Fed now estimates that 47 million could be out of work with an unemployment rate of 32%.
LehighND asked in a thread I started, "What are we doing to ourselves?", what parameters would I consider that we need to be back open for business. I would say we can't afford to have millions businesses permanently folding and a 32% unemployment rate for a long period. Fortunately, James Bullard believes this will be short-lived, but who really knows? "Expert" predictions are often wrong.
Hopefully the Fed is wrong, but if they're not, hopefully Bullard isn't. But we do need to ask a question: How bad should the country be damaged in fighting this? For those who believe as many lives as possible should be saved at all costs, why? We already decided losing 30,000-60,000 to flu every year is acceptable. We could save probably most of those lives if we shut down the country for a month every year. Are those lives not worth it? This is obviously a more philosophical question, but the fact is, we already put a value on human life.
Link: CNBC article
When is the right time to flip the switch? Obviously, no one wants to lose 47 million job, or 2.2 million lives. But where is the magical tipping point.
My best guess is that those who make it there living to study this kind of stuff have told Trump we can survive (economically) until April 30. That means we likely will not have reached the tipping point by then. It will (and should) be a much harder decision on April 30 whether we can stomach another month. With some luck, that decision will be an easy one.
The problem at hand is complex. We may or may not agree on the point of the life vs. economic balance spectrum we find acceptable. But that disagreement is just the start. The problem is made worse by the fact that we cannot accurately predict how any of the scenarios (opening now, after easter, in two weeks, April 30, or beyond) affect either the "life" measure or the "economic balance" measure. Thus, we could completely value life and economic considerations identically, and still disagree as to when re-opening the country would achieve that balance.
(The current extreme measure I referred to are shutdown and lockdown). I reject that assumption. I don't think our current measures, maybe the most costly one, are the most effective one to save lives. The most effective measures to fight the pandemic will still cost our economic resources, a lot of money, and they can still bring us to the point when we need to consider flipping the switch. My point is the question of flipping the switch only becomes valid to me when we reach a point after we used the most effective ways to fight the pandemic.
(no message)
more harm than good to the whole society.. Because the last time I checked, poverty still is the leading cause of premature death in this world. Shutting down the economy will only make this leading cause worse.
be a balanced decision. There will definitely be critics of whatever is chosen from either side.
I have felt all along that as soon as we have a reasonable therapy that cuts down on severe cases (which we now have if you saw my post from the FDA below), and if we have the vent beds which we will soon have, and
MOST WORRISOME, IF WE HAVE THE HEALTHY, NONINFECTED OR IMMUNE PERSONNEL TO MANAGE THESE VENTS AND GIVE CARE, the. We need to switch over ASAP to isolating the at risk people rather than the general population.
Nobody has dared do it yet while the dust is flying, but intentionally exposing some % health personnel (of course voluntary) so as to get them to an immune status so that they can work down the road is one option to ensure a smooth transition. I am sure that I will take heat for bringing up this option, but it is pragmatic.
(no message)
It actually sounds about right, and certainly doesn't seem to either the pollyanna-ish "same-as-the-flu" rate, nor the apocalyptic 2% rate for those sick enough to be tested.
Still, when you throw out an unqualified precise number like 0.66, it sounds like this has been established and accepted by authorities. Is that the case?
But it isn't a msm source. The 0.66% mortality rate is the LANCET epidemiological estimate for China which is, of course, going to have the first set of robust data given that they are ground zero.
Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The unemployment rate is forecast to reach 32%. Even if 25% of those jobs are replenished, that's still a big hit.
The effect that will have on every segment of the economy is vast.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
A classic like On the Waterfront?
Naaahhh, how about Dodgeball?
(no message)
(no message)
Remember, this was not caused by economic weakness. It was a rapid descent, and can be a rapid comeback.
Also, remember that if we don’t clamp down, it’s not just old and sick people we will be sacrificing - it’s medical professionals.
But I think if you post about it a few more times a day - 6, maybe - your point will really start to kick in.
Not certain if those consumers will have anything to spend.
(no message)
(no message)
...at Santa Anita anyway...
Not sure why anyone is worried.
(no message)
(no message)
There tends to be a momentum to our psychology that it tough to reverse. We develop inhibitions.
And the part about posting 6 times a day was uncalled for. This info wasn't available when I posted below.