3 hours ago, honanhal said:

Dave, is it your serious contention that much higher death rates — say, in the millions in the United States — while you had an uncontained pandemic with no vaccine would NOT have a negative effect on the economy?

Because I think that would be nuts, but you’ve set up exactly that dichotomy: limit deaths but kill the economy, or let the weak die and open the economy up. I don’t think it works that way.

James

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never said that millions dying in the U.S. alone would be acceptable.

A million deaths worldwide is an entirely different thing.  It's not good, or desirable, or what anyone wants, but it's also a fact of life.  Millions around the world die every year from a myriad of other diseases, war, accidents, etc.

How long would you keep the economy shut down to prevent what you consider "too many" deaths from this virus?  Do you understand the implications of another Great Depression?  Perhaps you do not.

Dave

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

How long would you keep the economy shut down to prevent what you consider "too many" deaths from this virus?  Do you understand the implications of another Great Depression?  Perhaps you do not.

Dave, with respect, you've missed my point. We're not facing a choice between the economy and lives -- because if a significant number of people are dying, or even if people are simply reasonably afraid to participate in public economic activity, the economy is not going to magically coming back online. It's not a simple matter of sacrificing people to the economy (as you've framed it), because that's not the way this works.

Fundamentally, we're not facing a depression because we "shut down" the economy; we're facing a depression because there's an extremely deadly and extremely infectious pandemic with no vaccine. Simply declaring an economy open doesn't solve your basic economic problem.

How long do you keep the economy shut down? Until there's a vaccine, the only way you're going to have anything approaching normal economic activity is if you've got a massive testing and tracing program to allow you to keep sick people isolated and healthy people economically active. Anything less, and you've got an economy that's going to be still largely functionally "shut down" regardless of what the government is telling people.

James

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

How about the young and healthy who die in our wars that we never think about because they have become old news?  Not just the soldiers on both sides but the countless civilian victims too?

Would you war a pandemic we could control?

In the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic 1.4 billion got it.  Over a half million died from it.  Only in that case 80% of the deaths were UNDER 65.

I'm not advising any of you not to take the precautions and remedies you see fit.  I'm not even asking you to cease and desist of warning and advising people of what they should do.  I am all for volunteer social distancing and mask wearing.  I am very suspicious of government mandating measures because governments love to control people and many times when the reason for the mandates no longer exist the mandates remain in force in some measure.  We lost a lot of liberty and privacy following 9/11.  I don't want to see that happen again because of the COVID-19.  I wouldn't want to get in the habit of wearing masks every flu season even after the COVID-19 dangers go away.

Besides, I'm Norwegian, and you know what they say about Norwegians...you can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much.

Noel

The difference in this and the Swine Flu is that they had a vaccine for the Swine Flu within a few months of the outbreak.  It will take at least another 8 months to a year before there's a vaccine for Covid-19.

We must buy time until treatments can be developed to prevent millions from dying of this.

I am praying that this happens soon, because in a few more months the economic consequences will be disastrous.  There won't be too many people commenting in these forums by then because they'll be focused on trying to survive.

Dave

17 minutes ago, honanhal said:

Dave, with respect, you've missed my point. We're not facing a choice between the economy and lives -- because if a significant number of people are dying, or even if people are simply reasonably afraid to participate in public economic activity, the economy is not going to magically coming back online. It's not a simple matter of sacrificing people to the economy (as you've framed it), because that's not the way this works.

Fundamentally, we're not facing a depression because we "shut down" the economy; we're facing a depression because there's an extremely deadly and extremely infectious pandemic with no vaccine. Simply declaring an economy open doesn't solve your basic economic problem.

How long do you keep the economy shut down? Until there's a vaccine, the only way you're going to have anything approaching normal economic activity is if you've got a massive testing and tracing program to allow you to keep sick people isolated and healthy people economically active. Anything less, and you've got an economy that's going to be still largely functionally "shut down" regardless of what the government is telling people.

James

With all due respect you are wrong.

It most certainly will become a choice between the economy and lives.

If people stop going out and spending, except on food and necessary supplies, we will have a depression.  A healthy economy depends on people moving about, spending money, making things, providing services, etc.  If you shut that down for too long it will take years for it to come back.  No amount of money printing can replace billions of people engaging in daily commerce.  It's as if the blood in your veins stops circulating - adding more blood won't help.

At most, the fatality rate of Covid-19 is 1%.  That's about 75 million people worldwide who would die from this if we do nothing.  It's a lot, and it's scary, but at least civilization would survive intact.  But I'm not advocating doing nothing, but what we do must be limited.

The economy will suffer, but it won't collapse, if 1% of people die.  About 75 million people died in World War 2, 20 million died in World War 1.  We recovered from those devastating wars relatively quickly, and we would recover from this.

 

Dave

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by dave2013

Dave, I think we're actually in agreement. If people stop going out and spending for an extended period of time, we'll have a depression. The problem is that you can't fix that problem by fiat. In a free society, people have to want to go out and spend. If you don't have testing and tracing, or a vaccine, not enough people will want to do that to solve that economic problem.

You can't send the army door to door to force people to go to a restaurant or bar.

James

Another economic factor to consider, Dave, is how long will the supply chain hold up.  Fewer people buying fewer goods dries up the supply chain.  It would take a long time to get it back up to speed again.  Smithfield Foods has shut down it's plants.  That means pork will become scarce when the stocks run out.  Who knows when they will start up again?  And how long it will take to build the stocks to ship countrywide?  Tyson Foods, Cargill and JPS, other meat producers have also closed plants.  

Here in Roswell the largest mozzarella cheese plant in the country has closed down.  That impacts the dairy industry in SE New Mexico.  What do dairy farmers do with milk they can't sell?

Auto dealers are closed.  They are only selling online.  That means when they open again they have an inventory to sell before they start getting shipments of cars already ready to ship.  And how long before the assembly lines stat up again?

And how many small businesses are never going to open again depriving us of services and their former employees of jobs.

Economies are worth lives too.  Who decides the tradeoffs?

Noel

I guess the argument boils down now to lives versus the economy.  Sick economies also cost lives.  People who can't afford healthcare or health insurance get sick and die for lack of treatment for more ailments than COVID-19.  How long do we trade the economy for COVID-19?  At what point do make a decision to risk people's lives to prevent a depression or even a prolonged recession?  Who makes those decisions?  The government by fiat or do we vote on it?

Noel

27 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

With all due respect you are wrong.

It most certainly will become a choice between the economy and lives.

Dave

No, if the disease is still a threat when the restrictions are lifted, the economy will be hit even harder. You can reopen things all you want, but no one will go do anything if they think they can die from it. And if you reopen too rashly, then news of a rebound of the disease will cause reimposition of restrictions and further and longer economic depression.

To reopen, you have to wait until the disease spread is at a level that the testing and tracing can keep track of. Everybody must wear masks and continue as much social distancing as possible. Otherwise, the rebound will kill any bit of recovery.

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by KevinAu

1 minute ago, birdguy said:

I guess the argument boils down now to lives versus the economy.  Sick economies also cost lives.  People who can't afford healthcare or health insurance get sick and die for lack of treatment for more ailments than COVID-19.  How long do we trade the economy for COVID-19?  At what point do make a decision to risk people's lives to prevent a depression or even a prolonged recession?  Who makes those decisions?  The government by fiat or do we vote on it?

Noel

The only way out is for the government to get their s h i t together to provide the test and trace capability and enough masks for the population to allow for a safe reopening. Otherwise, a reopened economy will go nowhere because people are still scared of dying.

55 minutes ago, honanhal said:

if a significant number of people are dying, or even if people are simply reasonably afraid to participate in public economic activity, the economy is not going to magically coming back online

This is in line with what my client's paper has to say.  Without discussing that specifically (since it's still being baked) and just speaking in general - a lot of the debate (including this one) about stay-at-home vs. restart the economy assumes that it's an either/or - that you're going to flip a switch and people are going to go back to going to restaurants, jamming into movie theaters and filling stadiums.  That's not what's going to happen.  A realistic restart-the-economy scenario is going to be very gradual - it has to be, because without the ability to test and contact-trace, mass crowding is pretty much guaranteed to lead to a second, probably larger outbreak.  But if there are restrictions, there's going to be an economic drag.  For example, if you reopen restaurants but with continued social distancing, then you're going to have to remove a bunch of tables, and the restaurant will have to operate at 50 percent of capacity.  How's it going to do financially under those circumstances?  Then - to the point in @honanhal's later post above - there's the added question of whether they'll be able to fill to 50 percent capacity.  A lot of people, especially in crowded urban areas, really, really don't want to contract the virus.  How many will be willing to go to a restaurant where the waiter wears a facemask and gloves and the menu is disposable?

Now, if you forego all social distancing and open the gates, there might, emphasis on might, be more activity ("might' because of the question above - how eager are people to take risks?)  But then you greatly increase the chances of a massive infection spike, leading, let's say, to @dave2013's projection of a 1 percent fatality rate and 75 million deaths.  On paper that's severe but sounds like a possibly reasonable tradeoff against the world population and the prospects of a full economy,  And yes, there's the example of the economic resurgence after World War II after similar losses.  But I'm not sure that the analogy really holds.  First, let's think about those 75 million deaths.  Let's say conservatively that each of those people leaves three immediate family members (spouse and two children).  Realistically, people are part of much bigger communities but this is an exercise.  In this exercise, we get 225 million traumatized direct survivors.  Their reaction is part of the equation as well - as is the bigger community that witnessed or experienced those deaths.  Now, let's add the fact that what killed these people wasn't a war external to the normal business of society. They were killed by the normal business of society - by going to restaurants and stores and movies and sporting events.  So as above, but in much bigger numbers, how willing are they going to be to re-engage in those activities?

What I'm saying is that no matter what we do - whether we keep restrictions in place or pull them off - there's going to be massive economic damage.  We're no longer in a position to prevent it - we're arguing about what kind and what degree. Note that none of this takes into account other relief and recovery costs that society might choose to take on - social welfare programs, expanded healthcare financing, business subsidies.  It just concerns straight-out economic activity.  And I'm honestly having trouble seeing a post-covid world that looks, economically, like the pre-covid one.

I continue to think that the economic costs of the high-death scenario are much worse and last much longer.  I'm not the only one saying that.  U.S business leadership is not enthusiastic right now about a reopened economy that isn't supported by testing and contact tracing - which means the ability to act quickly if new outbreaks happen, and the resulting ability to restore some measure of consumer confidence.

Things are going to be very difficult no matter what we do or don't do.

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by Alan_A

I agree that we must continue with social distancing, mask wearing, washing hands frequently, etc.  Those measures alone will prevent millions from contracting the virus.  Heck, we can do those things indefinitely with no ill effects on the economy.  From now on I personally will keep my distance from people when I'm out, use cleaning wipes after leaving a store, and wash my hands as soon as I get home.

I'm talking about the official lockdowns and shutdowns.  Like Noel says, if manufacturing plants stay shut down for too long then there won't be anything left to buy.  Then folks who worked in those plants won't be able to buy anything anyway because they don't have any money.  It's a vicious cycle.

Keep things shut down too long and you begin to have cascading failures in the system that no govt. can fix.

It is true that if people are scared they won't go out anyway, but if the govt. and media keep telling people to stay home and advertising the death numbers and number of infected as if they are unprecedented, then that will only serve to scare people.  They show maps with big red dots like something you see in a pandemic zombie horror movie.  Things have to be put into perspective, but the media doesn't do that. 

I was at my local Walmart today and there were a lot of people in there shopping, and not just for food.  This brings up another point: the effects of this virus are not equal everywhere, so different measures can be taken in different areas.  I live in a county with a population of 60,000 near a town of 30,000 with only 50 confirmed cases in the county.  The problem just isn't that bad here.  Places with high population density like New York City must take more drastic measures, but not for too long.

My overall point is that we cannot maintain the shutdowns and lockdowns everywhere for more than a few months without catastrophic economic damage.  These folks that advocate 12 and 18 month shutdowns, which is the same as waiting for a vaccine, are not considering the consequences.  The cure would be worse than the disease if we did that.

Dave

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by dave2013

@dave2013 - The only effective way to get the reopening you want is to have widespread testing and contact tracing.  If you can know with a high degree of certainty who's infected, and be able to quickly track down and isolate the people that an infected person has been in contact with, then you have the ability to jump on outbreaks and keep them small.  That would enable you to allow a much higher level of economic activity - not full normal but closer than in any other scenario.

Unfortunately, we in the U.S. aren't anywhere close to being able to do that right now.  So it has to be a main priority, right alongside vaccine development.  Germany is much better equipped to test and trace, which is why they're able to consider a restart without enormous risk.

To our earlier discussion about how covid compares to other major diseases, here's a time-adjusted comparison that shows covid against cancer, heart disease, etc. in a single week at the beginning of April. The single-week comparison cancels out the distortion of measuring total covid deaths against total annualized deaths for the other diseases.

During the comparison period, covid was the second-leading cause of death in the U.S., and at current growth rates it will soon be the leading cause of death.

That's how it looks when you compare apples to apples.

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by Alan_A

China is OK they are reopening the market that started it all, two of the most densely populated city's in the world in China no deaths it missed them, and went round the world like a wild fire.

1 hour ago, KevinAu said:

To reopen, you have to wait until the disease spread is at a level that the testing and tracing can keep track of. Everybody must wear masks and continue as much social distancing as possible. Otherwise, the rebound will kill any bit of recovery.

Plus, if there is a rebound, very few people will have any trust in the government after that. There is already the feeling that too many people in charge are thinking more about money than about people, and if those leaders walk us into a rebound of this virus, they won't even be able to convince people that the sky is blue, after that. Suggestions to return to work will be resisted, and which ever political critters realize that and accede to it will be the ones in power when the smoke from the election clears.