4 ms·

because we don't outlaw the economy and put everybody under house arrest for the flu. COVID isn't hurting the economy at all. Turning off the economy is hurti

by vanniv 7y ago

because we don't outlaw the economy and put everybody under house arrest for the flu. COVID isn't hurting the economy at all. Turning off the economy is hurting the economy

michaelmrose 7y ago
What would millions dying do to the economy?
- lazylizard 7y ago
  Lower health care costs in the coming years - the unhealthiest people tend to die more easily from covid 19. Pension systems become solvent - covid 19 kills more elderly people. Gdp will suffer a 1 time drop since there's much economic activity that will no longer happen because there're less people..until the population recovers? What else?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    You don't think that there are any issues going forward with the survivors who realized that government opted to liquidate them to save money? No issues from all the people expected to go to work and possibly die and ultimately infect and kill their relatives? In your perspective these people just keep going to work and creating shareholder value?
    - lazylizard 7y ago
      The question was about the economy. Im genuinely curious. The political ramifications is a different problem. A really good salesman might be able sell something a lousy salesman cannot.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Drive them into self-isolation for months. Unless you think soccer-moms in their SUVs are going to be leeting their children and breadwinners out into the public when the infection rate is above 50%. These things take on a life of themselves.
- vanniv 7y ago
  Nothing much, since 98% of those "millions" would be folks already above age 75 and with 2+ serious underlying conditions. Only around 10,000-20,000 otherwise-healthy would die even in the worst case. The economy would barely notice. On the other hand, locking everyone in their houses has created 20% unemployment in three weeks. Another 20-40% will lose their jobs in the next month -- and now they're starting to talk about 18 months as the "minimum" amount of time for these house arrests. Meanwhile, farmers are being forced to destroy their crops, dumping milk, smashing eggs, and plowing under vegetables -- all while the store shelves are bare. 20% of American meat processing has been permanently closed already. We are looking at 100 million or more dead due to starvation in the coming year, all because they frightened you about a moderately-dangerous virus.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    >Only around 10,000-20,000 otherwise-healthy would die even in the worst case >Nothing much, since 98% of those "millions" would be folks already above age 75 and with 2+ serious underlying conditions. This is at odds with what actual experts say and actual reality as observed by people on the ground now. Non-mitigation was projected to result in 2.2 million fatalities in the US and to date 46% of fatalities are under 75. This would be 968k under 75. We would in fact lose 75k under 44. 23k under 34. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm >American meat processing has been permanently closed already. How is it "permanently" closed? >We are looking at 100 million or more dead due to starvation in the coming year, Where are you getting this number? The labor required for our agricultural industry is much smaller than the total labor pool. Why are you assuming that we can't reasonably discover enough people to keep this minority of our economy functioning enough to keep everyone from starving? We could run the sector with the military if we had to if the alternative was everyone dying. We can also run it with people that have already had the disease and come through it. On the one hand you predict that almost all young people come through it just fine and on the other you are predicting that we can't find enough young survivors of covid to run the minority of our economy for our population to survive. Which is it? We cannot make life and death decisions based on your unsupported and unsupportable fancies we have to deal with real numbers, projections, and models. In reality letting it "wash over us" like you and the president want would have killed millions including far more of otherwise healthy folk than you imagine. Digest more information and come to better conclusions.

by vanniv 7y ago

because we don't outlaw the economy and put everybody under house arrest for the flu. COVID isn't hurting the economy at all. Turning off the economy is hurting the economy

michaelmrose 7y ago

What would millions dying do to the economy?

lazylizard 7y ago
Lower health care costs in the coming years - the unhealthiest people tend to die more easily from covid 19. Pension systems become solvent - covid 19 kills more elderly people. Gdp will suffer a 1 time drop since there's much economic activity that will no longer happen because there're less people..until the population recovers? What else?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  You don't think that there are any issues going forward with the survivors who realized that government opted to liquidate them to save money? No issues from all the people expected to go to work and possibly die and ultimately infect and kill their relatives? In your perspective these people just keep going to work and creating shareholder value?
  - lazylizard 7y ago
    The question was about the economy. Im genuinely curious. The political ramifications is a different problem. A really good salesman might be able sell something a lousy salesman cannot.
pinkfoot 7y ago
Drive them into self-isolation for months. Unless you think soccer-moms in their SUVs are going to be leeting their children and breadwinners out into the public when the infection rate is above 50%. These things take on a life of themselves.
vanniv 7y ago
Nothing much, since 98% of those "millions" would be folks already above age 75 and with 2+ serious underlying conditions. Only around 10,000-20,000 otherwise-healthy would die even in the worst case. The economy would barely notice. On the other hand, locking everyone in their houses has created 20% unemployment in three weeks. Another 20-40% will lose their jobs in the next month -- and now they're starting to talk about 18 months as the "minimum" amount of time for these house arrests. Meanwhile, farmers are being forced to destroy their crops, dumping milk, smashing eggs, and plowing under vegetables -- all while the store shelves are bare. 20% of American meat processing has been permanently closed already. We are looking at 100 million or more dead due to starvation in the coming year, all because they frightened you about a moderately-dangerous virus.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  >Only around 10,000-20,000 otherwise-healthy would die even in the worst case >Nothing much, since 98% of those "millions" would be folks already above age 75 and with 2+ serious underlying conditions. This is at odds with what actual experts say and actual reality as observed by people on the ground now. Non-mitigation was projected to result in 2.2 million fatalities in the US and to date 46% of fatalities are under 75. This would be 968k under 75. We would in fact lose 75k under 44. 23k under 34. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm >American meat processing has been permanently closed already. How is it "permanently" closed? >We are looking at 100 million or more dead due to starvation in the coming year, Where are you getting this number? The labor required for our agricultural industry is much smaller than the total labor pool. Why are you assuming that we can't reasonably discover enough people to keep this minority of our economy functioning enough to keep everyone from starving? We could run the sector with the military if we had to if the alternative was everyone dying. We can also run it with people that have already had the disease and come through it. On the one hand you predict that almost all young people come through it just fine and on the other you are predicting that we can't find enough young survivors of covid to run the minority of our economy for our population to survive. Which is it? We cannot make life and death decisions based on your unsupported and unsupportable fancies we have to deal with real numbers, projections, and models. In reality letting it "wash over us" like you and the president want would have killed millions including far more of otherwise healthy folk than you imagine. Digest more information and come to better conclusions.