How gradual?  The longer it takes the less normal the new normal will be.

Noel

Too many stories like this out there.

 

I get the feeling that some view this virus as a good thing -- as a way to thin out the herd -- get rid of the weak and the sick...  But it seems just as likely it would get rid of those who scream FREEDOM in the face of a virus.  It really doesnt care.

Those who are cautious whether weak, sick, frail, whatever -- as long as they are cautious -- should have a higher survival rate I would think.

45 minutes ago, sightseer said:

I get the feeling that some view this virus as a good thing -- as a way to thin out the herd -- get rid of the weak and the sick...  But it seems just as likely it would get rid of those who scream FREEDOM in the face of a virus.  It really doesnt care.

That's true in many ways.  In wildlife the thinning of the herd doesn't take out the just the old and weak but also targets opportunity like the young and those who get separated from the herd.

I happen to be of the school of thought that COID-19 might indeed be a way of thinning the human herd on an overcrowded planet that overuses and misused it's natural resources without regard of what the consequences might be.  

The strong always prevail against the weak be it in nature or civilization.  Like the wealthy industrialist who says, "The world didn't exist before I got here and will cease to exists after I leave.  So I will take what I want, as much as I want, wherever I want whenever I want, whenever I want.  And the planet and the people in it be damned."

The rise of civilization has seen an equal rise in the use and misuse of our natural resources to the point at which nature will have to do something drastic to heal itself.  Climate change is one of these things.  So is the thinning of the herd through disease and famine.  When it happens in other parts of the world like malaria and Ebola we do what we can to help, but they don't take on the emergency measures we take when it hits home. 

Could COVID-19 be like the flu?  Something that will recur year after year afflicting more people, causing more deaths, as we struggle to develop new vaccines for new strains?  And when we do get a handle on it will something new will appear to help hasten mankind's march to oblivion?

Noel

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by birdguy

Meanwhile in Sweden:

Deaths per Day

 

Dave

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by dave2013

The difference between Sweden and much of the rest of the world is the way that they behave. They were given the facts and almost unanimously did as was suggested. In other words, they realised the merits of the advice and followed it without the need for a government imposed lockdown. It does not mean that they just carried on as if nothing was happening. It is pointless to try to draw a comparison with any other country that does not foster that attitude but also fair to say that the majority in most countries do think in the same way and are doing their bit to help themselves and all their fellow citizens.

Here is a small extract from a BBC report. The BBC are funded by the tax payer and in most sane circles, regarded as being as impartial as can be reasonably expected.

Quote

Sweden's strategy to keep large parts of society open is widely backed by the public. It has been devised by scientists and backed by government, and yet not all the country's virologists are convinced.

There is no lockdown here. Photos have been shared around the world of bars with crammed outdoor seating and long queues for waterfront ice cream kiosks, and yet it is a myth that life here goes on "as normal".

On the face of it little has shut down. But data suggests the vast majority of the population have taken to voluntary social distancing, which is the crux of Sweden's strategy to slow the spread of the virus.

Usage of public transport has dropped significantly, large numbers are working from home, and most refrained from travelling over the Easter weekend. The government has also banned gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to elderly care homes.

Around 9 in 10 Swedes say they keep at least a metre away from people at least some of the time, up from seven in 10 a month ago, according to a major survey by polling firm Novus.

 

 

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by Reader

On 4/25/2020 at 5:03 PM, dave2013 said:

 

 

Dave

Compare with Sweden   as posted 3 weeks ago....   

These are graphs of deaths mapped to actual date of death and because there are lags in reporting the bars on the right hand side can give a misleading impression.  So the fall on 20th April that was there 3 weeks ago went away as more data came in.

Sweden reported 117 new deaths today  and 140 the day before yesterday.
 

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by SteveFx
removed quoted text

4 hours ago, birdguy said:

How gradual?  The longer it takes the less normal the new normal will be.

Here is a good summary of 3 possible pandemic scenarios of COVID-19 based on previous pandemics of influenza.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap-covid19-viewpoint-part1_0.pdf

Martin

3 hours ago, birdguy said:

The strong always prevail against the weak be it in nature or civilization.

Sorry, but this is a bit of social Darwinism that actually misreads Darwin.  Darwin originally referred to "natural selection," not "survival of the fittest." When he adopted the phrase later, he defined it to mean "better designed for an immediate local environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

He doesn't mean that the strong or healthy will survive.  He means that reproductive success will be determined by external pressures.  In an urban environment, the squirrels that are randomly asphalt-colored will be harder to spot, and therefore will be less likely to be eaten by predators.  Over time, the squirrel population will become asphalt-colored because those squirrels survive and reproduce while others don't.  They're not stronger, they're better adapted.

In the context of covid, the "fittest" - that is, the best adapted to the current environment and therefore most likely to pass their genes along - might well be those that are smart enough to stay indoors, practice social distancing, wash their hands, wear masks and avoid crowds. 

If the brave and bold go out to their street fairs and baseball games, bare-faced because masks are a sign of weakness, and as a result contract the coronavirus and die in large numbers, then their reproductive strategy will fail - and they will not be, by this definition, the fittest.

Be well-adapted out there!

Something else we need to get at is this notion that people are being locked up against their will, and that changes in the economy are being forced on them.  In other words, the economy would be normal except for the restrictive acts of agencies with agendas. And that what is called for is bravery on the part of consumers, equivalent to the behavior of soldiers under fire.

This misreads how people behave as economic actors, and how business actually works.

Business is actually not a risk-taking environment - it's a risk-mitigation environment.  Yes, there are people - entrepreneurs, mostly - who like to tell stories about how bravely they hung it all out there and put everything on the line in order to succeed.  But they mostly didn't.  What they really did was take very calculated risks based on a lot of information, and proceeded when they thought they had strong odds of success.

What business - and investors and consumers - most want and need is predictability.  Investors aren't blindly putting money out there - they're buying a future earnings stream.  True, there's a certain amount of capital they're willing to risk, but it isn't indiscriminate.  In practice, even in higher-risk investment settings like venture capital, risk isn't blind risk.  A modern venture capital firm will typically invest in a business that it thinks has a sound strategy - and will then work to put the odds even more in its favor by taking board seats and putting its consultants and advisors, who are usually veteran entrepreneurs with strong track records, into management roles. They then work hands-on with management and actively collaborate on running the business, because what they want is not failure but a favorable exit.  They don't always succeed but they want to.

Similarly, businesses launch and fund new ventures when they've determined that there's a market opportunity.  They sometimes fail at it but it's not for want of trying.  These initiatives are carefully researched and held to firm financial targets.  If conditions aren't favorable, they'll pull back and won't launch.

This holds for consumers, too.  Consumers spend when they have a high degree of assurance they they can replace the money they're spending.  If they take on debt, it's usually with the expectation of income that will allow them to service the debt.  If that assurance isn't there, they become less willing to spend. I'll use another personal example.  I drive a 13-year-old car.  It's a very good car with low mileage, it runs well, and it's fully paid off.  From time to time I've thought of replacing it - it would be nice to have new safety features and better mileage.  I might even think about an electric - I live in an urban area and most of my driving is local.  But right now, with my income cut to a fraction of what it was and no clear path ahead, there's absolutely no way that I'm going to take on a long-term financial obligation, whether a loan or a lease.  I'll stick with what I have.

So this is really the problem for the economy - it's not that people (and businesses, and investors) are being kept from spending, it's that they don't want to.  The prospect of further outbreaks, or a full-blown second wave of infections, means that anything that restarts may have to be shut down again. Under those conditions, you can throw open all the doors you want, and staff up all the stores and factories and movie theaters.  But that's not going to make anyone go out and buy things or invest in things.

The hard reality is that we're going to be in a restricted economy for a long time - not because of regulations but because of behavior.

This becomes clear if you think in terms of business reality instead of misapplied war metaphors.

Now, interestingly, looking at it this way, you can see a way forward.  What got me thinking about all this was last week's article by Scott Galloway, the entrepreneur and NYU marketing professor-slash-gadfly I've quoted before.  In this piece - give him time, he likes to meander a bit but he does get there - he talks about Amazon's large-scale initiative to build a "vaccinated supply chain." That consists of two things - a distribution system for actual covid-related supplies like PPE and testing kits, and a monitoring and surveillance system for all their logistics operations that increases the assurance that anything ordered is coronoavirus-free. 

This may or may not work.  But what it shows is that Bezos understands the real demand, which is for assurance, predictability and risk reduction.

In the broader economy, the same can be achieved by a robust test-trace-isolate system.

No, it won't be 100 percent.  And it goes without saying that behavior will change and some kinds of activity - like crowding into arenas - will take a long time to come back or may come back in a completely different form.  We're not talking about risk elimination or absolute certainty - we're talking about lowering the risk and increasing the predictability to the point where confidence increases and activity follows.

Give people predictability and manageable risk instead of exhortations and you'll have a better chance of getting where you want to go.

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by Alan_A

57 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

So this is really the problem for the economy - it's not that people (and businesses, and investors) are being kept from spending, it's that they don't want to. 

People, businesses and investors are kept from spending when clothing stores are closed, theaters are closed, restaurants are closed, small businesses are closed.  That's a real problem for the economy.

Noel

1 hour ago, Alan_A said:

In other words, the economy would be normal except for the restrictive acts of agencies with agendas.

I would say restrictive acts of agencies are forces against people.

Noel

1 hour ago, Alan_A said:

When he adopted the phrase later, he defined it to mean "better designed for an immediate local environment."

Nature designs the local environment for the survival of the fittest.  The fit, those who are best at predation and are best at escaping predators are the survivors.  Some survive due to sheer numbers...predators can't eat them all.

In the human species when society is designed to benefit the wealthy the middle class and poor exist at the pleasure of the rich predators.

Noel

2 hours ago, MartinRex007 said:

Here is a good summary of 3 possible pandemic scenarios of COVID-19 based on previous pandemics of influenza.

None of these deal with the economy because none of the previous pandemics closed down the economy due to government restrictions.

Interesting that the industries hit the least by unemployment are government and financial.

Which major industries are hit hardest by unemployment?

 

	Employees (millions)
Supersector	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	2 mo. % chg.
Leisure and hospitality	16.9	16.4	8.7	-48.3%
Other services	5.9	5.9	4.6	-22.0
Construction	7.6	7.6	6.6	-13.2
Trade, transportation and utilities	27.8	27.8	24.7	-11.2
Education and health services	24.6	24.5	21.9	-10.8
Manufacturing	12.9	12.8	11.5	-10.6
Professional and business services	21.6	21.5	19.3	-10.4
Information	2.9	2.9	2.6	-8.9
Mining and logging	0.7	0.7	0.7	-8.0
Government	22.7	22.7	21.7	-4.4
Financial activities	8.8	8.8	8.6	-3.0