3 ms·

"Result #1: 20% of the population are in isolation. 20% of your economy is stalled, rather than 100%." This bugs me, because in this hypothetical, you're imply

"Result #1: 20% of the population are in isolation. 20% of your economy is stalled, rather than 100%." This bugs me, because in this hypothetical, you're implying something as a point of comparison which is nothing like reality. 100% of the population is not in isolation - the only people who are in isolation are those who have had such severe symptoms they've been tested and it came back positive, or they're really obviously linked to such a person. And obviously 100% of the economy is not stalled; it may not be precisely clear what the impact is so far, but people are talking about single digit GDP percentage point declines. If you frame that as the worst economic news since the great recession, or put it in context with the job losses, it's pretty bad, but it clearly could be ten times worse and it's not. I get that maybe you meant it as just an example and specifics aren't important to your point about statistics, but I feel like I've read similar posts to yours that kind of get the nonsensical scenario out there, that we've shut down "100%" to where people kind of get used to it even though it's not reality.

Retric 7y ago
US’s isolation started very late in Q1. It requires a very large decline to average out to ‘just’ 1%.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I don't feel that makes a difference to what I just wrote. But I can do some very rough arithmetic along those lines to see what the decline would have to be. The GDP figure just reported is -4.8%. Based on what I recall, the inflection point was about halfway through March. Friday the 13th is when the state government in NY finally said anyone who can, work from home. That's 0.5/3 months or ~17% of the quarter I'd assign to "shutdown". 0.83 * 1 + .17 * x = .952 ...I don't trust myself to do high school algebra, so I asked Wolfram Alpha and it said x = 72%. Ok, so the reported figure of nearly -5% probably equates to a little over a quarter of the economy missing. I don't think I need to concede my point about a 100% stoppage not happening.
  - Retric 7y ago
    The larger point stands it’s just ‘but people are talking about single digit GDP percentage point declines‘ that I was correcting. That said, Pennsylvania and several other states waited until April to order a shutdown, but the observed GDP decline was annualizing a ~1% though there was growth in the ready of Q1. Long story short, that 4.8% is absolutely worthless.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      The bit you quote from me seems strictly accurate; by single digit I mean < 10%. That is what the news is reporting. It is factual, and my inference that the economy is not shut down hasn't been questioned. Saying that the difference is larger when you consider only part of the quarter is correct too, but 4.8% is not "absolutely worthless", it just needs to be interpreted properly. As in my previous comment, you can approximately derive the actual amount of decline, which is a fraction of a complete shutdown.
      - Retric 7y ago
        By absolutely worthless I mean it’s a meaningless calculation. They take the actual change averaged out over a quarter, and then assume 4 more quarters will have exactly the same thing happen. It’s a common calculation used to make quarterly numbers seem more important, but it’s at best misleading if not actively deceptive.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Wait, wait, wait. Nothing is "meaningless" if it contains information. And "misleading" depends entirely on context. It sounds as though you are suggesting I made an error that increases the apparent size of the shutdown, meaning it is actually smaller and my claim is stronger than I thought. If the figures are annualized (I checked* and I think you're right) then it improves my original point - the 4.8% decline becomes 1.2% un-annualized, and the normal trend of +2% becomes +0.5%. The equation should then be something like .167 * x + .833 * 1.005 = .988, "x" being the percentage of the economy active in the last half month, or about 90%. I'm confident that there is information in the reported figure and that no reasonable calculation can show the economy was shut down completely. *https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

Retric 7y ago

US’s isolation started very late in Q1. It requires a very large decline to average out to ‘just’ 1%.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't feel that makes a difference to what I just wrote. But I can do some very rough arithmetic along those lines to see what the decline would have to be. The GDP figure just reported is -4.8%. Based on what I recall, the inflection point was about halfway through March. Friday the 13th is when the state government in NY finally said anyone who can, work from home. That's 0.5/3 months or ~17% of the quarter I'd assign to "shutdown". 0.83 * 1 + .17 * x = .952 ...I don't trust myself to do high school algebra, so I asked Wolfram Alpha and it said x = 72%. Ok, so the reported figure of nearly -5% probably equates to a little over a quarter of the economy missing. I don't think I need to concede my point about a 100% stoppage not happening.
- Retric 7y ago
  The larger point stands it’s just ‘but people are talking about single digit GDP percentage point declines‘ that I was correcting. That said, Pennsylvania and several other states waited until April to order a shutdown, but the observed GDP decline was annualizing a ~1% though there was growth in the ready of Q1. Long story short, that 4.8% is absolutely worthless.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The bit you quote from me seems strictly accurate; by single digit I mean < 10%. That is what the news is reporting. It is factual, and my inference that the economy is not shut down hasn't been questioned. Saying that the difference is larger when you consider only part of the quarter is correct too, but 4.8% is not "absolutely worthless", it just needs to be interpreted properly. As in my previous comment, you can approximately derive the actual amount of decline, which is a fraction of a complete shutdown.
    - Retric 7y ago
      By absolutely worthless I mean it’s a meaningless calculation. They take the actual change averaged out over a quarter, and then assume 4 more quarters will have exactly the same thing happen. It’s a common calculation used to make quarterly numbers seem more important, but it’s at best misleading if not actively deceptive.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Wait, wait, wait. Nothing is "meaningless" if it contains information. And "misleading" depends entirely on context. It sounds as though you are suggesting I made an error that increases the apparent size of the shutdown, meaning it is actually smaller and my claim is stronger than I thought. If the figures are annualized (I checked* and I think you're right) then it improves my original point - the 4.8% decline becomes 1.2% un-annualized, and the normal trend of +2% becomes +0.5%. The equation should then be something like .167 * x + .833 * 1.005 = .988, "x" being the percentage of the economy active in the last half month, or about 90%. I'm confident that there is information in the reported figure and that no reasonable calculation can show the economy was shut down completely. *https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product