Second Great Depression

[Anonymous]

On air travel - friend was in NYC two weeks ago and air Italia crews were in her hotel - she was shocked as she thought all flights from Europe were shut down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

A return to status quo, having learned nothing from this crisis, is a bad idea. Maybe we need to suffer a little in order to change the fundamentals. So many individuals and businesses leveraged to the point they can’t weather a month of lost income is a HUGE vulnerability in the economy. We have to adjust, because this won’t be the last crisis of this kind. Especially given the climate, and all the things that you just listed that contribute to and accelerate the destruction of our planet. We need to get ready for the future that is actually coming, not pretend we can go back to the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope people realize that if we had widespread easily available testing, surge capacity at hospitals, and good unemployment insurance, we would not be required to head into a depression to fight this virus.

+1. Should be common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope people realize that if we had widespread easily available testing, surge capacity at hospitals, and good unemployment insurance, we would not be required to head into a depression to fight this virus.

+1. Should be common sense.

DING DING DING!!!

This pp and the pp above her are right. Preparation would have saved us here and that includes businesses being prepared for a rainy day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

A return to status quo, having learned nothing from this crisis, is a bad idea. Maybe we need to suffer a little in order to change the fundamentals. So many individuals and businesses leveraged to the point they can’t weather a month of lost income is a HUGE vulnerability in the economy. We have to adjust, because this won’t be the last crisis of this kind. Especially given the climate, and all the things that you just listed that contribute to and accelerate the destruction of our planet. We need to get ready for the future that is actually coming, not pretend we can go back to the past.

PP, I couldn't agree with you more!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope people realize that if we had widespread easily available testing, surge capacity at hospitals, and good unemployment insurance, we would not be required to head into a depression to fight this virus.

Yep!

[Anonymous]

In terms of a quick bounceback - ??? Depends how long the service sector is down for. Yes, can be subsidized through savings and govt, but for how long? Reports are saying shut down could continue through Summer. And although no one is spending much now on entertainment, travel, etc, very true, but for most people isn’t rent/mortgage their biggest bill? That’s not going away. How is this already not having a huge impact on the economy. Recession - certainly. Depression I hope not but depends on how long this lasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

A return to status quo, having learned nothing from this crisis, is a bad idea. Maybe we need to suffer a little in order to change the fundamentals. So many individuals and businesses leveraged to the point they can’t weather a month of lost income is a HUGE vulnerability in the economy. We have to adjust, because this won’t be the last crisis of this kind. Especially given the climate, and all the things that you just listed that contribute to and accelerate the destruction of our planet. We need to get ready for the future that is actually coming, not pretend we can go back to the past.

You're changing the parameters by talking about something else entirely. The goal right now is to get the economy back running, not to meet some hypothetical financial scenario dreamed up by some armchair know it all who knows nothing about financing or economic models or cash flow revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back of the envelop analysis for sure but here goes:

Service sector is 2/3 of GDP

Almost all of that is at a standstill

Most of the service sector is _not_ at a standstill. Just the visible parts you see -- restaurants, hair salons, etc.

Most of the service sector is knowledge workers -- accountants, software developers, project managers etc etc... people who sit behind a computer all day. Most of those people can work from home. Of course, their productivity is likely down 50% since they are having to watch their kids due to school closures, or otherwise just worrying in general, but they're still there.

I do agree it'll be similar to a depression though. The government forcibly shut down entire industries, for at least a month or two. That's a huge hit on the economy. Layoffs are widespread. Let's say things went back to normal on May 1. There's still a huge ramp-up time to get people re-hired, train them (some probably will move jobs at the same time), and so on.

Some revenue you'll make back -- an order that was delayed will now come through. But others you won't -- people aren't going to get extra haircuts or eat out more times per week than before to "catch up". Business trips and conferences that are cancelled probably won't restart immediately -- they'll just wait until the next scheduled meeting/conference. People aren't going to take 2 vacations this summer instead of 1 because they had to cancel their planned spring break trip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

A return to status quo, having learned nothing from this crisis, is a bad idea. Maybe we need to suffer a little in order to change the fundamentals. So many individuals and businesses leveraged to the point they can’t weather a month of lost income is a HUGE vulnerability in the economy. We have to adjust, because this won’t be the last crisis of this kind. Especially given the climate, and all the things that you just listed that contribute to and accelerate the destruction of our planet. We need to get ready for the future that is actually coming, not pretend we can go back to the past.

You're changing the parameters by talking about something else entirely. The goal right now is to get the economy back running, not to meet some hypothetical financial scenario dreamed up by some armchair know it all who knows nothing about financing or economic models or cash flow revenues.

No, these were always the parameters. The d-bags riding high failed to understand, but that doesn’t make it less true. Resilience must be built in, or this is what happens, always.

Talk to this armchair know-it-all if you don’t want to hear it from me:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2gEl1zwhVTk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

If you’re just looking at the death rate, then you’re not thinking about this very hard. True, lots of young people would not die of the virus if they got sick. But they will have permanent lung damage, leaving them wheezing after a flight of stairs. And there are plenty of cases of young people who would not die if they received treatment, but who will die or be more damaged if they can’t receive treatment because the hospitals are over capacity.

And it’s a horrible way to go: https://www.propublica.org/article/a-medical-worker-describes--terrifying-lung-failure-from-covid19-even-in-his-young-patients

People, even the young, have very good reason to stay home and flatten the curve.

[Anonymous]

Here is a sensible plan to save us from this total economic meltdown insanity:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-economy.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two main considerations in the U.S. response to coronavirus. One is public health. The other is economic. The U.S. is currently focusing entirely on public health. As a result, the economic devastation will be enormous.

Exactly. But what no one is accounting for is that economic devastation takes a huge toll on public health. We are saving old/sick people and in turn sacrificing the futures & health of the young and able.

What if it’s you who dies? It’s not just old people. We should have triaged the economy and shut down air travel. Air travel is the first thing you shut down if you want to stop the spread. It spread the virus to every state. Without air travel this would have spread much slower and we could have stayed ahead of it.

+1
Aside from shutting domestic, which should have happened, we were still getting flights from Milan last week. That is just beyond comprehension to me

NP. I'm not an idiot unlike some people on here. All the data shows the virus is rarely ever a critical threat to people under 70 with no known heath problems. The number of such deaths is statistically irrelevant. Agonizing over the rare exceptions is not helpful. This is shown by data from China and Italy. If you are 40 with asthma, you are at higher risk. If you are 40 with no health problems, you are not at higher risk. Heck, even if you are 80 with no underlying health conditions, your survival rate is extremely high should you get the virus. Note: it does not mean you do not get the virus. You still can get the virus but the vast majority recover safely at home without needing hospital care. Even the Italian numbers, interestingly enough, show the average age of positive cases was in the mid-high 60s while death was 80. That the average age of positive identification is so high strongly suggests young people overwhelmingly don't get more than mild symptoms so they never bother getting tested (which in turn means the actual death rate/hospitalization rate is far lower than is currently suggesting).

We are destroying the economy through the shutdowns because it's service based. There needs to be a new approach to allowing people continue to work and receive services while still socially distancing. Throwing tens of millions of healthy young people out of work and crippling their futures is a problem.

However, I am cautiously optimistic in that the recovery will be as sharp and the crash is. The problem is that no one is spending money right now other than food. Even demand for gas has collapsed because people aren't driving as we did a few weeks ago. We're not going out to restaurants, we're not going to the dentist and so forth. That means tax revenues to local and state governments have collapsed overnight. But once the shutdown eases up people will start returning to going out and spending money and stimulating the economy.

Without some way to control the rate of infection, the hospitals will fill up. If the hospitals fill up, we will have 5% death rates because most critical ptients cannot receive treatment. We would also have thousands die of heart attack and stroke because there would be no space in hospitals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a sensible plan to save us from this total economic meltdown insanity:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/coronavirus-economy.html

This is a great idea. I hope this gets traction