8 ms·
Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: 1918 Flu
- meowface 7y agoAre there any papers coming to a similar conclusion that were released prior to December 2019? Just in case there's some bias from the current moment. Not saying there's necessarily any evidence of such in this one, but it'd be interesting to compare, at least.
- cultus 7y agoWell, we are currently running a global experiment to find out whether it is better for the economy to be negligent or have a robust public heath response during a pandemic. We'll know soon.
- Nuzzerino 7y agoI would argue that in this context, you can't make conclusions about "the economy" in terms of objective good or bad. There are economies at varying topographies, scales, and market sectors. There are also philosophical differences in what a desirable economy looks like. For example, there's an increasing number of opinions that an economy heavily based on oil and gas energy, and military defense contractors, is not a desirable one. Some others in a very small minority (possibly happening to be in power) may argue that parts of the economy that are not resilient to hardship are not desirable parts, and therefore should be culled when the opportunity presents itself. I would not be surprised if this was a factor in the decisions being made right now.
- baybal2 7y agoDifferent economies have different amount of money to loose. You can't compare apples to oranges. In China, which has way more to loose from the real economy going down, nobody is running to sell their business now. A factory during a crisis, is still a factory. Now look how many people have cashed out in USA already, despite US economy being much more virtual, and service based, and supposedly more resilient. We are much more likely see whose economy is more resilient, and not whose immediate response was better. Panic factor? Chinese are by far more freaked out now than most Americans. Even now, Americans trust their government more than Chinese to CPC. Illiquid assets factor? No, you can sell a factory in China way faster than you can sell a typical dotcom in America. It's really just Chinese still looking up to seek more fortunes more than American business people do, and America being way more vulnurable to panic buy/sells. And it's only the last point above, where an immediate response matters: In a society more susceptible to mass panic among the business elites, you can reduce the impact by increasing their confidence by showing competent early response.
- catalogia 7y agoIt's not clear to me why a 'service-based' economy should be expected to weather a pandemic better than a 'factory-based' economy. In the plants I've worked in, you could clock in, do your work, then go home without ever talking to anybody. The work was not particularly incompatible with social/physical distancing. On the other hand, face-to-face human interaction is central to much of the 'service-economy.'
- Nuzzerino 7y agoThe very title of this paper suggests a deeply flawed conclusion. A sample size of one pandemic, from 100 years ago even, is used to generalize a conclusion that "Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not". Sure, there were multiple cities with varying levels of interventions, but you can only conclude that in the 1918 economy for that specific pandemic, the health interventions were good for the economy at that point in time. I also agree with the other commenter that it may be better to see some research prior to December 2019.
- alex_young 7y agoAre you implying that we can’t draw conclusions from limited data sets? Surely there must be some value in looking at the last event, even if it was 100 years ago...
- Nuzzerino 7y agoWhat value did you have in mind?
- tathougies 7y agoYou have to think about confounding factors when considering only one event. The effects of the 1918 flu are completely overshadowed by the end of WWI. Thus you can't really draw many conclusions.
- xapata 7y agoYou can't control for that effect?
- delecti 7y agoThere's no control group for a single event.
- itsdrewmiller 7y ago
- grillvogel 7y agowhen did the spanish flu become the 1918 flu? was it in the past few days?
- chillwaves 7y ago1918 Flu is a more accurate name and you seem to not have had any trouble with the meaning, so what's the problem?
- Nuzzerino 7y agoThe problem is that it was being referred to as the Spanish Flu up until some people in the media took offense to Trump's coining of the phrase "Chinese Flu", so Spanish Flu needs to go if we're not wanting to look like hypocrites.
- standardUser 7y agoI don't see how striving for consistency by avoiding nation-shaming labels is a "problem". Trying to not be hypocritical is generally viewed as a good thing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tathougies 7y agoCCP trolls are out in full force today. Best not to engage.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoExactly - it's society going "You're right, that's not cool." then trying to be better. I fully encourage it.
- catalogia 7y agoRevising terminology seems to run contrary to a strive for consistency.
- tathougies 7y agoThis is ridiculous. Any economic effect of the 1918 flu is overpowered by the end of WWI. And the 1918 flu was followed by one of the most prosperous periods in history: the roaring 20s. The response to the 1918 flu was also not very centralized. Different states and cities did different things, a strategy which is today being deplored by the media and certain segments of the population. Since the response is significantly more centralized today (entire states being shutdown, which has not happened before), I'm not sure you can draw the same conclusions. It's one thing to have one shutdown city in a country full of working cities. It's quite another thing to have them all shut down at the same time, as well as the entire world.
- zzleeper 7y agoThat's why the results are in relative terms. A city or state that is slow to react will do worst than a faster or more effective one in relative terms. About shutting down everything, yes. If absolutely no one works, then who drives the trucks. But that's not what is happening today either.
- guscost 7y agoAnd now the academy desperately tries to save face, as the COVID-19 pandemic starts to wind down, and the consequences of all the panic caused by the academy start to play out. This year will be remembered as the end of modern academia.
- yibg 7y agoIs it winding down? Most of the US seems to be at early days of exponential growth still. Only a handful of countries seem to have things under control and even those places still have restrictions in place. How are you concluding things are winding down?
- guscost 7y agoIt's my own prediction. Check back in a year, by which time SARS-CoV-2 will be just another endemic strain of coronavirus.
- hilbertseries 7y agoLet’s check back in a month... Hospitals in New York are just starting to run out of ventilators. Italy who is two weeks ahead of us, appears to have just hit their peak. But they still aren’t slowing down. Very strange prediction.
- yibg 7y agoBut prediction based on what data? I see these types of predictions and I’m trying to understand how they come about.
- mrlala 7y ago>It's my own prediction Based on what. Your gut? Ok Trump. Look at how fast it's continuing to the spread in the US even with all the drastic measures which have taken place in some areas. If you can't imagine what it would be like without these unprecedented closures then I'm not sure what else to say to you.
- theNarrative24 7y agoSuppose there is an abundance of respirators. Could everyone self service themselves? Or is there a medical reason to be at the hospital?
- anonsubmit2671 7y agoAn ounce of prevention...