36 minutes ago, birdguy said:

None of these deal with the economy

Correct, deals only with the biology of the virus, the economy is another chapter of this virus, much of which is still unknown.

Martin

45 minutes ago, birdguy said:

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

Not necessarily the case. There are lots of studies of the economic impact of the 1918 pandemic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-cities-social-distancing-better-employment.html

20 minutes ago, birdguy said:

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

Alan is right that it is human behavior that will dictate how the economy performs, but that behavior is not only influenced by the govt. through their restrictions and public announcements, but also by the media, a media which has become increasingly biased, untrustworthy, and in some cases outright dishonest.

I almost laughed when someone posted recently that the BBC is funded by the taxpayer so can be reasonably expected to be impartial.  Instead I was saddened that anyone would believe that State controlled media can be trusted.

I've been accused by some here of posting "Fox News talking points", a statement which amuses me because I don't really like Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, etc.  I do occasionally watch all of them, however.  Anyhow, I was watching Fox News the other day and they put up that scary map of U.S infections from John Hopkins University for the umpteenth time.  You know, the one with the big red dots covering most of the country making Covid-19 look like the zombie apocalypse.  So much for "Fair and balanced".

Bottom line: this whole thing is being hyped up by the media and governments around the world.  In most cases, governments are acting out of an abundance of caution and trying desperately to minimize the number of deaths and prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed.  However. they cannot keep this up forever as the cost to society in lost jobs and wages, govt. revenue, and general economic and social decline will be too much.  The media is doing it for ratings, money, and other more nefarious agendas.

This is not Ebola or the Black Plague, but you would think it is almost as bad by just watching the media reporting on Covid-19. 

Dave

4 hours ago, SteveFx said:

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.
 

Yep, looks like the numbers were revised upward. 

However, I'm focused more on the trend, or the "curve" as the media is so fond of parroting nowadays, which is clearly downward.

Dave

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

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, birdguy said:

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

Noel

You're missing my point.  Businesses can be fully open but people won't necessarily go in - not if they perceive a risk.  You can lead them to water, but...  they'll defer purchases and avoid settings they consider unsafe.  Voluntary behavior is a huge determining factor here.

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

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.

I'd probably say that no one "designs" the environment, the environment just is.

There's a tendency to look at life as competition and conflict that leaves out a lot of detail, and that finds things like alphas and dominance contests where there aren't any.  There's more going on than predation - there are a variety of complex behaviors that don't fit that mold.

My main point is that suviving covid isn't a challenge that favors the strong, fit and healthy - it's a challenge that favors those that aren't killed by covid.  Those might be either the brave that face it down, or the socially distanced people wearing face masks that avoid it altogether.

EDIT: About complex behaviors and models, this is a long but interesting read: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by Alan_A

58 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

 

However, I'm focused more on the trend, or the "curve" as the media is so fond of parroting nowadays, which is clearly downward.

But there is no clear curve, for the days with reliable data it’s been almost flat in the range 70-80 from April 3rd to May 6th.  Last time you posted this I said that there was possibly a slight hint of a downturn but that turned out not to be the case.

This time there is again a slight hint that the figure for 7th -9th look possibly a little lower than one might expect but we don’t know how they will be revised upwards.

2 of the top 5 highest daily reports for Sweden have occurred in the last 3 days ( although there have been some lower figures recently as well).

It isn’t all negative it looks as if Sweden with its slightly more relaxed approach has held things flat, but most other European countries in full lockdown have halved things in the same period so it isn’t true that lockdowns have no impact.  Sweden offer some hope that things can be eased a little elsewhere perhaps.

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by SteveFx

53 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Alan is right that it is human behavior that will dictate how the economy performs, but that behavior is not only influenced by the govt. through their restrictions and public announcements, but also by the media, a media which has become increasingly biased, untrustworthy, and in some cases outright dishonest.

This gives very little credit to people who are able to think on their own and come to their own conclusions.

It goes along with a tendency to describe the pandemic in low-resolution spreadsheet terms - you know, only the elderly or otherwise sick are at risk so everybody else is fine and can go on about normal business, or we'll only lose X percent of the population and the rest will be fine and go on about their normal business.

Obviously, this leaves out the people who recover but have life-altering illness, and the people affected by the deaths of their loved ones and neighbors and friends.

But putting that aside for the moment - you're making it seem that people won't trust the evidence of their senses.  How many times do you have to see the U-Haul truck pull up to the funeral home before you realize that something very serious is going on?  Or see the barricades and the safety cordon around the hospitals?

In the block next to mine, there's a residential facility for people transitioning from homelessness.  It often gets ambulance calls. Yesterday, I watched an ambulance crew arrive.  They got out of the ambulance, talked briefly with the facility staff and the patient, then went back to their ambulance and started putting on full protective gear - they were already in their gloves and N95s but added full gowns and face shields. 

Do you think they were doing that because of media hype?

Do you think I watched them doing it and thought, "oh, those paramedics must be under the spell of the media"?

This may not be the scene in your part of the world, at least not yet, but it's going on in enough places in enough numbers that people can make decisions about the state of the world and the state of the economy and their own appetite for risk all on their own.  They're actors in a free market with brains of their own and free will to spare.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I almost laughed when someone posted recently that the BBC is funded by the taxpayer so can be reasonably expected to be impartial.  Instead I was saddened that anyone would believe that State controlled media can be trusted.

 

You completely fail to understand the status of the BBC. It is funded by something called a TV licence which we, the public pay and is often avidly critical of the government of the day, regardless of the complexion of that government and much to their annoyance. This may be an alien concept to you, apparently living in a place where everything seems from the outside at least, to be about sponsorship and influence.

Edited May 15, 20206 yr by Reader

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Anyhow, I was watching Fox News the other day and they put up that scary map of U.S infections from John Hopkins University for the umpteenth time.  You know, the one with the big red dots covering most of the country making Covid-19 look like the zombie apocalypse.  So much for "Fair and balanced".

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you seem to be reasoning backward from a conclusion - in other words, the coronavirus isn't serious, therefore reports and data and graphics that make it seem that way are wrong. 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

This is not Ebola

Indeed not.  Ebola kills its hosts too quickly to be a really effective virus.  The novel coronavirus is a lot better at transmitting itself and is likely to be much more widespread for a much longer period of time.

19 hours ago, w6kd said:

If this is a serious question, my serious answer, one old ham to another, is that I'd get my money back--now.

I guess I should have put my tongue in both cheeks. All very good points Bob. This trip was booked way back before there was a problem. We decided a couple of weeks ago to cancel the whole thing. I'm with you, there is no way this can happen. Our south Pacific cruise was canceled 10 weeks ago and we still haven't seen the refund. Lord only knows how long this one will take. Stay safe...73...Doug

12 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

This gives very little credit to people who are able to think on their own and come to their own conclusions.

It goes along with a tendency to describe the pandemic in low-resolution spreadsheet terms - you know, only the elderly or otherwise sick are at risk so everybody else is fine and can go on about normal business, or we'll only lose X percent of the population and the rest will be fine and go on about their normal business.

Obviously, this leaves out the people who recover but have life-altering illness, and the people affected by the deaths of their loved ones and neighbors and friends.

But putting that aside for the moment - you're making it seem that people won't trust the evidence of their senses.  How many times do you have to see the U-Haul truck pull up to the funeral home before you realize that something very serious is going on?  Or see the barricades and the safety cordon around the hospitals?

In the block next to mine, there's a residential facility for people transitioning from homelessness.  It often gets ambulance calls. Yesterday, I watched an ambulance crew arrive.  They got out of the ambulance, talked briefly with the facility staff and the patient, then went back to their ambulance and started putting on full protective gear - they were already in their gloves and N95s but added full gowns and face shields. 

Do you think they were doing that because of media hype?

Do you think I watched them doing it and thought, "oh, those paramedics must be under the spell of the media"?

This may not be the scene in your part of the world, at least not yet, but it's going on in enough places in enough numbers that people can make decisions about the state of the world and the state of the economy and their own appetite for risk all on their own.  They're actors in a free market with brains of their own and free will to spare.

Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to dive deeper into issues and do their own research to discover the truth of things.  They get their information from the news media, social media, the govt., and friends and family.  

You shouldn't misquote people, by the way.  I did not say that "only" the elderly and sick are at risk.  Everyone is at risk of contracting Covid-19, and a very tiny percentage of those are at risk of dying from it.  The point is that the percentage of those that die from Covid-19 who are under 65 years old and healthy is so small that it is not worth this overwhelming, damaging effort to prevent them.  Old and sick people should stay home as much as possible and take all precautions to protect themselves. 

I have seen several videos, and read multiple reports from around the country, of hospitals that are almost empty.  Due to the prevention measures and shutdowns many hospitals were not overwhelmed.  It worked.  The virus has peaked and we have managed to greatly reduce the number of deaths that otherwise would have occurred.  No question about that.  However, it's time to start easing off, which thankfully many are doing or will be doing soon.

It's time to end the shutdowns in 95% of the country.  The urban population centers may have to be slower about it, but it has to end.  Some people are going to die from Covid-19.  That's just life.  You cannot prevent all the deaths from Covid-19 or any other disease no matter how much you'd like to, and it's not worth destroying the economy in your attempts to do so.

Posting stories or videos about a few people, or even a hundred, under 60 years old who died from Covid-19 does not justify the extreme measures and risk averse behavior being promoted by the media and governments.

If you're really serious about preventing as many deaths as possible then you should support outlawing motor vehicles, alcoholic beverages, sedentary lifestyles, fast food, sugar, and many other risky things.

 

Dave

1 minute ago, dave2013 said:

You shouldn't misquote people, by the way.  I did not say that "only" the elderly and sick are at risk.

Point taken. I didn't actually mean to quote you - I was trying to transition to a more general statement about things said by others, but should have made that clear.

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

It's time to end the shutdowns in 95% of the country.  The urban population centers may have to be slower about it, but it has to end.  Some people are going to die from Covid-19.  That's just life.  You cannot prevent all the deaths from Covid-19 or any other disease no matter how much you'd like to, and it's not worth destroying the economy in your attempts to do so.

I think everyone is in agreement that full lockdowns aren't sustainable.  They were never meant to be.  They were intended to reduce demand on the hospital system so that it could cope, and yes, that effort seems to have succeeded.  And some measure of activity can be and should be restored.  It would be better, however, if the restoration of activity was a) done carefully, with some limitations still in place, to prevent fresh outbreaks, and b) backed up by the ability to test, trace and isolate, so that if there are new outbreaks, they can be managed.  The worst case is a continued series of uncontrolled outbreaks, leading to an ongoing sequence of lockdowns, which would completely shatter economic confidence.

7 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Posting stories or videos about a few people, or even a hundred, under 60 years old who died from Covid-19 does not justify the extreme measures and risk averse behavior being promoted by the media and governments.

What about the ones over 60?

8 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

If you're really serious about preventing as many deaths as possible then you should support outlawing motor vehicles, alcoholic beverages, sedentary lifestyles, fast food, sugar, and many other risky things.

Bit of a straw man.  The novel coronavirus is an infectious disease and needs to be managed as such.  Those other things aren't. 

11 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to dive deeper into issues and do their own research to discover the truth of things.  They get their information from the news media, social media, the govt., and friends and family.  

Oh, and about this - I wasn't talking about diving deeper into issues.  I was talking about seeing the U-Haul at the funeral home or the ambulance crew in their full protective gear - things you can see with your own eyes.

44 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you seem to be reasoning backward from a conclusion - in other words, the coronavirus isn't serious, therefore reports and data and graphics that make it seem that way are wrong. 

Indeed not.  Ebola kills its hosts too quickly to be a really effective virus.  The novel coronavirus is a lot better at transmitting itself and is likely to be much more widespread for a much longer period of time.

Again, misrepresenting what I'm saying. 

Covid-19 is serious, just not as deadly as the media is hyping it up to be.

I can make a map of Influenza infections and deaths that would scare the daylights out of people.  About 13 million Americans have contracted Influenza so far this season.  About 30,000-60,000 Americans die of Influenza each year. 

In 2009 the H1N1 Swine Flu infected millions of Americans, and thousands died from it.  However, I don't recall the reaction by the media or the response from govt. being anywhere close to what we've seen with Covid-19.

Why didn't we shut everything down then in order to save as many people as possible? 

Dave