Are you saying that either way it will be 150k or that is with no lockdown? I am trying to figure out how much you think the shutting down of part of the economy helped saved lives and what the difference you think it would be. Also curious how much better you think the economy would be doing. We were in a bear market and had every sign of a recession before stay at home orders were in. It’s obvious in the short term the economy is getting hit hard, but how much difference do you think it will make long term?
You seem dead set on it was a mistake to close things down so I would like the logic of how many more deaths there would have been and how that would be ok because the economy would be doing “this” much better.
On a side note, Sweden’s economy is getting hit hard too. Their economy will be worse than after the 2008 financial crisis.
Fort Worth I would say the lockdown did virtually nothing to save lives in age groups below 45 years. They weren’t going to die in large numbers anyways. For the elderly, sheltering in place and taking steps to protect them would save many lives. But they aren’t in the economy working. Shutting down the economy and closing schools was just stupid. We didn’t close those in 1957 or 1968 and we did just fine.
Deciding to sacrifice the lives of so many people, Seniors at that, in the interest of the economy is a morally questionable decision in and of itself; the fact that apparently (see FortWorthCoog’s post) the economy couldn’t have been saved anyway makes said decision seem all the more morally repugnant.
Just a sad decision to cost people their lives for nothing.
Fair enough with people under 45, we would also have to make sure they don’t come in contact with older people which I think is extremely unlikely. What about workers 45+? There has got to be at least 50 million people in that group. How do you keep them out of harms way without hurting a third of the workforce?
Since you think shut downs don’t work at all, what are your thoughts on why Sweden is doing so bad compared to its neighbors?
The Sweden question has to be answered after the pandemic. There are deaths now and deaths later and there are population variables that have to be accounted for. Sweden is much bigger than its nordic neighbors Yes your question of over 45 is a good one. The risks go up as you age. In that age group you make your own decisions. You are capable of making that decision given your age.
But forcing an economy to its knees is severely penalizing the people 45 years and younger who are not at great risk.
When you place all the emphasis on death rate without considering the economic impact of locking down you miss a big part of the argument. I’m of the opinion that the same people touting a long-term lockdown will be the same ones complaining when their variable rate mortgage skyrockets a year from now. They’ll want to know “why” when customers can’t buy their company’s products six months down the road. And they’ll throw a hissy fit when their daughter gets hired back to her job at a small business for 60% of her salary. Not to mention the broken furniture over Houston’s energy economy taking 3 years to recover.
I didn’t mention the 30%decrease in their home’s value.
Apparently, Sweden’s economy is going to be on its knees, AND they lost way more lives, so the Swedish government’s decision doesn’t seem to have ANY redeeming virtues.
As for Sweden being bigger, Sweden has had 1580 deaths within a population of 10.3 million; basically one COVID19 death per 6519 people. Norway has had 171 COVID19 deaths within a population of 5.3 million people, a FAR LOWER rate of one COVID19 death per 30,994 people.
Sorry, size is irrelevant in this debate.
Sweden’s death rate from COVID 19 has been far higher than that of its neighbors.
Its government’s decisions probably should be judged harshly, given that they a) cost a lot more lives, AND b) probably didn’t save the economy either, based on what Fort Worth Coog said. A lot of lives lost for nothing.
So Ryon are you advocating that the decision be no one ventures out until there is a 0% chance of dying from Covid? Keep it shuttered until there is a vaccine?
I really hope no one is suggesting that. Because there is 0% chance that happens. But something for the near term. We can stay doing what we’re doing through May. And really flatten the curve. And not have to do this whole lockdown thing again.
Its here, it has already spread. All the politicians are trying to do is push the opening closer to warmer months so they don’t get blamed for any spikes. These things die down in the summer. It will spike back up in late fall and the winter at that point they hope we will be diverted by something else. Sweden believes they won’t have the secondary spike because they will have built herd immunity. Who knows time will tell. But we have to wait and see.
But our economy is for sure on its knees. Anyone see the price of WTI today?
We are almost hitting 4 million testing 5 weeks after that date. We have been testing around 150k tests a day for a while. Where are the tests? There has plenty of time to ramp up testing.
The WTI price is likely a short term issue related to storage. Demand played a huge role in that but the price war that just ended did too. Perfect storm. That said, June futures are in the low twenties. I don’t say that to minimize the price shock but wanted to get all the facts out there.
The death rate for those who catch it once ICU’s are at capacity is over 10%.World population is 7.8 billion. So once 80-85% have it we have herd immunity and say NO one else catches it, even if that isn’t how that actually works. That leaves 6 billion who catch it and take 10% mortality rate and that is 600 million. Pretty simple stuff 51. I even used 10% despite that the numbers for countries that got overwhelmed actually track over that.
Italy = 13.3%
France =13%
Spain is 10.4%
UK = 13.2%
People point to those who aren’t tested and asymptomatic as a argument for lower mortality rate, but it also means there are dead that aren’t being counted.
In one section of Italy someone did a study and showed there could be as much as four times as many dead from it because they died at home. NY decided to start reporting dead at home and it it immediately increased their dead by 33-40%.
Which country has produced that many tests? NONE! We’ve administered 4 million tests, Russia and Germany are next at 1.9 mil and 1.7 mil. Why hasn’t mighty Germany ramped up their production? Because they have and so have we. Truth is its hard to manufacture these tests. Its not some conspiracy.
I think we are doing a lot better at counting deaths vs. infected. Deaths is really all I’m paying attention to right now because of that. It’s the closest to truth that we have.
You’re assuming that everyone that catches it, will have symptoms. Researchers are starting to believe that a large percentage of people will never show a single symptom.