Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2

[SuperDeluxe]

There is no significant risk for people under 50 with no pre existing conditions. I understood shelter in place a month and a half ago when we were trying to learn more about the virus and make sure the hospitals don’t get over run. It no longer makes sense. The data is in. The hospitals have room and young healthy people are not dying. Still take precautions, masks, social distance, etc. but open things up.

Here in Quebec, 0.8% of the deaths so far are in the 30-49 group. No idea if any of those had pre-existing conditions, though.

The most mind-boggling piece of data here in Quebec is that women account for 60% of the confirmed cases. In terms of deaths, that number goes down a bit to 54%.

[threrf23]

There is no significant risk for people under 50 with no pre existing conditions.

There is though. For one, lots of sad stories in the news; not everyone with a preexisting condition has a diagnosed preexisting condition, and this virus is contagious enough to easily infect almost everyone. Even a small fatality rate adds up to big numbers. More importantly, a great many who have died would have never been infected in the first place if the virus had not been spread by someone young and healthy in the first place.

(I don't necessarily disagree with your general sentiment though. In lieu of a vaccine or treatment or a permanent end to the free world, the virus is not going away. So we have to move on at some point. It's one thing to shut down temporarily while you get a better understanding of the situation, get it under control, and figure out a reasonable way forward. But the goal should be to figure out a reasonable way forward.)

[floyd]

The economy is already trashed. Opening up where the virus is spreading rapidly will only be counter productive if it forces a second shutdown.

[jmr07019]

There is no significant risk for people under 50 with no pre existing conditions.

There is though. For one, lots of sad stories in the news; not everyone with a preexisting condition has a diagnosed preexisting condition, and this virus is contagious enough to easily infect almost everyone. Even a small fatality rate adds up to big numbers. More importantly, a great many who have died would have never been infected in the first place if the virus had not been spread by someone young and healthy in the first place.

(I don't necessarily disagree with your general sentiment though. In lieu of a vaccine or treatment or a permanent end to the free world, the virus is not going away. So we have to move on at some point. It's one thing to shut down temporarily while you get a better understanding of the situation, get it under control, and figure out a reasonable way forward. But the goal should be to figure out a reasonable way forward.)

It's important to realize that just because young people can go back to living a more normal doesn't mean you should go see your grandparents. We can open some businesses for some demographics without opening the entire economy and pretending like this never happened.

MA has 34,115 confirmed cases of Corona in people under 50. We know the actual number of people with Corona is orders of magnitude higher. Let's go conservative and say actual cases is only 5 times higher than reported. 61 people under 50 have died while having Corona in MA.

61 / 170,575 = .04% fatality rate

It really isn't bad for young healthy people despite what the news says. I look at the raw data from MA dept. public health.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-may-8-2020/download

Here's some links regarding actual case count vs. confirmed case count

Los Angeles coronavirus infections 40 times greater than known cases, antibody tests suggest

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-serology/los-angeles-coronavirus-infections-40-times-greater-than-known-cases-antibody-tests-suggest-idUSKBN22234S

Researchers agree that the true number of COVID-19 cases is much larger than official global tally — particularly in nations with severe outbreaks like China, Italy, and the US.

In these countries, limited testing capacity and the difficulty of finding and identifying asymptomatic cases has likely caused many patients to go undiagnosed. COVID-19 tests can also produce false negatives if they aren't administered properly or if a patient isn't shedding enough virus to be detected in a sample.

Some public-health experts have suggested that the actual case totals in China, Italy, and the US could be at least 10 times higher than the current figures.

https://www.businessinsider.com/real-number-of-coronavirus-cases-underreported-us-china-italy-2020-4

[jmr07019]

There is no significant risk for people under 50 with no pre existing conditions. I understood shelter in place a month and a half ago when we were trying to learn more about the virus and make sure the hospitals don’t get over run. It no longer makes sense. The data is in. The hospitals have room and young healthy people are not dying. Still take precautions, masks, social distance, etc. but open things up.

Here in Quebec, 0.8% of the deaths so far are in the 30-49 group. No idea if any of those had pre-existing conditions, though.

The most mind-boggling piece of data here in Quebec is that women account for 60% of the confirmed cases. In terms of deaths, that number goes down a bit to 54%.

Interesting. I think women are a little healthier than men in general. I know they have a longer life expectancy than men in the US. I also think they're more likely to wash their hands after using the bathroom. Small **** like that adds up in a time like this.

[jmr07019]

Some good news - May 6th saw the lowest death total in MA since April 7th. Total number of hospitalized patients has slowly but surely been going down for about 2 weeks.

[claycarver]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/take-shutdown-skeptics-seriously/611419/

If we knew that a broadly effective COVID-19 treatment was imminent, or that a working vaccine was months away, minimizing infections through social distancing until that moment would be the right course. At the other extreme, if we will never have an effective treatment or vaccine and most everyone will get infected eventually, then the costs of social distancing are untenable. We don’t know where we sit on that spectrum. So we cannot know what the best way forward is even if we place the highest possible value on preserving life and protecting the vulnerable.

That uncertainty means, at the very least, that Americans should carefully consider the potential costs of prolonged shutdowns lest they cause more deaths or harm to the vulnerable than they spare.

[threrf23]

61 / 170,575 = .04% fatality rate

And I think I came across another report anecdotally indicating a .05% fatality rate for people under the age of 65. These numbers are inconclusive and skewed if those who are vulnerable are taking extra precautions, if there are hospital patients yet to die, unconfirmed deaths, etc.

LA study concluded that, in early April, there had been 28-55 times as many confirmed cases. Testing is likely wider-spread in Mass at the moment, and the "lockdown" has been in place for longer. In NYC, antibody testing suggests that there are 9-10 times as many cases as confirmed. Mortality rate between ages 18-64, by the official numbers as of maybe a week ago, was 3.6%. If the actual rate is nine times lower, your estimate of .04% checks out (edit - I'm stupid - it would be 0.4%...albeit the situation in NY isn't all too comparable to elsewhere and this is assuming an even distribution of undiagnosed cases).

There are about 215 million Americans between the ages of 15-64. If ~70% are infected (herd immunity), then a .04% mortality rate results in 85k deaths in this age range. 0.1% would give us more than 200k deaths. If no immediate cure or vaccine, we probably see between 30k and 250k deaths in this group, albeit with an estimate towards the lower end of that scale.

I get that or otherwise agree that healthy younger folk should not worry about dying from this virus, but a number of them have died and will continue to die. Then, not everybody who is older or otherwise vulnerable is able to just quit their jobs, or what not (and the federal government, if not also state governments, have not taken many actions to remedy this, many don't qualify for unemployment if they quit, some can't get health insurance if they quit). Others who can afford to stay home will still go grocery shopping, I presume, and many won't be literally willing to quarantine themselves for months on end. So they are still likely to cross paths with younger folk.

All I'm saying. In a sense, it's semantics. I know you aren't saying we should open back up with caution to the wind, and I'm not sure I disagree with you at all.

[Slax]

Read on Twitter

I'm reluctant to risk turning this into political debate. But I will say that, of all the things we could be spending other people's money on right now, people making an annual income of $100k do not need an extra $2k per month. Likewise, even those making a $40k salary don't need an extra $2k per month in addition to the $4k-5k some are currently making off of unemployment.

IMO, money should be spent on: free and widespread testing and tracking and/or treating so economies can reopen, making sure those who truly need support, i.e. families on the verge of poverty, don't fall over the edge, and are receive to receive stimulus money regardless of their status as a tax filer, and funding small businesses so that fewer people lose their jobs, and corporate America can't use the pandemic as a means to establish quasi monopolies.

I get where you're coming from. What I will say is that the tradeoffs between spending money on different things are political rather than economic right now. Aggregate demand is down, which means both inflation rates and interest rates are extremely low, and probably won't go up unless we spend and/or cut taxes by at least several trillions this year. I'm not sure about the specifics of this bill (eg $2k a month seems unsupportably large), but as a general outline, the government borrowing money at 0% interest from the federal reserve to hand out tons of money to Americans is a valid helicopter money approach if what you're trying to do is goose aggregate demand at a zero interest bound and address short term poverty from job loss at the same time, and you could do that at the same time as you spend trillions on other more targeted spending priorities. That said, insofar as there is a practical political choice between passing legislation that hands out cash to lower and middle class families and passing legislation that provides small scale targeted anti-poverty relief and support for employers plus massive funding for measures to combat the dangers of the virus to help make our country safe and functional, I would prefer the latter as well. In practice we probably won't get massive spending on either.

[exculpatory]

2 things

1) Potential efficacy with mild-moderate COVID-19 (not a placebo controlled study however).

https://dgalerts.docguide.com/randomised-trial-shows-early-triple-antiviral-therapy-superior-lopinavirritonavir-mild-moderate?nl_ref=newsletter&pk_campaign=newsletter&nl_eventid=41118&nl_campaignid=3718&pw_siteID=25&ncov_site=covid-19&MemberID=103021761

2) On Fri 5/8, Trump was informed that Pence’s spokesperson tested - on Thurs 5/7 & then + on Fri 5/8. Anyone with an IQ greater than a pebble would use this as an example of how critically important, valuable & mandatory it is to massively ramp up accurate/very frequent testing & contact tracing nation wide (as in South Korea & Germany - which would mitigate flare-ups as the economy is gradually reopened). Donald’s interpretation - “excessive testing causes ‘inexplicable problems’ & may not be necessary”. If I were one of the physicians advising this numb nuts, I would have vomited, quit & walked out of the room.

SMMFH. Lord help us!

[Captain_Caveman]

Read on Twitter

I'm reluctant to risk turning this into political debate. But I will say that, of all the things we could be spending other people's money on right now, people making an annual income of $100k do not need an extra $2k per month. Likewise, even those making a $40k salary don't need an extra $2k per month in addition to the $4k-5k some are currently making off of unemployment.

IMO, money should be spent on: free and widespread testing and tracking and/or treating so economies can reopen, making sure those who truly need support, i.e. families on the verge of poverty, don't fall over the edge, and are receive to receive stimulus money regardless of their status as a tax filer, and funding small businesses so that fewer people lose their jobs, and corporate America can't use the pandemic as a means to establish quasi monopolies.

One of the richest countries on Earth should be able to do both. Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment, a lot of the most hurting not even eligible for unemployment (small business owners, etc). I think you are also missing the point of stimulus. The idea is to keep people spending in an economy that is based upon people doing so.

Not to get political, but why does this idea of spending other people's money only arise when it is providing basic standard of life stuff for the less affluent, and not giving up far greater sums to corporations and the ultra-wealthy? Bottom line is that we are already at Great Depression levels of unemployment, with a global economy on the brink of collapse.

I could write a book about it, or just say it point blank that from an economic perspective, it will be much, much, much more expensive to each and every taxpayer in the long-run if we don't engage in widespread stimulus for all right now.

[threrf23]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment

Maybe they're not making close to $40k this year (without unemployment), but they've been making $40k. Or what not.

a lot of the most hurting not even eligible for unemployment (small business owners, etc).

This is part of my point. Take care of those who need it before you give $2k/month for six months to people who have been making six figures, people who are comfortably retired and not economically affected by the pandemic, etc. Make sure the vulnerable can afford to risk getting fired, and be eligible for unemployment. Give health benefits to the unemployed where needed. Put more money towards testing and tracking to save lives and speed up the process of responsibly reopening the economy.

Not to get political, but why does this idea of spending other people's money only arise when it is providing basic standard of life stuff for the less affluent, and not giving up far greater sums to corporations and the ultra-wealthy?

To me, the idea of "other people's money" is more prevalent now than ever before simply because we have never had nearly so much debt. It applies to wherever money is spent.

[Slax]

Read on Twitter

I'm reluctant to risk turning this into political debate. But I will say that, of all the things we could be spending other people's money on right now, people making an annual income of $100k do not need an extra $2k per month. Likewise, even those making a $40k salary don't need an extra $2k per month in addition to the $4k-5k some are currently making off of unemployment.

IMO, money should be spent on: free and widespread testing and tracking and/or treating so economies can reopen, making sure those who truly need support, i.e. families on the verge of poverty, don't fall over the edge, and are receive to receive stimulus money regardless of their status as a tax filer, and funding small businesses so that fewer people lose their jobs, and corporate America can't use the pandemic as a means to establish quasi monopolies.

One of the richest countries on Earth should be able to do both. Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment, a lot of the most hurting not even eligible for unemployment (small business owners, etc). I think you are also missing the point of stimulus. The idea is to keep people spending in an economy that is based upon people doing so.

Not to get political, but why does this idea of spending other people's money only arise when it is providing basic standard of life stuff for the less affluent, and not giving up far greater sums to corporations and the ultra-wealthy? Bottom line is that we are already at Great Depression levels of unemployment, with a global economy on the brink of collapse.

I could write a book about it, or just say it point blank that from an economic perspective, it will be much, much, much more expensive to each and every taxpayer in the long-run if we don't engage in widespread stimulus for all right now.

I would agree with you 100% if this program were just... smaller, because even though I think in general we are massively underestimating the amount of stuff the federal government can finance, there is some limit, and I think this bill probably hits it. If it were up to me, we would have huge automatic economic stabilizers that pay out lots of money to individuals, state and local governments, and businesses for as long as unemployment is high and interest rates and inflation are low, and I am confident in this current environment of low aggregate demand (reflected in low interest rates, low inflation, high unemployment, and economic contraction) that we could afford both that and other spending priorities like public health very easily through deficit financing. My concern with this proposal would be its size. If I understand correctly, this specific proposal is giving $2k to most individual Americans ($2k per individual earning less than $120k, $4k per married couple, $2k extra per child up to three, all American residents including non-citizens are eligible), and that's somewhere on the order of $7T by my back-of-the-envelope math. But $7T in annualized deficit-financed government spending lasting for the length of a pandemic is probably well above the point where we really do get into actual short term economic tradeoffs - ie, interest rate or inflation will rise and we will see an economic backslide unless we have massive spending cuts or tax increases, which could harm the economy in other ways.

That said, I'm sure this proposal is more of a statement bill that's intended to show some sort of ambitious vision about how you can help people out. I don't think anyone actually expects this to pass. From that perspective, I agree with you, I support the general idea of "let's give everyone gobs of money during the pandemic".

[theman]

One of the richest countries on Earth should be able to do both. Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment, a lot of the most hurting not even eligible for unemployment (small business owners, etc). I think you are also missing the point of stimulus. The idea is to keep people spending in an economy that is based upon people doing so.

But with everything shut down what are people going to spend the money on? The people who are afraid to go to Wal-Mart or get take out are still going to be afraid even with an extra two grand in their pocket.

[claycarver]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

[theman]

What worries me the most is how much freedom people are willing to relinquish to their overseers.

I'm actually more worried about points of view like the above which, taken to the extreme, end up with this:



In case you haven't noticed, in addition to making tough decisions, politicians find themselves needing to protect some people from their own ignorance, and they get reactions like this:

Many years ago I worked with a smart gentleman who said government should not be passing laws designed to protect people from themselves. He has a point. When Bush 43 passed the Patriot Act weren't all the leftist pulling out the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

But more importantly. Is that a marijuana leaf on that guys sweater?

[theman]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

So some one making $40,000 a year would be better off being unemployed.

"Supercharged unemployment benefits was something Senate Democrats have been fighting for since this process began... It is not a drafting error.” - Senator Ron Wyden

[Captain_Caveman]

To me, the idea of "other people's money" is more prevalent now than ever before simply because we have never had nearly so much debt. It applies to wherever money is spent.

I guess it is just funny that we only hear that wrt to less affluent people, and not for any of the things that have actually run up the national debt (needless wars over a WMD threat we invented, or tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy). Guess that's not a conversation for this board, though.

[Captain_Caveman]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

So some one making $40,000 a year would be better off being unemployed.

"Supercharged unemployment benefits was something Senate Democrats have been fighting for since this process began... It is not a drafting error.” - Senator Ron Wyden

Compared to risking their lives for non-essential jobs with no benefits or health insurance? Probably.

But listen, doesn't matter what anyone's political ideology is on this. Everyone understands that government and business serve as checks and balances to each other, and any credible economist understands that you save during boom times and spend during recessions.

Also, there's this small matter of their being the highest rates of unemployment since the Great Depression. Stop acting like these $40k wage earners actually have jobs to actually go to lol.

[theman]

To me, the idea of "other people's money" is more prevalent now than ever before simply because we have never had nearly so much debt. It applies to wherever money is spent.

I guess it is just funny that we only hear that wrt to less affluent people, and not for any of the things that have actually run up the national debt (needless wars over a WMD threat we invented, or tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy). Guess that's not a conversation for this board, though.

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending causes debt. Cut spending and shrink the debt. I have been abdicating for a long time for a 10% across the board cut in all spending.