3 ms·

Manufacturers were anticipating lower demand due to COVID effects, not lockdowns per se. It is not like life would have continued uninterrupted without lockdow

Manufacturers were anticipating lower demand due to COVID effects, not lockdowns per se. It is not like life would have continued uninterrupted without lockdowns.

goalieca 5y ago
Every economic forecast I read in April 2020 assumed things would be open by q3/q4 last year.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Which was pretty stupid given that public health professionals (and indeed people here on HN) were forecasting the pandemic lasting a minimum of 18 months from around that time when it became clear that it wasn't going to be contained to China.
  - goalieca 5y ago
    They were using the model forecasts from the health community. We all knew it would become endemic but it was hard to forecast lockdowns would continue for so long.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  Sounds like that forecast was wrong then. Also, you should've been looking at the forecasts from epidemiologists, not economists. Viruses don't care about what economists want.
  - tenpies 5y ago
    Unfortunately - and as we can continue to see - there is nothing stopping scientists from being political mouth pieces. "Trust the science" comes with a huge asterisk: only the science of the approved scientific speaker by the approved political party and only of the approved narrative. The scientists that spoke out against this were quickly shunned, the wagons circled, and when evidence became to crushing to hold the narrative, history was simply re-written via gaslighting. With economists at least we know they will regularly be wrong and that you will openly see differing schools of thought on even the most foundational of issues.
szundi 5y ago
This. And then when people started buy more cars instead of less, the automotive industry squeezed out all silicon for themselves with their contracts and power. Here we are from other industries without a single chip, while the car manufacturers probably are sitting on 2 years of supplies now.

Manufacturers were anticipating lower demand due to COVID effects, not lockdowns per se. It is not like life would have continued uninterrupted without lockdowns.

goalieca 5y ago

Every economic forecast I read in April 2020 assumed things would be open by q3/q4 last year.

nicoburns 5y ago
Which was pretty stupid given that public health professionals (and indeed people here on HN) were forecasting the pandemic lasting a minimum of 18 months from around that time when it became clear that it wasn't going to be contained to China.
- goalieca 5y ago
  They were using the model forecasts from the health community. We all knew it would become endemic but it was hard to forecast lockdowns would continue for so long.
CydeWeys 5y ago
Sounds like that forecast was wrong then. Also, you should've been looking at the forecasts from epidemiologists, not economists. Viruses don't care about what economists want.
- tenpies 5y ago
  Unfortunately - and as we can continue to see - there is nothing stopping scientists from being political mouth pieces. "Trust the science" comes with a huge asterisk: only the science of the approved scientific speaker by the approved political party and only of the approved narrative. The scientists that spoke out against this were quickly shunned, the wagons circled, and when evidence became to crushing to hold the narrative, history was simply re-written via gaslighting. With economists at least we know they will regularly be wrong and that you will openly see differing schools of thought on even the most foundational of issues.

szundi 5y ago

This. And then when people started buy more cars instead of less, the automotive industry squeezed out all silicon for themselves with their contracts and power. Here we are from other industries without a single chip, while the car manufacturers probably are sitting on 2 years of supplies now.