Pandemic Shutdowns Will Help the Economy, Too (bloombergquint.com) 268
nut (Slashdot reader #19,435) writes:
A study by economists Sergio Correia, Stephan Luck and Emil Verner suggests that the best way to save your economy is to save your people. The authors looked at the economic impact of the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918 on different U.S. cities. They concluded that the earlier, more forcefully and longer cities responded, the better their economic recovery.
A faculty affiliate from the Harvard Department of Economics writes in Bloomberg: [C]ities that implemented aggressive social distancing and shutdowns to contain the virus came out looking better. Implementing these policies eight days earlier, or maintaining them for 46 days longer were associated with 4% and 6% higher post-pandemic manufacturing employment, respectively. The gains for output were similar. Likewise, faster and longer-lasting distancing measures were associated with higher post-pandemic banking activity...
[T]his is at least consistent with the arguments my Bloomberg Opinion colleagues Noah Smith and Michael Strain have already put forward for why easing distancing measures too early would be potentially devastating for the economy... [I]t looks like the things we should be doing to save lives are also what we should be doing to save the economy.
A faculty affiliate from the Harvard Department of Economics writes in Bloomberg: [C]ities that implemented aggressive social distancing and shutdowns to contain the virus came out looking better. Implementing these policies eight days earlier, or maintaining them for 46 days longer were associated with 4% and 6% higher post-pandemic manufacturing employment, respectively. The gains for output were similar. Likewise, faster and longer-lasting distancing measures were associated with higher post-pandemic banking activity...
[T]his is at least consistent with the arguments my Bloomberg Opinion colleagues Noah Smith and Michael Strain have already put forward for why easing distancing measures too early would be potentially devastating for the economy... [I]t looks like the things we should be doing to save lives are also what we should be doing to save the economy.
Why not more masks? (Score:5, Informative)
Wearing face masks in public has been shown to help decrease the chance of contagious asymptomatic individuals of spreading the virus.
And wearing a cheap surgical mask or a scarf is effectively an action with zero real cost. The only reason people don't do it is the social stigma because wearing a mask makes you look sick.
It seems that all it would take is a round of strong messaging from political leaders to reverse the stigma and get everyone wearing masks, and that could help reduce the spread significantly.
Wrong Stigma (Score:2, Troll)
The only reason people don't do it is the social stigma because wearing a mask makes you look sick.
I would argue that the social stigma of not wearing masks, actually more comes from Hollywood portraying robbers in masks - from westerns to modern day gangster movies.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like the reason CDC has recommended against wearing masks is because there aren't enough for everybody, and we need to save them for the nurses and doctors. Furthermore there isn't a lot of clear published research that tells us how coronavirus spreads, and the CDC tries to follow evidence based medicine.
Recently though, the CDC has started recommending facemasks for everyone [cdc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on that [maskssavelives.org].
It seems like the reason CDC has recommended against wearing masks is because there aren't enough for everybody, and we need to save them for the nurses and doctors. Furthermore there isn't a lot of clear published research that tells us how coronavirus spreads, and the CDC tries to follow evidence based medicine.
There's two different kinds of masks.
The masks used by the general public are just face coverings to stop them from spreading the illness if they're sick (and don't know it). You can make these with a towel or old shirt if you want. I think the evidence that this reduces spread has been around for a while.
The masks needed by heathcare providers stop them from catching the illness from sick people. These are the ones in short supply.
Recently though, the CDC has started recommending facemasks for everyone [cdc.gov].
True, but to break the social stigma you need photos of high level officials [yna.co.kr]
Re: (Score:2)
True, but to break the social stigma you need photos of high level officials wearing masks [yna.co.kr]. You need strong leadership to create that cultural shift.
Don't know where you live, but around here in America people are already starting to wear masks.
Re:Why not more masks? (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but to break the social stigma you need photos of high level officials wearing masks [yna.co.kr].
You need strong leadership to create that cultural shift.
Don't know where you live, but around here in America people are already starting to wear masks.
I'm in Canada, some people have been wearing masks for the past month, but it's not ubiquitous.
The end goal isn't half the people in the grocery store wearing masks, it's the one person in the grocery store who isn't wearing a mask getting dirty looks until they put one on or leave.
Re: (Score:3)
I told people to use masks since the very beginning and a lot of people replied with "it's only effective when worn by healthcare workers", "normal masks don't work, you need N95 masks" and "the chances of getting sick is very low". They were listening to the CDC recommendations. Meanwhile, other countries were using masks to great effect. And we knew masks were effective since a century ago [cnn.com].
If the CDC is too myopic to see the truth, then they shouldn't give any recommendations. Coming out against it, then
Re:Why not more masks? [Fish head needs a mask?] (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up? You touched a nerve there.
Repeating for emphasis (and to correct the quantaman's typo): if everyone wore a mask, then the people who are sick and don't know it would not spread SARS-CoV-2 so much. Testing everyone would be nice, but simple [non-surgical] masks are MUCH cheaper and faster.
Then we get to the question of leading by example. But Trump can't be bothered? Yeah, I admit that the political leaders speaking through masks look less impressive, but at least they are setting proper examples. Suggestion: If a politician takes off his mask to speechify, then he should be inside a plastic box or shield.
Actually, I think it's just the narcissism again. Trump really believes he's so beautiful that it would be a greater tragedy to wear a mask. Or maybe it's something with the solipsism or sociopathy? On those grounds why would Trump care about protecting anyone else if he had Covid-19?
Re:I don't think it's narcissism (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is very, very good at reading a crowd and a situation.
I think you give him too much credit. His crowds are almost always nearly ready-made for him, and he already knows what they like. He only speaks in front of friendly crowds: Fox, CPAC, rallies. When he's out of his element - no pun intended - like at the Washington Nationals game where they booed him, he doesn't handle it well at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason people don't do it is the social stigma because wearing a mask makes you look sick.
Masks make you look badass!
https://vignette.wikia.nocooki... [nocookie.net]
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-co... [wccftech.com]
Re:Why not more masks? (Score:5, Insightful)
And wearing a cheap surgical mask or a scarf is effectively an action with zero real cost. The only reason people don't do it is the social stigma because wearing a mask makes you look sick.
That and the fact you'd have to go begging to China and ask them to make enough for you.
That's the N95 respirator (or KN95 if the FDA approved it) that can prevent a healthy person from catching the virus. Those are the ones needed by health care workers.
But a simple scarf can help reduce the degree to which a contagious person spreads the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
... a simple scarf can help reduce the degree to which a contagious person spreads the virus.
Wonder if coffee filters would make good face masks? Bet those big, square, thick fiber Chemex filters might.
Doesn't factor in modern society (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the government plans to pay people to literally stay home for months on end -
Not only have they planned that, congress literally passed a bill to do exactly that.
Re: Doesn't factor in modern society (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How weird do you think those circumstances are going to need to be?
My guess it that most people won't get the check before their second months rent is due. And a lot of people won't get it at all. And that the more you live hand-to-mouth, the less help you'll get. That seems to be normal policy for this administration.
I don't like or trust the Democrats, but at least they try to pretend that they're doing the thing that will help the most people. It's often a sham, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
How weird do you think those circumstances are going to need to be? My guess it that most people won't get the check before their second months rent is due. And a lot of people won't get it at all.
They will start going out in three weeks, so before May rent. Some people probably won't get them by then.
If you really want to know what kind of problems will show up, and how many people will not get their check, you can go look at what happened when the government sent everyone money in a similar way under the Obama and Bush administrations. I expect this payout to be roughly the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop being a myopic fuck. A significant percentage of the population dont get refunds and will not be so easily getting this money. But your good, right? Thats all that fucking matters to you. In your world, if you are good, then almost everyone is, yes? Myopic fuck.
I don't know what I did to offend you sir, but I can only hope to offend you again in the future, given the entertaining nature of your response. Please accept my sincerest condolences for your bereavement.
Re: Doesn't factor in modern society (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that major banks - like Bank of America - are refusing to offer loans except to those who already borrow from them [yahoo.com],
To be fair, any company already should have had a line of credit available for emergencies. That's established corporate finance.
Also, this is different than the financial crisis in that it's not a liquidity crunch. We can thus hope to see banks opening their doors again in the next few months.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, any company already should have had a line of credit available for emergencies. That's established corporate finance.
Good luck getting that line of credit if you're a new company. Heck, most banks won't even give you a credit card for at least 1 year. It's why AMEX still rocks - they'll give (admittedly a small) credit line via cards to any new business. Either way - this is against the regulations released by the Government [treasury.gov] but who cares - banks will get theirs, Congress will keep getting money to play with, and small businesses will get bent over again.
We can thus hope to see banks opening their doors again in the next few months.
And lots of small businesses will be permanently shuttered by the
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? It takes a crisis like that for congress to finally get off its ass and do something sensible?
Well, at least we can say that when the shit hits the fan they act like decent human beings.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, spending bills are supposed to originate in the House, but the House passing it doesn't mean that the Senate will even consider it.
A lot of the government was designed under the principle that all worthy families were basically self-supporting WRT their needs. Given a biased reading of worthy, this was probably usually true up through the 1930's. (But it's also worth remembering that the folk of that period accepted a much higher background level of deaths.)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the one-time payment of $1000 that scales according to how much you made last year?
How can you be so woefully uninformed and still want to comment? At least do some basic research, all your points are wrong. It's not a payment of $1000, and for people who are impacted (lost their job, etc), there are additional weekly payments. Do a little research.
psychopaths need to be told (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You call it a "false choice". What do you think are the other choices that aren't being considered? Most that have been considered end up with worse outcomes.
Arrange that all employees keep their jobs. (Score:2)
It is VERY difficult if you have lost your job, and don't know when and where you will work again.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically agreeing, but in my longer comment I was wording this idea in terms of freezing the lower priority parts of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
That ties life even more tightly to the employer. Bad idea. And there are lots and lots of special cases that say why it will cause problems. Also there are lots of people who don't have jobs. Are you OK with saying "Let them die in the street"?
There are only a couple of alternatives, though. One is for the government to supply free housing, free basic food, and free health care at a level sufficiently above basic that those receiving it aren't weakened to the point where they are easy targets for cont
How to arrange less insecurity? (Score:2)
Is there are fully functional way to arrange less insecurity?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think we're already dependent on the state, I advise you to look up "water empires". And realize that electricity and gasoline (and propane) are also "water" in that sense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they didn't. We're forced to shut down by the Government, and as a manufacturer - that essentially stops us altogether. However, because of the crappy way that the CARES act was written, banks are able to not lend to people who "do not have a relationship with the bank". Meaning if you bank at Bank of America, but don't have an existing debt with them - they won't service you. And no other bank will as well (because you don't have an account with them). The Payroll Protection Plan won't work.
And
Harvard not what it used to be (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunbal not what he used to be. (Score:4, Interesting)
What pointless hand waving. At least try. At least say how you think the differences will change the conclusions of the paper. Not saying you did not read the paper, but someone who had not read the paper could have easily written what you wrote. Your vague assertions that "important variables are totally different" is basically just your dumb ass flexing like "look at me! I'm smarter than a Harvard grad and,in the five fucking seconds I thought about this, I have found all sorts of important considerations they (in my fantasy) did not think of! Aren't I a fucking genius?"
No bud, you are not. You've just wasted your own time and ours with this vague pile of crap you wrote, that makes no point other than "change makes things different! Dur hur..."
Fuck your anti intellectual attitude, and your smug, smarter-than-you bragging.
Re: (Score:2)
What pointless hand waving. At least try. At least say how you think the differences will change the conclusions of the paper. Not saying you did not read the paper, but someone who had not read the paper could have easily written what you wrote. Your vague assertions that "important variables are totally different" is basically just your dumb ass flexing like "look at me! I'm smarter than a Harvard grad and,in the five fucking seconds I thought about this, I have found all sorts of important considerations they (in my fantasy) did not think of! Aren't I a fucking genius?"
No bud, you are not. You've just wasted your own time and ours with this vague pile of crap you wrote, that makes no point other than "change makes things different! Dur hur..."
Fuck your anti intellectual attitude, and your smug, smarter-than-you bragging.
No, the way it works is that the researchers and those who believes that their findings is applicable to the current covid situation have the burden of proof. OP puts the finger on the relevant point, even if the proponents can show a correlation between non-pharmaceutical interventions and increased economic output over time (for the record I believe they can do this), the mechanism that accomplishes this would have be able to work the same way today. What mechanism does the paper suggest? (end of page 4):
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation may not be causation, but it's a damn sight better than nothing. And better than a wild guess.
There are clearly major differences, of course. There was no promise of a vaccine against the Spanish flu, whereas there are lots of promises of a vaccine against COVID-19. But promises aren't reality, and serious projections say that *IF* a good vaccine is not available for testing, then the time to availability is well over a year. 18 months is a typical projection. So there are three or four vac
Re: (Score:3)
Some things have changed and other things have stayed the same. And not all of the things which have changed are for the better when it comes to management of contagion. Notably, people travel farther and faster than they did even a hundred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You say "Chinese culture", but the correct identification is "Bureaucratic culture", though admittedly authoritarianism made the effect stronger. And it's important to note that if you hadn't said "accelerated" it would have been an outright lie. The disease had spread to multiple continents before it was even identified. It probably cost us a month, and our own government wasted a lot more than that before it even started to react. (OK, a month is my guess. Another guess I've seen is 5 days, but I thi
Broken Windows Fallacy (Score:4, Informative)
It's as if the Harvard Department of Economics has never heard of the Broken Windows Fallacy [wikipedia.org].
It's best to think of it as 'hibernation'. (Score:2)
Taking the 'speedy' approach would be like trying to work through a class-4 hurricane. Sure - you'd be 'productive', right until everyone exposed was thrown to the winds.
Instead, we're hunkering down - there's still going to be damage, but as can be seen from most wealthy nations other than the USA, the precautions work - minimizing spread, and rationally optimizing the availability of hospital services to get through the progression of the disease is MORE than worth any costs - since the alternative is mu
KIll US broken healthcare tied to jobs! (Score:3)
KIll US broken healthcare tied to jobs!
Re: (Score:2)
KIll US broken healthcare tied to jobs!
What?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Letting up won’t help much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And just imagine the ka-ching in his wallet when they do...
I saw a tweet or something today where someone called Bill Gates one of the few decent rich people and Jeff Bezos a prick... well, they were half right.
Re: (Score:2)
And just imagine the ka-ching in his wallet when they do...
Bill Gates' foundations are working to eradicate illnesses around the globe. This falls right in line with his overall philanthropic efforts. His approach is literally wasting billions of dollars, because they're only going to pick one winner. Whatever you can accuse Gates of, it takes a special cynicism to believe he's trying to profit from this pandemic.
Besides, the chance of a single company being able to monopolize a successful vaccine is essentially zero. Literally every uninfected person on earth w
Re:Letting up won’t help much (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Easing the lockdown WILL trigger the wave. The problem is, the lockdown is flattening the curve, meaning that herd immunity will be pushed further out, meaning the lockdown does not have to be in place for the two months the virus would have taken to race across the populace, but two YEARS.
Do tell me who is going to pay for billions of people staing at home for a year or two.
Being immune for half a year or up to a few years is in itself an enourmous victory. Because even if we do lose immunity eventually, we will lose it at individual rates. Should it come back afterward, the virus will not meet a populace completely open to it. The spread factor will be way below what it is currently, because half the people you "infect" will still be immune. Once their immunity runs out, other's will already have gone through the disease and have reestablished immunity.
Also correct me if I'm wrong but while a new strain of influenza, for example, can pass by the immunity your body acquired to the last strain, isn't the existing immunity like a stepping stone giving your body an edge in developing antibodies against the current strain?
tl;dr: Unless a miracle happens, our economies will not survive a lockdown that holds long enough for the whole pandemic to pass. The wave WILL crash! The question remains, how much damage do we allow the economies to take before the inevitable?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Letting up won’t help much (Score:3)
The government will pay. Currently, the cost for the government to borrow is negative, and keeping people alive and fed and housed is going to be less costly in the long run.
But pretend the government goes bankrupt (in the case of the USA, I honestly donâ(TM)t know what that means), a mass debt-forgiveness would probably work out just fine. Some companies will need to be compensated, but work will still need to get done, crops will need to be grown, products shipped.
Economies are all convenient fictio
Silicon Valley is doing great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are Red States Fvcked? (Score:2)
[C]ities that implemented aggressive social distancing and shutdowns to contain the virus came out looking better. Implementing these policies eight days earlier, or maintaining them for 46 days longer were associated with 4% and 6% higher post-pandemic manufacturing employment, respectively.
Does that mean that the Red states in the U.S. are fvcked?
Peter Hegseth "This is one of those cases where the more I learn about coronavirus, the less concerned I am. There's a lot of hyperbole."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean that the Red states in the U.S. are fvcked?
Nah, it's one of those things that isn't scary until it comes to your town and the hospitals get overloaded. Then your governor institutes an emergency quarantine. Even Louisiana has a stay-at-home order now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it means Red States are fucked. It also means the US is fucked in general because the country as a whole has behaved like the red states. Everybody else in the developed world is going to recover from this pandemic faster than us and suffer less damage from it to begin with. We may well lose our status as a leading superpower as a result. Will it be like the fading away of the British Empire, or like the Soviet Union's collapse made worse by the oligarchs looting its remains, or merely a multi-decade s
Different age distribution of victims (Score:5, Interesting)
It is known that preserving the human capital is the most important factor for recovery. Having said that, the age distribution of the victims of these two pandemics is different. Wuflu mostly removes people of post-retirement age who do not contribute much to the economy, while the Spanish flu killed younger people [wikipedia.org] in their prime years as contributors to the economy.
Re:Different age distribution of victims (Score:5, Interesting)
It is known that preserving the human capital is the most important factor for recovery. Having said that, the age distribution of the victims of these two pandemics is different. COVID-19 mostly removes people of post-retirement age who do not contribute much to the economy, while the Spanish flu killed younger people [wikipedia.org] in their prime years as contributors to the economy.
Keep in mind that this becomes much less true if the healthcare system is overwhelmed. 40% of the people who need hospitalization for COVID-19 are under 50. With good care very close to all of these younger people will survive (though some will suffer permanent lung damage), leaving nealy all of the fatalities from the other 60%. If, however, medical treatment isn't available, nearly all of those who need hospitalization will die, young and old alike.
Re: (Score:3)
Like COVID-19? Drop the 19, I assure you people will know what you're talking about. Covid's just as easy to type as wuflu, is the ACTUAL NAME of the virus, and isn't used as a dogwhistle to further a political agenda.
Complexity at work (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems people are delving into how its like/unlike the Spanish flu in behaviour. Just do best practice as per the medical experts to beat this thing because we're [mostly] not medical experts here.
If they say 'isolate for 6 weeks' then society has to do that.
Needless to say this is showing up the inflexibility and inefficiencies of the free market economy. Trying to rebuild that house of cards will not be possible there will be revolutions before that happens because in Europe at least people are seeing the political bulls**t unfold. The fewer people killed the better for the economic output. Anyone who has had to deal with co-workers who have lost partners or parents due to sudden accidents knows what that does to productivity now multiply that by hundreds of thousands random walk through industries. If its bad enough the virus will kill enough specialists or leaders in industries to affect the output/progress perhaps not but dont want to go near the domain of possibilities there.
This seems like a bizarre comparison. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 1918 pandemic was abnormal for how deadly it was to healthy young adults. COVID-19 is unusually deadly to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. Obviously, if you have a disease that hits your workforce unusually hard, that's going to affect your economy differently than one that hits the elderly and sick.
A much more apt comparison would be with the 1956-1958 pandemic. 110k US deaths - which adjusted for population growth comes out to 206k today. The worst season of it had ~70k, equating to about 130k today. These numbers compare to the US's official forecast for COVID-19, 100-250k. The elderly/sick bias with the 1956-1958 pandemic was pretty similar to that of COVID-19, and unlike that of the 1958-1958 pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
** Unlike that of the 1918 pandemic
Re: (Score:2)
if you have a disease that hits your workforce unusually hard, that's going to affect your economy differently than one that hits the elderly and sick.
The elderly and sick are a larger part of the workforce than you realize. So many either can't afford to retire or don't want to.
Suicide from unemployment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suicide from unemployment? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think 10,000 suicides is going to outweigh the end numbers by even a little? Current projections are 100K-200K dead because of our delayed measures. New York alone already has more than 1/3 of your suicide numbers, and they're way ahead on infections than most of the rest of the country. Nationwide, we're over 8,000 dead. And most states are just getting started.
Now tell me again, how could the shutdown result in more dead from suicide than the coronavirus?
Re: (Score:2)
Approximately 1 male per 4200 laid off [nih.gov] due to being unemployed. We hit the projected 32% unemployment, that's about 33 million people unemployed men - which would mean another 7,800 suicides alone. Women are about 1 per 7100 laid off, meaning the other 27 million unemployed women would result in 3,800 suicides. So doing the shutdown nationally could easily result in more dead from suicide than from the coronavirus. And we're not talking even about those suffering from poor healthcare, or homelessness, or other side-effects of being unemployed.
We also don't know how the lock down affects affects suicide rates.
A lot of the depression associated with unemployment and loneliness comes from the fact that people feel aimless and are left out of social activities.
But with the lock down people doing nothing at home are doing exactly what they're supposed to do, and it doesn't matter if you're alone since there's no one is going to fun parties.
More importantly, it gives people a sort of common purpose. For instance, the World Wars caused years of hardshi
Re: (Score:2)
What will help the economy is a high fatality rate in old and infirm demographic - this will make post-COVID population more optimized for productivity.
That's not quite right, it just means that for a short amount of time the economy doesn't devote resources to that demographic at the same rate. Even if you assume something like COVID-19 kills only and all people who would die from illnesses or conditions related to old age over the next four years such that for the next four years there is no need to devote care or other resources to these people that otherwise would be needed. After four years you're right back to where you were previously and the econom
Re:Zero sum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting prediction, and certainly not wrong. Here (Swtizerland) our total mortality rate is equivalent to a typical outbreak of the flu. Mind: it would be much worse without the lockdown and social distancing - those are having a substantial effect. But *with* those measures, mortality is staying withing bounds.
Lots of businesses are suffering, of course. However, other businesses are booming: delivery services, and anything online, to name the obvious ones. To some extent, these chances will be perm
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Social security is only in trouble because the GOP keeps 'borrowing' from it (more or less at gunpoint) to play Santa Clause for their wealthy constituents.
Quit using it to fund tax cuts for people who have enough money for their grand children (who may not be born yet) to retire now and it'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making assumptions about the course of the disease which, while true of some diseases, aren't true of others.
E.g., for many corona viruses becoming immune by catching the disease and getting over it doesn't keep you from catching it again in a few months. This is one reason to be skeptical about the permanence of any vaccine.
And of course, the initial assumption was incorrect, though there does seem to be a link between cario-health and the severity of the case. (N.B.: A link is not directly caus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But it isn't clear if the lessons from 1918 apply in 1920.
In 1918, the influenza strain killed many young and otherwise healthy people early in their productive life.
C19 kills mostly the elderly and people with pre-existing health problems. It may be cold-hearted to say so, but from a purely economic perspective, these people are a net drain on productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that not profiteering on the crisis? (Score:3)
Mod parent down. That is a disgusting FP based on a sick premise. Preventable deaths are NOT good.
In terms of related morbid speculations, I was just wondering about the patterns of reported mortality. Can't find a good way to see the percentages, though it appears the most "successful" nations are claiming mortality around 1% while the worst appear to be over 10%. Me thinks they are playing statistical games with the baselines, but... Does anyone know a good website displaying semilog graphs? It's nearly i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What will help the economy is a high fatality rate in old and infirm demographic - this will make post-COVID population more optimized for productivity.
But that also means that suddenly, without the usual years of coming up through the ranks, the economy will be run by Instagrammers. Think about what that would actually mean.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you believe that, do you also think the earth is flat? Because there is about as much evidence for that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, and there is nothing wrong with my statement, and evolution is a thing.
Just because it is guaranteed to eliminate you by this particular means or some other, don't blame me.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't mean that the thing you personally think would be coolest (for the organism in question) is guaranteed to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's what all the science says.
Or you have some other plan, over the next dozen decades, for your outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Must be frustrating, for those insisting Science === Reality, rather than proper subclassing.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue how evolution works. It cannot do very large changes in one step as would be required by your "prediction".
Re: (Score:3)
It would take a hell of a lot of mutations for HIV to become easily transmissible. Its protein coat is incredibly weak and breaks apart except in very specific conditions. It's among the least-transmissible of human viruses. It would have gone extinct long ago if it wasn't for its ability to subvert the immune system.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't specify how soon. Mathematically, if it can happen, it will happen, as a function of time and 32 million and growing cases of infection.
But we'll review the outcome later in the Secret Cow Level, or analogous context.
Re: (Score:2)
But, don't worry, we have downvoting left-leaning mods.
That will fix the problem of both HIV and COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
But, don't worry, we have downvoting left-leaning mods.
How on earth do you think your rather curious misunderstanding of evolution is a political thing?
As far as I can tell you're not some sort of evolution denialist (which would most likely make you right wing). Gross but well meaning misunderstandings of science are not the preserve of any particular political inclination.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't specify how soon. Mathematically, if it can happen, it will happen, as a function of time and 32 million and growing cases of infection.
That's... not how things work. That's not how anything works. Lots of things that are mathematically possible don't happen, and will never happen. In fact, the vast majority of things that are mathematically possible will never happen. Actually it's more than that: there are an infinite number of things that can happen (mathematically), but since only a finite number of things ever actually will, the probability of any random mathematically possible thing happening is 0%.
Oh and of course for HIV the number
Re: And, less STD propagating behavior (Score:2)
That's... not how things work.
Of course it is; those monkeys wouldn't have accidentally typed-out Shakespeare otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion that an infinite number of things can happen is not true. The observable universe is finite. Even more, our ability to difference thing 1 from thing 2 is even more limited. Two pennies in your pocket aren't identical, but two electrons are. And the ability to determine both time and position are also bounded. So to say an infinite number of things can happen is either to make a false statement, or to utter "a meaningless noise", depending on precisely what you meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly relevant given it is only a matter of time until HIV mutates to be as transmissible as COVID-19.
In your expert opinion, is this likely to occur before or after pigs fly?
Re: (Score:2)
Pigs, cows, hominids... already said we'd review later in the Secret Cow Level.