I don't understand the Lockdown/shut down exit strategy?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

But again, these types of threads help me understand our differences.

Are you really willing to accept the opinions of few as an understanding of whole nations? The conjecture, supposition, misinformation of these recent "discussions" (and really, any where one decides to speak for many) is beyond maddening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do understand what you are saying.  From my perspective, it would be hard to say that this is “overblown” though, because, as a doctor in the 21st century, I have never seen anything like this in my

I personally don't believe a damn thing coming from Wuhan as being credible. China has made most news organizations leave the country.

The fact is that no one really knows how many will die from this, and as each day goes by, those models we used to determine what we need to do are being revised lower and lower.  However, due to hysteria from the media when this first started, we are still mentally operating under the impression that we will loose a tremendous amount of people.  

As it becomes more and more apparent this is not the case, there will be a call to adjust the plan, everywhere.  The only difference here is between me and you, but there exist none between our countries or anywhere else.  This is especially the case with all of the blue collar workers out of a job, who will loose it once they run out of money and food.  

Plus, I would argue your country will need to get back into the swing of things faster then mine.  Your healthcare is entirely publicly run.  Without a certain amount of tax revenue, it will shut down.  This has been pointed out in Britain already; Canada is no different.  Sure, there are issues with ours too.  

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

Are you really willing to accept the opinions of few as an understanding of whole nations? The conjecture, supposition, misinformation of these recent "discussions" (and really, any where one decides to speak for many) is beyond maddening.

No, certainly not. Not any one opinion is a voice of the nation (not even agent orange).

But the collection of opinions over multiple sources help me understand things better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HarveyBoulevard said:

He is Australian ?

That's my point, not American.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

  

Plus, I would argue your country will need to get back into the swing of things faster then mine.  Your healthcare is entirely publicly run.  Without a certain amount of tax revenue, it will shut down.  This has been pointed out in Britain already; Canada is no different.  Sure, there are issues with ours too.  

  This is an angle I've not heard anywhere before, just wondering where you came across it? It's certainly not been mentioned in the UK.

  Any emergency funding wild simply be borrowed in any number of ways, there's already a massive uptake of foreign buying of recently issued long term UK government bonds just to cover the £300B emergency package.

  No one is running out of money, food or shelter. Incomes are guaranteed by govt, food logistics are running the same as ever, more efficiently and effectively if anything, and mortgage holidays and legislation to ban evictions are going through parliament. I'm really not seeing any reasons where any riots would come beyond some localised issue.

  Long term borrowing for emergencies has always been issued. The UK paid off the paid of the last its Napoleonic War issued debt last year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CaptainQuintero said:

  No one is running out of money, food or shelter. Incomes are guaranteed by govt, food logistics are running the same as ever, more efficiently and effectively if anything, and mortgage holidays and legislation to ban evictions are going through parliament. I'm really not seeing any reasons where any riots would come beyond some localised issue.

Bingo.  Same here. 

We are looking to open up restaurants and cafes again in early May.  There will be restrictions. 

However they will be closed again if the spread gets out of control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  This is an angle I've not heard anywhere before, just wondering where you came across it? It's certainly not been mentioned in the UK.

  Any emergency funding wild simply be borrowed in any number of ways, there's already a massive uptake of foreign buying of recently issued long term UK government bonds just to cover the £300B emergency package.

  No one is running out of money, food or shelter. Incomes are guaranteed by govt, food logistics are running the same as ever, more efficiently and effectively if anything, and mortgage holidays and legislation to ban evictions are going through parliament. I'm really not seeing any reasons where any riots would come beyond some localised issue.

  Long term borrowing for emergencies has always been issued. The UK paid off the paid of the last its Napoleonic War issued debt last year. 

I may have misread.  I was just trying to find it, and it appears I may have skimmed a story on fears that lower paid medical workers could get it and go broke by staying home.  

Anyway, UK publications are also talking about how this shut down will bankrupt more then it saves, and how this is a real problem.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-deaths-trump-stock-market-pandemic-economy-bankrupt-italy-a9394891.html 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kitchen said:

  

Anyway, UK publications are also talking about how this shut down will bankrupt more then it saves, and how this is a real problem.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-deaths-trump-stock-market-pandemic-economy-bankrupt-italy-a9394891.html 

This is global and not a specific UK issue. 

Under these circumstances, Govt is there to provide the best safety net that it can. However any business that was struggling prior is unlikely to survive this. Those businesses with low cash positions/low margins will also struggle. Global. 

3 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

I may have misread.  I was just trying to find it, and it appears I may have skimmed a story on fears that lower paid medical workers could get it and go broke by staying home.  

Well taken care of under our system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  This is an angle I've not heard anywhere before, just wondering where you came across it? It's certainly not been mentioned in the UK.

  Any emergency funding wild simply be borrowed in any number of ways, there's already a massive uptake of foreign buying of recently issued long term UK government bonds just to cover the £300B emergency package.

  No one is running out of money, food or shelter. Incomes are guaranteed by govt, food logistics are running the same as ever, more efficiently and effectively if anything, and mortgage holidays and legislation to ban evictions are going through parliament. I'm really not seeing any reasons where any riots would come beyond some localised issue.

  Long term borrowing for emergencies has always been issued. The UK paid off the paid of the last its Napoleonic War issued debt last year. 

You cant print money forever.  Eventually the bill comes due.  Not to mention putting in place mortgage holidays and banning evictions will take its toll indirectly.  Banks will start to run low on cash, or inflation will go up due to over printing.  

To me, the idea we can stay shut down until a vaccine comes to market, which will take a year or more, is just not possible.  The economy will crash long before that, which will cause more suffering then what the virus could.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kitchen said:

You cant print money forever.  Eventually the bill comes due.  

Traditional economics finished in 2008 and is unlikely to ever make a comeback. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the 6pm news tonight and without citation of any facts, 'experts' claimed that hot (highly infected) areas of the USA could have shelter in place and social distancing rules until the end of May.  Too many businesses in free rolling economies are mortgaged to the hilt and will not survive this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

This is global and not a specific UK issue. 

Under these circumstances, Govt is there to provide the best safety net that it can. However any business that was struggling prior is unlikely to survive this. Those businesses with low cash positions/low margins will also struggle. Global. 

Well taken care of under our system. 

 

23 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Traditional economics finished in 2008 and is unlikely to ever make a comeback. 

 

To allow this to go on for a year or more, many business will go under, at which time the government will become the main cash cow for many unfortunate souls.  This will make them wards of the state, something which is extremely difficult to undo and will bring a whole new set of problems.  

Economies that devolve into this never work in the long run.  

To allow a good economy to transform into this will, IMO, be worse for the health and well being of the public then what the virus could cause.  

 

22 minutes ago, joey rockets said:

On the 6pm news tonight and without citation of any facts, 'experts' claimed that hot (highly infected) areas of the USA could have shelter in place and social distancing rules until the end of May.  Too many businesses in free rolling economies are mortgaged to the hilt and will not survive this.

Personally I think we are paying attention to too many medical experts and not enough economic experts right now.  By definition, an expert's expertise is very narrow.  Letting medical experts dictate economic policy is pretty short sighted in my opinion.  There needs to be a balance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

 

To allow this to go on for a year or more, many business will go under, 

It cant go on for more than a few months.

That is why I raised the thread. Trying to understand how this will be untangled in a non vaccine environment. 

While I understand arguments about lower death rates and media hysteria, you only need to take into account doctors and nurses here and elsewhere.....this isn't something they have seen before and it needs to be handled  carefully.  

I suspect some level of social distancing will be with us for a year or more. Just wondering what the balance will be.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll take a very controlled return. (government defining what can open, and where, and for who - and it won't be seen as "equal" or "fair")

and some citizens don't like to be controlled, or do what they perceive as being "not fair". 

as a result it will be easier for some countries than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  There's talk already of moving forward when things have settled down, everything from designs and layouts for offices, restaurants, pubs, concerts, public sporting events, holiday resorts, cruise ships, and international travel. Things are not expected to go back to "normal" at the end of the current isolation period.

  Major shifts back to national production of essential items and supplies (Mostly done away with in giant sell offs when the cold war wound down). People will be happy for their kid's toys and garden furniture to be made in China, but medical supplies less so.

I'd expect big political reckonings. 

  On a smaller scale, whilst there are plenty of utter pillocks deserving of a swift kicking, the vast majority of people have pulled together. Small businesses, schools and individuals are 3D printing away making face masks for local hospitals/GPs, thousands of scrubs are being hand sewn by people at home and sent in to local hospital, strangers are organising food and medicine pick ups for the old and vulnerable. Healthcare staff are being delivered hot meals by local restaurants. No one wants paying for any of it.  All homeless people have been, or have the option to be taken in and housed nationwide.

  It's horrible that something like this has to happen for the grime to be scraped off and the good to shine out, but there's a positive, you sometimes have to step away from the news to see it though

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

Personally I think we are paying attention to too many medical experts and not enough economic experts right now.  By definition, an expert's expertise is very narrow.  Letting medical experts dictate economic policy is pretty short sighted in my opinion.  There needs to be a balance.  

Without wishing to impugn, malign or slander any of the medical experts, but most of them outside the US work in the public sector.  Their positions and salaries are secure, come what may.  This, I suspect, may (unconsciously) bias their views on the advisability and sustainability of the advice they give, both to the public and to government.  This, by the way, certainly extends to pundits and commentators in the media, many of whom -- at least outside the US -- are employed by the state and who seem happy to push for ever harder measures without bothering to account for the devastation this would cause.

Talking of experts: another bunch of experts who we have not heard nearly enough of are the mental health boffins.  During the GFC, suicides in Europe rose by more than 4% (in some Eastern European countries by more than 11%), and in the US the rate climbed by more than 5%.  These are also avoidable deaths that should be counted, and on the other side of the ledger.  How many people are pushed over the edge by increased social isolation and worries over money, jobs and homelessness?  How many of these deaths are we willing to accept in order to save how many corona-virus victims?  That's not even going into the whole issue of domestic violence where we now have a situation of violent partners cooped up with their victims and permanently on edge because of the stress.  We absolutely need to have a public debate on that, too.  

As for economic experts, I think it would be very hard to step in front of a camera and tell a stressed and emotional public about dollars and cents.  For one thing, the majority of the audience will be financially illiterate and unable to understand, even if they weren't currently in a state of high anxiety.  For another, in many countries there is a strong attitude of viewing the government as a never-ending stream of gold which will always provide -- as far as they are concerned, government might as well run on unicorn farts rather than tax revenues and debt.  And the experts could certainly expect colossal shitstorms if they dared to even point out possible positive outcomes from the pandemic, such as structural changes which will increase productivity (work from home, flexible hours etc), increased revenue from inheritance taxes (where applicable), or a significant reduction in pressure on state pension systems throughout Europe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

It cant go on for more than a few months.

 

 

 

My prediction (fwiw) is that most governments will choose the "new teenage driver" approach.

Slam on the brakes (done already in most countries).    Then hit the accelerator (coming soon in many countries).    Then when the hospitals get overwhelmed, slam on the brakes (for a while).   Then hit the accelerator.    etc

That is because there is no "good" solution, so governments will react to the highest priority of the moment.    

What a mess.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cairo said:

My prediction (fwiw) is that most governments will choose the "new teenage driver" approach.

Slam on the brakes (done already in most countries).    Then hit the accelerator (coming soon in many countries).    Then when the hospitals get overwhelmed, slam on the brakes (for a while).   Then hit the accelerator.    etc

That is because there is no "good" solution, so governments will react to the highest priority of the moment.    

What a mess.

 

Great analogy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the exit plan will look like in Canada, the US or elsewhere.  However, I just read a recent post by Mister Money Mustache - some of you may be familiar with his blog - and I think that he summarized very well the crisis and its potential outcome (the guy doesn't like cars hence the comments a):

In the more compassionate case which we are currently following, we drastically reduce the amount of contact we have with each other for a few months, which cuts the number of deaths in the US down from 3-6 million, down to perhaps 200,000. In exchange, our economy shrinks by several trillion dollars (it was about 21 trillion in 2019) for a year or more.

Assuming we are preventing 3 million early deaths, this means our society is foregoing about one million dollars of economic activity for each person’s life that we extend and frankly, it makes me happy to know we are capable of that.

So that’s the big picture: we are cautiously and temporarily buckling down and making some sacrifices, in order to help other people.

To me, that is not a cause for panic or fear – it’s a chance to try even harder and be thankful for such a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Meanwhile, some good stuff is happening as a byproduct:

  • Our expectations are being reset. Someday soon, it will feel like an absolute joy and privilege to walk into a store and see things fully stocked and prosperous again. And imagine the feeling of taking a vacation or attending a big event or a restaurant or a party!
  • People in rich countries may realize that we can afford to be helpful and compassionate after all – while actually increasing our long term wealth and happiness rather than compromising it.
  • And the world is getting a valuable “practice run” at handling a pandemic, with a relatively mild disease rather than something even more serious.

Just as with any recession, weaker companies will go bankrupt, stronger ones will streamline their operations and get smarter, and the chaos and broken pieces will become the raw materials from which an enormous batch of brand-new companies will form.

Better ways to track and treat disease, more scalable and less bureaucratic hospitals, more options for remote medicine and more support for remote work and virtual offices and virtual learning in general. More home delivery services and fewer big box stores and wasted parking lots, more support for biking and walking, and a million other things that a billion other people will think of.

 

The end result will be a better, more resilient and richer world than ever

 Full post here: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2020/04/02/no-you-didnt-just-lose-half-of-your-retirement-savings/

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few issues with Mr Money Mustache.  

First, where does he get the 3M to 6M USA death figure?  The worse case scenario model, from Imperial College, puts the death toll at most 2.2M.  On top of that, all models have been revised down drastically as new more reliable data has come in, even if we were to do nothing.  

Second, to ignore the fact that many people will suffer and also die from the economic collapse is a mistake.  People will kill themselves, overdose, be beaten to death or poisoned by their spouse, families will be broken up, etc.  There is a real amount of suffering that comes from a economic collapse.  Not to mention, the children that live through such an even will cary that pain with them for ever, just like Great Depression kids.  

Third the idea that we should be happy to one day have the possibility to walk into a stocked store sounds kind of foolhardy and backwards.  

Rich countries are already helpful and compassionate.  The most prolific philanthropy comes from successful economies.  If you take that away, their wont be nearly as much help and compassion going around.  

His statement about companies going out of business because they are weak, in this example, shows a great level of naiveté.  With any other recession, I would have to agree, but this recession is not like any other, meaning it is not happening naturally.  It is solely a government caused recession, and at some point in time even good companies will be put out of business by it if it continues.  

As was stated before, many of this people pushing for this full shut down or saying it wont be that bad seem to either have safe jobs or are selling something.  We need a controlled release.  

Allow young healthy people not in danger of dying from this get back to work and put in ways to protect the vulnerable who should stay in lock down.  Since most of those who are vulnerable are of retirement age, having them stay in lockdown will put little toll on the economy, and keeping production going with younger people allows us to not fall into a Great Depression style abyss.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

or some people simply put compassion towards others ahead of their own personal finances.

a concept difficult for some to understand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

or some people simply put compassion towards others ahead of their own personal finances.

a concept difficult for some to understand.

We can afford to do that because we are rich.  Take away our wealth, like what would happen with a collapse like this, and we will revert back to working for ourselves and our families.  A concept many ignore because it makes them feel good.  

Just look at environmentalism.  We know for a fact that people as a society don't care about the environment until they reach a certainly level of aggregate wealth.  That's why so many rainforests are burned each year for farm land, even though we, in the West, can't understand why you would do such a thing.  It's the same thing here.  

Plus, to act like economic suffering is not serious and does not cause death is being obtuse.  It's the kind of thing a person who has never seen real poverty would imply.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following along, listening to you points...and while I don't agree with most, at least they are logical.

but then you say things like the below and it makes me wonder.

2 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

We know for a fact that people as a society don't care about the environment until they reach a certainly level of aggregate wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

I'm following along, listening to you points...and while I don't agree with most, at least they are logical.

but then you say things like the below and it makes me wonder.

This has been studied and found to be true, several times.  Here's one article on it.  

https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Poor-Countries-Dont-Care-About-Climate-Change.html 

Poor countries just don't care about the environment because they can not afford to.  Simple as that.  There are even some who argue that banning fossil fuels would be a economic death blow to developing countries just because they are not wealthy enough to do without them, and taking away fossil fuels would be immoral to those countries.  

This is one of the many reason why getting off of fossil fuel will be so hard.  Poor countries just wont do it no matter how hard  we try to convince them otherwise.  Look at China, not only did they build 100s of coal/oil electric plants, they also have massive landfills and other catastrophes they suddenly woke up to now that they are wealthy. 

Another article from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/why-environmental-quality-is-poor-in-developing-countries-a-primer/ 

“In many instances, the immediate need to put food on the table outweighs all the benefits an individual could get from efforts to reduce pollution,” says Jack. “This is because these benefits are usually delayed and they also are shared by others – the environment is a public good. It is also, importantly, because the benefits of higher consumption are large and immediate when you have next to nothing.”

 

PS, bonus points if you cant figure out how to pronounce "envirodevonomics."

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

or some people simply put compassion towards others ahead of their own personal finances.

a concept difficult for some to understandAmerican. 

If the government doesn’t start getting checks out soon the compassion will go down the toilet real fast    I think the more money you have in the bank the more compassionate you are going to be during times like these. Especially when the market tanks and you guys can make a killing like in 2008 
 

Open everything up and only the strong survive just like in the old days. Every man for himself. 
 

Isn’t that what the real world is anyway. 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.