smart, common sense way.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html

Fascinating, 21% in NYC!

I know i know... beat me down with why the sampling sucks or has it been peer reviewed or blah blah blah. Just an amazing amount of people have already been hit by this.

My assumptions:
1. This thing has been here since before 1/1/2020, I think? Maybe its higher transmission numbers mean it hasn't.
2. Mortality Rate closer to annual flu numbers.

I am not saying anything about opening or closing. I am not calling this a normal flu. We obviously have to use these numbers to determine whether another spike on the curve will destroy our health care resources or not.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

1. No, there isn't. I believe you are thinking of secular stagnation. That's different. We haven't had "stagflation" since the 1970s and there's absolutely no evidence of it now.

2. The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't include multiplier effects. The whole reason for the recent relief spending - Krugman's right to characterize it that way - is to keep demand for what services can be used at something like a stable base. Only something like, yes, and the amount of relief we spend will probably have to be more then Krugman says here, but $2T every 2 months? Not likely.

3. True. But we never had a pandemic of an extremely contagious and deadly viral disease to contend with either. We can't do what the Dames did; the economy is too big and diverse for that. But both massive relief subsidies and shutting down economic activity that spurs infection rates make excellent sense. The way to think about combatting the virus is to think of it like a war; you don't worry about the consequences of spending as much money as it takes to win until the war is over.

Well we’ve changed the inflation calculators multiple times to the point they are almost useless. If a new iPhone comes out at the same price with 2x the computing power, that counts as 50% deflation. If you look up the old formulas we used to use in the 80s and 90s, we’ve been running 5%-10% inflation for decades.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

My statement about stagflation was referring to this:

My limited understanding of stagflation is that the following occurs:
a) slow economic growth
b) high unemployment
c) high inflation rate
(a) and (b) are pretty much a given. A $2 trillion relief bill that gets mostly depleted within a month with presumably a lot more coming seems a pretty good indicator for (c), but I defer to ppl with more expertise in this area.

My analysis was simply the numbers that Krugman himself said and the rate at which the existing $2T relief bill has been depleted since the article. Not to mention, Krugman also stated that the $2T bill was not enough, and based off his comment about Denmark's government, if he had his way, it would be closer to 75% of $20 trillion, i.e. $15 trillion. I personally agree that it won't be $2T every 2 months because that status quo is not sustainable, hence the increasing demand for opening the economy back up.

I lack your certainty in each of those points. In the economic thread, I did pose a question that I couldn't think of a precedent for a government in history to effectively (wholesale? indiscriminately? widespread?) pay its population to stop consuming/producing from an originally (thriving?) economy, so I have no idea what's the theoretical outcome.

Krugman rarely let’s economics get on the way of his politics. He was the guy in the early 2000s who advocated for inflating the housing market. He calls national disasters stimulus events. In this case, he advocates the way Denmark runs things. Keep in mind Denmark’s personal income tax rates are 50% even for working class people, and that’s separate of wealth taxes which is separate of a 25% sales tax which is separate of a 40% tax on gains from savings (dividend/capital gains). They even have a 1% church tax that 75% of people pay. And an 8% payroll tax. And so on.

 

[takethepoints]

[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 711735, member: 265And remember Brad DeLong's Krugman Rules:

1. Remember that Paul Krugman is right.

2. If your analysis leads you to conclude that Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule 1.

Good advice..

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

 

[takethepoints]

Well we’ve changed the inflation calculators multiple times to the point they are almost useless. If a new iPhone comes out at the same price with 2x the computing power, that counts as 50% deflation. If you look up the old formulas we used to use in the 80s and 90s, we’ve been running 5%-10% inflation for decades.

You've just refuted your own point. The reason we changed the measures is that they weren't working to measure inflation accurately. As you just showed us.

 

[Boaty1]

A couple of questions:

• What kind of business do you own/run?
• What assumptions support that reopening will support your return to normal revenue generation?

I'm asking because I think once things reopen, we can't assume a return to normalcy/the way things were/The world hasn't changed.

I'm in transportation DTM. We have 85 refrigerated trailers that run mainly the southeast. We are based out of Jackson, Ga and 2Q is supposed to be the time we make over half of the companies profits over the course of the year. We haul to a lot to food services that sell to restaurants. As you can imagine, that business has disintegrated into next to nothing over the last month. While I completely understand it will take a while to get back to normal as far as that business goes, every little bit helps and today we have seen the first sings of movement from that portion of our business in a month. For example, a customer needed 4 trucks out of Florida today and that is what he has been using over a 2 week period recently. He said the restaurants opening back up next week has given his business a needed shot in the arm as some are preparing and obviously that trickled over to us.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Will the virus "die out" come summer? I have no idea how reputable this source is generally, but these look like verifiable stats. Make of it what you will.

https://outragedpatriot.com/new-data-on-covid-19-liberal-media-refuses-to-report/

 

[takethepoints]

My statement about stagflation was referring to this:

My limited understanding of stagflation is that the following occurs:
a) slow economic growth
b) high unemployment
c) high inflation rate
(a) and (b) are pretty much a given. A $2 trillion relief bill that gets mostly depleted within a month with presumably a lot more coming seems a pretty good indicator for (c), but I defer to ppl with more expertise in this area.

My analysis was simply the numbers that Krugman himself said and the rate at which the existing $2T relief bill has been depleted since the article. Not to mention, Krugman also stated that the $2T bill was not enough, and based off his comment about Denmark's government, if he had his way, it would be closer to 75% of $20 trillion, i.e. $15 trillion. I personally agree that it won't be $2T every 2 months because that status quo is not sustainable, hence the increasing demand for opening the economy back up.

I lack your certainty in each of those points. In the economic thread, I did pose a question that I couldn't think of a precedent for a government in history to effectively (wholesale? indiscriminately? widespread?) pay its population to stop consuming/producing from an originally (thriving?) economy, so I have no idea what's the theoretical outcome.

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.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You've just refuted your own point. The reason we changed the measures is that they weren't working to measure inflation accurately. As you just showed us.

That's what we changed TO. We DO count those sorts of silly changes in the inflation calculation when we didn't use to. (An increase in computing power with a hold in price equals a large deflation.)

 

[takethepoints]

Will the virus "die out" come summer? I have no idea how reputable this source is generally, but these look like verifiable stats. Make of it what you will.

https://outragedpatriot.com/new-data-on-covid-19-liberal-media-refuses-to-report/

No.

This has been another in a series of simple answers to simple questions.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The main reason we didn't develop vaccines for SARS and MERS is that they were controlled easily without it, using pretty much the same test/trace/isolate mechanisms we will try now. When the diseases became largely extinct, there was no incentive to develop a vaccine. This is not the case with COVID-19.

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.

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.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

No.

This has been another in a series of simple answers to simple questions.

Time will tell, but it is obvious that the biggest concentration of cases to date has been in colder climates, and not just in areas of dense population.

 

[BuzzStone]

Time will tell, but it is obvious that the biggest concentration of cases to date has been in colder climates, and not just in areas of dense population.

If it was going to die out in the summer why was it spreading during the summer already?

 

[takethepoints]

Here's something encouraging (for me, at least). See:

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

Look at the table. Demand had already cratered for service industries before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect. We might see a slight uptick from Kemp's re-opening orders, but it looks like Americans are a lot like the Chinese. Let's hope these trends continue. If they do we might not make the problem that much worse.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

If it was going to die out in the summer why was it spreading during the summer already?

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.

 

[GoldZ]

The main reason we didn't develop vaccines for SARS and MERS is that they were controlled easily without it, using pretty much the same test/trace/isolate mechanisms we will try now. When the diseases became largely extinct, there was no incentive to develop a vaccine. This is not the case with COVID-19.

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.

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.