COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

[Pens1566]

Except it's not just the elderly you're tossing into a reactor. Something north of 30% of the population in the US is at high risk due to either age or complicating conditions. And I'm being generous on the 30%. Add up all the diabetics, cancer patients, heart issues, copd, obese, auto-immune disorders and you're closer to 50%. You can't just isolate them based on sheer #s while everyone else goes "back to normal". A normal, btw, that can't and won't exist as long as there is no answer for the virus because every single person not in that high risk category will be living with/taking care of/worried about someone that is at risk.

The economy will continue to be a wreck as long as there is no effective medical answer to the virus, whether it's vaccine, therapeutic, positive mutation, etc..

 

[ColePens]

The long snd short of it is a choice between killing people one way or another.

That quote from The Big Short from Brad Pitt's character is from a real statistic. For every one percent unemployment 37,000 people die as a direct result. Google it.

So do you want to bankrupt 60 percent of restaurants and kill people without jobs or kill people with the virus.

It is why anyone making definitives about this issue is wrong. You simply can't help hurting and killing people whichever choice you make.

Amen to this. Everyone always makes it out to be LIVE 100% or die by the virus. And it's not that easy. Now... we all have our own choices to make. But this is realism right here. I'm not condoning a free open mindset here of do whatever the f*** you want and I KNOW Jaded isn't either, but to blatantly ignore ramifications on the other side is stupid.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You are making a lot of assumptions about me which aren't reflected in my post. I am in favor of deficit spending to help during this crises.

That doesn't mean that at some point you do more harm than good. You cant add $10 trillion to the debt in one year and not have more bad come of it than good. It is not cost free as many countries have found out.

We have an enormous advantage in the dollar being the world's currency. That would be the first thing to go. It would get worse from there.

Source for any of this?

I have never actually seen an argument for what ballooning the deficit would cause beyond "we need to balance the budget" or "the national debt is a problem". No one provides how it would become a problem, they just say it is a problem.

 

[Fordy]

Except it's not just the elderly you're tossing into a reactor. Something north of 30% of the population in the US is at high risk due to either age or complicating conditions. And I'm being generous on the 30%. Add up all the diabetics, cancer patients, heart issues, copd, obese, auto-immune disorders and you're closer to 50%. You can't just isolate them based on sheer #s while everyone else goes "back to normal". A normal, btw, that can't and won't exist as long as there is no answer for the virus because every single person not in that high risk category will be living with/taking care of/worried about someone that is at risk.

The economy will continue to be a wreck as long as there is no effective medical answer to the virus, whether it's vaccine, therapeutic, positive mutation, etc..

i don’t think the numbers bear this out. under 50 is practically statistically insignificant including those people youre talking about. and considering the sunbelt has reached some effective immunity and decline without any mass death like was seen in new york has to give you some sort of pause?

 

[Snooki Stackhouse]

I'm generally supportive of the measures taken by state governments to curb rising cases and preserving the ability of the medical system to handle treatments without getting overrun. But what if there is no vaccine? Or the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting it, it just better equips your immune system to fight off the disease? Or the vaccine is only x% effective (like influenza)? I would imagine there would be a point at which shutting everything down can't continue. When is that? Winter 2020? Summer 2021? 2022? Because there has to be a point at which we do accept that this virus is out there and people will get it. Hopefully there will be a point at which enough of the population has gotten it (or gotten a vaccine) that a return to economic normalcy will not result in overtaxing the healthcare system. In my opinion, our goal should be to manage the policy to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. It's acceptable to me now - with hopefully a fully effective vaccine in the pipeline - to strive toward keeping cases as low as possible in the near term. What's not acceptable is making that the long-term approach.

At some point, hopefully by early 2021, the viability of a vaccine will become clear. Our goal then should shift away from closing areas of commerce and education and accepting that this virus will be something people get and hopefully we as a species will have the immune capabilities to fight it off better. It's just not acceptable to me to keep schools and businesses and public areas closed for too much longer. I guess that makes me a bad person.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Source for any of this?

I have never actually seen an argument for what ballooning the deficit would cause beyond "we need to balance the budget" or "the national debt is a problem". No one provides how it would become a problem, they just say it is a problem.

Venezuala? Greece? Peurto Rico and Detroit?

For a more scholarly discussion:

Is debt at that level a problem?
For now, it isn’t. The U.S. government borrows trillions of dollars a year at very low interest rates on global financial markets, and there doesn’t appear to be much private sector borrowing that is crowded out by U.S. Treasury borrowing right now. Indeed, the fact that global interest rates remain very low while governments around the world are borrowing heavily to fight the COVID-19 recession suggests that there is still a lot of savings around the world, more than is needed to finance private investment.

No one really knows at what level a government’s debt begins to hurt an economy; there’s a heated debate among economists on that question. If interest rates remain low, as currently anticipated, the government can handle a much heavier debt load than was once thought possible. And the recent increase in borrowing—while enormous—is a temporary increase intended to combat an emergency; it changes the level of the debt, but not its long-run trajectory.

How worried should you be about the federal deficit and debt?

And that is the real rub.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security with low, and even unbelievably NEGATIVE interest rates. Where YOU pay countries interest to lend them money.

Historically interest rates have been 6 or 7 percent. If they return anywhere close to there armegedon. For countries, cities, states, school districts and everyday people carrying lots of debt.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

The long snd short of it is a choice between killing people one way or another.

That quote from The Big Short from Brad Pitt's character is from a real statistic. For every one percent unemployment 37,000 people die as a direct result. Google it.

So do you want to bankrupt 60 percent of restaurants and kill people without jobs or kill people with the virus.

It is why anyone making definitives about this issue is wrong. You simply can't help hurting and killing people whichever choice you make.

Amen to this. Everyone always makes it out to be LIVE 100% or die by the virus. And it's not that easy. Now... we all have our own choices to make. But this is realism right here. I'm not condoning a free open mindset here of do whatever the f*** you want and I KNOW Jaded isn't either, but to blatantly ignore ramifications on the other side is stupid.

Going to bars and restaurants used to be one of my very few hobbies. I do not want 60% to permanently close. Why does the bar and restaurant (and other businesses) decision come down to "killing people one way or another"? Why can't they be temporarily closed right now with financial assistance? Would not keeping gathering places closed while making sure those workers/owners are financially sound keep people from dying due to the virus and/or unemployment?

 

[Pens1566]

i don’t think the numbers bear this out. under 50 is practically statistically insignificant including those people youre talking about. and considering the sunbelt has reached some effective immunity and decline without any mass death like was seen in new york has to give you some sort of pause?

Just a quick search:

Population-Based Estimates of Chronic Conditions Affecting Risk for Complications from Coronavirus Disease, United States

45% overall. Not just elderly. And I wouldn't call a dip in stats for ~2 weeks immunity. Especially with schools getting ready to open back up.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Venezuala? Greece? Peurto Rico and Detroit?

All of those situations had way higher debt to GDP ratios than the United States, plus neither of them had the global power that the United States had. If the United States ends up going the route of Greece, it means the entire world economy is collapsing.

For a more scholarly discussion:



How worried should you be about the federal deficit and debt?

And that is the real rub.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security with low, and even unbelievably NEGATIVE interest rates. Where YOU pay countries interest to lend them money.

Historically interest rates have been 6 or 7 percent. If they return anywhere close to there armegedon. For countries, cities, states, school districts and everyday people carrying lots of debt.

No one really knows at what level a government’s debt begins to hurt an economy; there’s a heated debate among economists on that question.

That's kinda the point I'm making here, no? That people just say that debt is a problem, but they never say how. It sounds like not even economists agree on how it's a problem, but people just say it's a problem.

From what I've read, complaining about the national debt is more of a dog whistle for saying "we don't want to pay for more government spending". It just sounds way better to make it a national debt issue instead of "helping the poor" issue. It's no coincidence that the national debt talk always comes from the small government crowd, so I'll willing to bet that their complaints with the national debt are at least partially influenced by their opinions on what government should be.

I'm reading this article right now and none of these issues sound bad enough to warrant not spending more now to make sure people can survive a pandemic. The entire idea that increasing the national debt is bad comes from the idea that it's inevitable that the bottom is going to fall out. No one actually knows if that's the case or not. Even with the article I pointed out, those theories sound very speculative. Why does a higher national debt challenge the United States position as a global power? Why does a higher national debt mean that people are going to stop going for higher yield, but riskier investment opportunities?

 

[Fordy]

Just a quick search:

Population-Based Estimates of Chronic Conditions Affecting Risk for Complications from Coronavirus Disease, United States

45% overall. Not just elderly. And I wouldn't call a dip in stats for ~2 weeks immunity. Especially with schools getting ready to open back up.

i’ll check back when it’s clear it is. i mean i don’t see you guys hesitate to call a 2 week jump in stats a complete disaster shut everything down, do you?

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I, for one, had no clue that schools opened back up this early in other parts of the country.

 

[Pens1566]

i’ll check back when it’s clear it is. i mean you guys don’t hesitate to call a 2 week jump in stats a complete disaster do you?

I know it's TMZ, but ...

Georgia School Kids Pack Hallway Without Masks on First Day Back

You're gonna be gone a while ...

 

[Empoleon8771]

I, for one, had no clue that schools opened back up this early in other parts of the country.

I only knew that because I used to watch The Weather Channel a bunch during my internships, which all ended in mid-August. I know that schools start up in August because they always made a big deal out of the weather for back to school around now

 

[Jaded-Fan]

All of those situations had way higher debt to GDP ratios than the United States, plus neither of them had the global power that the United States had. If the United States ends up going the route of Greece, it means the entire world economy is collapsing.





That's kinda the point I'm making here, no? That people just say that debt is a problem, but they never say how. It sounds like not even economists agree on how it's a problem, but people just say it's a problem.

From what I've read, complaining about the national debt is more of a dog whistle for saying "we don't want to pay for more government spending". It just sounds way better to make it a national debt issue instead of "helping the poor" issue. It's no coincidence that the national debt talk always comes from the small government crowd, so I'll willing to bet that their complaints with the national debt are at least partially influenced by their opinions on what government should be.

I'm reading this article right now and none of these issues sound bad enough to warrant not spending more now to make sure people can survive a pandemic. The entire idea that increasing the national debt is bad comes from the idea that it's inevitable that the bottom is going to fall out. No one actually knows if that's the case or not. Even with the article I pointed out, those theories sound very speculative. Why does a higher national debt challenge the United States position as a global power? Why does a higher national debt mean that people are going to stop going for higher yield, but riskier investment opportunities?

Again, if economists can't agree how are we going to?

That said, it is intuitive that at some point it is unsustainable. Examples such as Greece and Venezuela, half of the countries in Africa, etc. have shown that.

Where that line is? That is the argument.

The low interest rates that is allowing this are just assumed to go on forever though. And that is impossible. Who holds the bag on those loans? You and me in bonds. At some point people are going to get that they are holding bonds that are worth less than they assumed.

It is simple really. You print double the number of dollars each is worth half. If you are getting 2% a year payed in dollars worth a fraction of what they were when you lent it then you are screwed. Right now the difference is made up with the ignorance of mast bond holders and pixie dust. Belief in the good old US of A. How long will that remain so?

Add to it almost SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded pension liabilities. Meaning after every future tax dollar is accounted for $6 trillion dollars needs to be new taxes or service cuts. And it grows with interest every day. Now imagine the interest rates ballooning to borrow that money,.

If the bond market ever collapses that will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Again, economists differ. Some think low interest rates will last forever. I have no clue how they can come to that conclusion though. I personally do not have a dime in bonds for that reason.

 

[KIRK]

I'm generally supportive of the measures taken by state governments to curb rising cases and preserving the ability of the medical system to handle treatments without getting overrun. But what if there is no vaccine? Or the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting it, it just better equips your immune system to fight off the disease? Or the vaccine is only x% effective (like influenza)? I would imagine there would be a point at which shutting everything down can't continue. When is that? Winter 2020? Summer 2021? 2022? Because there has to be a point at which we do accept that this virus is out there and people will get it. Hopefully there will be a point at which enough of the population has gotten it (or gotten a vaccine) that a return to economic normalcy will not result in overtaxing the healthcare system. In my opinion, our goal should be to manage the policy to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. It's acceptable to me now - with hopefully a fully effective vaccine in the pipeline - to strive toward keeping cases as low as possible in the near term. What's not acceptable is making that the long-term approach.

At some point, hopefully by early 2021, the viability of a vaccine will become clear. Our goal then should shift away from closing areas of commerce and education and accepting that this virus will be something people get and hopefully we as a species will have the immune capabilities to fight it off better. It's just not acceptable to me to keep schools and businesses and public areas closed for too much longer. I guess that makes me a bad person.

1. People are still going to contract COVID-19 when there's a vaccine. What you hope is that it works like any other flu vaccine, where it's like 50%+ effective and you combine that impact with herd immunity. But, people are still going to get sick, and people still are going to die.

2. When this started, the mantra was 'flatten the curve so our medical capacity isn't overwhelmed'. Not sure that bar hasn't been moved a few times.

 

[KIRK]

'We see no point in wearing a face mask,' Sweden's top virus expert says as he touts the country's improving COVID numbers

And before you say 'it's just Sweden' . . .

Dutch Officials’ Continued Reluctance To Embrace Masks To Prevent Spread Of Coronavirus

As I've always said, I wear a mask because my attitude is 'even if it doesn't work, what can it hurt'. That said, it's interesting to see this out of Europe.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

This should be fun

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...-rally-expecting-250k-stirring-virus-concerns

 

[Fordy]

I know it's TMZ, but ...

Georgia School Kids Pack Hallway Without Masks on First Day Back

You're gonna be gone a while ...

i’m not worried about the schools because i’ve looked at every other country that already did it

 

[Fordy]

'We see no point in wearing a face mask,' Sweden's top virus expert says as he touts the country's improving COVID numbers

And before you say 'it's just Sweden' . . .

Dutch Officials’ Continued Reluctance To Embrace Masks To Prevent Spread Of Coronavirus

As I've always said, I wear a mask because my attitude is 'even if it doesn't work, what can it hurt'. That said, it's interesting to see this out of Europe.

i posted this previously for the “sweden is a disaster” crowd, but i’m not sure anyone ever changes their initial emotional reactions to these things. the sweden outcome should be giving everyone serious pause about these mass shutdowns but it just goes in one ear out the other

 

[Empoleon8771]

Again, if economists can't agree how are we going to?

That said, it is intuitive that at some point it is unsustainable. Examples such as Greece and Venezuela, half of the countries in Africa, etc. have shown that.

Where that line is? That is the argument.

The low interest rates that is allowing this are just assumed to go on forever though. And that is impossible. Who holds the bag on those loans? You and me in bonds. At some point people are going to get that they are holding bonds that are worth less than they assumed.

It is simple really. You print double the number of dollars each is worth half. If you are getting 2% a year payed in dollars worth a fraction of what they were when you lent it then you are screwed. Right now the difference is made up with the ignorance of mast bond holders and pixie dust. Belief in the good old US of A. How long will that remain so?

Add to it almost SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded pension liabilities. Meaning after every future tax dollar is accounted for $6 trillion dollars needs to be new taxes or service cuts. And it grows with interest every day. Now imagine the interest rates ballooning to borrow that money,.

If the bond market ever collapses that will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Again, economists differ. Some think low interest rates will last forever. I have no clue how they can come to that conclusion though. I personally do not have a dime in bonds for that reason.

The point that I'm going towards is that we don't actually know what the consequences of increasing the national debt is, so I have trouble saying that we shouldn't increase the national debt because of the national debt.

In that article I mentioned, one of the negatives of an increasing national debt is that people will stop going for higher risk, but higher yield investments once US Treasury bonds get closer to those yields. But right now, US Treasury bonds have virtually no yield, I think they're only at about 1% maximum. The United States is very far off from those having a high enough yield to get people to invest in those instead of investing in the stock market or mutual funds. Sure, the thought process makes logical sense, but we're extremely far off from getting to that point. It's the same thing with the US needing to pay interest on bonds they're giving out now, it makes sense that it will become a problem but we're really far off from that point.

Basically, from what I can read from the market, I don't view the US as being close enough to the potential risks of a high national deficit for me to be very concerned about the national deficit. I wouldn't be concerned with expanding a stimulus bill by say $2-$5 trillion to keep businesses afloat and keep people safe, because the risks of overspending seem far enough down the road that you can correct for them and address them later. That doesn't mean that the deficit doesn't matter, but in times of a pandemic, I can easily justify adding more to the deficit.

 

[Pens1566]

i’m not worried about the schools because i’ve looked at every other country that already did it

You mean like Israel?

When Covid Subsided, Israel Reopened Its Schools. It Didn’t Go Well.

 

[Sideline]

This should be fun

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...-rally-expecting-250k-stirring-virus-concerns

Large public gatherings are a bad idea. This is true for all groups gathering for any reason be it righteous or ridiculous.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The point that I'm going towards is that we don't actually know what the consequences of increasing the national debt is, so I have trouble saying that we shouldn't increase the national debt because of the national debt.

In that article I mentioned, one of the negatives of an increasing national debt is that people will stop going for higher risk, but higher yield investments once US Treasury bonds get closer to those yields. But right now, US Treasury bonds have virtually no yield, I think they're only at about 1% maximum. The United States is very far off from those having a high enough yield to get people to invest in those instead of investing in the stock market or mutual funds. Sure, the thought process makes logical sense, but we're extremely far off from getting to that point. It's the same thing with the US needing to pay interest on bonds they're giving out now, it makes sense that it will become a problem but we're really far off from that point.

Basically, from what I can read from the market, I don't view the US as being close enough to the potential risks of a high national deficit for me to be very concerned about the national deficit. I wouldn't be concerned with expanding a stimulus bill by say $2-$5 trillion to keep businesses afloat and keep people safe, because the risks of overspending seem far enough down the road that you can correct for them and address them later. That doesn't mean that the deficit doesn't matter, but in times of a pandemic, I can easily justify adding more to the deficit.

I think that you and I agree more than disagree.

 

[Gurglesons]

I think the biggest issue for the restaurant industry is these:

# 1. You open, your staff catches the virus, you have to close. Unplanned closures bury this industry.

# 2. Reluctance to go out. People aren't going out like they used to. San Diego traffic is non-existent right now.

# 3. Health requirements. Closing a percentage of your business kills any profit you are making.

I guarantee 60% of independently ran restaurants in your area will close within the next year due to COVID. There really is no solution, but government assistance but they are too busy focusing on lobbyists.

TBH. The restaurant industry was already shifting towards automation and counter service. We will see more of that with the fear of being in person and the relatively easiness of take out. Government subsides likely won't prevent that either way. Kind of how we are seeing the death of retail play out in front of us.

 

[KIRK]

I think the biggest issue for the restaurant industry is these:

# 1. You open, your staff catches the virus, you have to close. Unplanned closures bury this industry.

# 2. Reluctance to go out. People aren't going out like they used to. San Diego traffic is non-existent right now.

# 3. Health requirements. Closing a percentage of your business kills any profit you are making.

I guarantee 60% of independently ran restaurants in your area will close within the next year due to COVID. There really is no solution, but government assistance but they are too busy focusing on lobbyists.

TBH. The restaurant industry was already shifting towards automation and counter service. We will see more of that with the fear of being in person and the relatively easiness of take out.

Similar thing with brick and mortar retail. Almost all of these retailers declaring bankruptcy were burdened by debt, have next to no margin for error, and already were on slow marches to their ends due to this and the shift to online buying. COVID just accelerated the trend.