Article: Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown

[pedro47]

This is political. LOL

 

[TravelTime]

This is political. LOL

I do not think this is political. We are not discussing any political leaders or parties. This is simply a discussion of an article about the economic situation.

Update: Yes. someone mentioned Bernie Sanders and thus made this political.

 

[TravelTime]

Bernie Sanders for the win!

I didn’t read the actual ariticle, just the intro.

Actually, that seems sort of contrary to the guidance. Most layoffs seems to be a result of closings because of the need to observe Social Distancing. Is the NYT suggesting to keep people working as if there was no need to do that and fill up factories and restaurants and stores so everyone gets infected? Unless it is intended to be unemployment insurance by another name where the payments go thru the company instead of the states which seems like a needless complication.

Cheers

Most business closings are due to social distancing and/or Shelter at Home restrictions. This is killing businesses especially small businesses. Most experts are now recognizing that this will be devastating to small businesses and the economy.

 

[x3 skier]

I do not get it.

I added some additional comments. The original was my first reaction was it sounded a bit like Democratic Socialism as advocated by Sen. Sanders.

Cheers

 

[HitchHiker71]

Bernie Sanders for the win!

I didn’t read the actual ariticle, just the intro.

Actually, that seems sort of contrary to the guidance. Most layoffs seems to be a result of closings because of the need to observe Social Distancing. Is the NYT suggesting to keep people working as if there was no need to do that and fill up factories and restaurants and stores so everyone gets infected? Unless it is intended to be unemployment insurance by another name where the payments go thru the company instead of the states which seems like a needless complication.

Cheers

No, basically what the article is suggesting is to pay employers to keep their employees on the payroll during the shutdown that would otherwise be laid off due to the shutdown. That way the employees would keep their benefits and keep their jobs intact. This is what is now being termed as “employment insurance” as opposed to “unemployment insurance.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brett]

Bernie Sanders for the win!

I didn’t read the actual ariticle, just the intro.
Actually, that seems sort of contrary to the guidance. Most layoffs seems to be a result of closings because of the need to observe Social Distancing. Is the NYT suggesting to keep people working as if there was no need to do that and fill up factories and restaurants and stores so everyone gets infected? Unless it is intended to be unemployment insurance by another name where the payments go thru the company instead of the states which seems like a needless complication.

Cheers

so you think Bernie Sanders favors business and not individuals in the "relief package" ?

Oh ,,, you didn't actually read the article ... gotta be communistic "socialism"

 

[TravelTime]

I added some additional comments. The original was my first reaction was it sounded a bit like Democratic Socialism as advocated by Sen. Sanders.

Cheers

Be careful with mentioning politicians as this makes the thread political and it could be closed.

 

[x3 skier]

Sorry. If my comments are deleted by the Mods, I will in the future refrain from mentioning any politician.

Thanks TravelTime for the observation

Cheers

 

[Brett]

Sorry.

Cheers

apology accepted

 

[HitchHiker71]

so you think Bernie Sanders favors business and not individuals in the "relief package" ?

Oh ,,, you didn't actually read the article ... gotta be communistic "socialism"

I’d say we are more debating different economic principles than anything political. Keynesian vs Monetarist for example. We are absolutely choosing a Keynesian approach here - when the private sector pulls back - the public sector steps in with temporary spending to prevent a major economic contraction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TravelTime]

I’d say we are more debating different economic principles than anything political. Keynesian vs Monetarist for example. We are absolutely choosing a Keynesian approach here - when the private sector pulls back - the public sector steps in with temporary spending to prevent a major economic contraction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I agree. In general, this thread seems very reasonable even if some politicians have been mentioned.

 

[Panina]

Yes I agree. In general, this thread seems very reasonable even if some politicians have been mentioned.

Whenever we start mentioning politicians, reference parties, etc, there are some that cannot stay reasonable and the thread gets closed. Keeping it more general without referencing or attacking politicians, parties, etc is the way to go.

 

[Rolltydr]

Today is Friday evening and I just looked at the Fort Lauderdale webcam and for first time in the past thirty (30) years there is not one cruise ship with a passengers on board. All the cruise ships are just sitting in port. A very Strange site. IMO.

Even after 9/11 cruise ships were cruising to the Carribean, in Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean.

How much is this Coronavirus costing the cruise industry, the Cities of Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, the airline industry, taxis companies, auto rental agencies, the hotels industry and restaurants just in these three (3) cities and now included the loss revenue all around world.

A couple better questions may be, 1) how did so many people on cruise ships get the virus, 2) how did so many people with the virus get on cruise ships? Yes, it’s a shame what is/will happen to the cruise companies and their employees as a result of this, but they also have some responsibility with how lax they were. I don’t know the answers but this seems to happen over and over on cruise ships. Somehow, they need to identify their vulnerabilities and come up with a plan to mitigate them. I worked on a catastrophe response team so I know that is easier said than done, but it has to be done or you’ll always be reacting to the catastrophe instead of executing your plan.


Harry

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

.......The article concludes by saying:.....( insert almost any country)......urgently needs a pandemic strategy that is more economically and socially sustainable than the current national lockdown.

Hi TravelTime - I slightly changed your quoted from the article - because IMO this applies to almost every country worldwide **.

Most of us drive with car insurance that is jurisdiction required - imbedded in those policies is,uninsured motorist
coverage - in case we get critically injured by someone driving without insurance . generally you or I cannot cancel that subsection - and it would be foolish anyway as the cost is such a small amount .

Unfortunately governments worldwide did “ cancel or never thought about it “
Hospital Ventilators cost $30,000 each / a literal penny compared to the trillions that this will cost the world .

None of us - (or our leaders ) , are willing to say or accept the following :
I would rather let people drown in their own fluids in their lungs due to Pneumonia from Covid 19
- so that restaurants and bars can stay open.

So : it is what it is ...

*************
**{ possible exceptions - S. Korea & Singapore }

 

[bbodb1]

I do not get it.

Sanders is currently advocating a government provided monthly stipend to every U.S citizen...
I believe that is the connection.

It is a different way to address a situation where we need to turn the switch off for a bit (so to speak) without harming businesses and the economy.

Certainly worthy of consideration...

 

[alwysonvac]

Germany has a low death rate. I am not sure why but it might be worth looking into what they are doing. In general, I think this is unprecedented and no one knows what to do so they are just throwing darts at the dart board. After this is over, I hope an evidence-based approach will be examined for the future.

From Forbes (link)

“....There is one major difference between Germany's Covid-19 demographic and that of the European hot zone of Italy. The first is that the onslaught of Covid-19 arrived in the teeth of Europe's ski season, so that many Germans who initially contracted the virus did so in Italy, which is why—for the moment—70% of all reported cases in Germany remain among the young, or more broadly, among the not-elderly, between the ages of 20 and 50.

The corollaries to extrapolate are that most (not all) people who ski are of average or above-average fitness, regardless of age, and that, in order to go skiing safely, there is a decided, natural fitness barrier that does exist as the skiers get older. Muscularly and in basic orthopedic terms, it's just not possible for every 70-to-90-year-old to ski. Put another way, this initial group of 'selected,' relatively fit patients in Germany were in generally decent shape, and have to a large extent survived Covid-19.

Which brings us to the primary and most striking difference between the German patient population and that of the rest of the world: The mortality rate. Of the 14,000 cases to date, just 31 Germans have died. At this writing the most enviable German Covid-19 mortality rate stands at 0.2%, or about 40 times less than that of Italy's mortality rate. That’s a big difference. ...”

According to German medical professionals, and no less a medical statistician than the President of the Robert Koch Institut, Lothar Wieler, on Friday morning, March 20, that it was simply Germany's good fortune that it simply beganamong the young. His expectation is that the infection rate will spike, heavily, as will the mortality rate, before Germany is able to flatten it. "We are at the beginning of an epidemic," he said Friday morning in Berlin. "We are all in a crisis, the size of which I never imagined. We will need as many intensive care beds as possible. I expect that the hospitals will be prepared."

 

[b2bailey]

I can't believe Mexico's approach is going to end well.....
But, it will serve as a useful comparison.
I do agree there is much to be learned from this and I hope we take an unbiased approach to achieving that learning.



Your point makes me wonder if you believe there is a country that has the correct (best) approach at this time. Do you see a country with this approach?

I'm actually one in favor of the hard decision the President of Mexico has made. If you consider the U.S. economic stimulus package being proposed that is meant to 'prop up ' our economy -- Mexico does not have the ability to offer such assistance to their hardest hit. In Mexico, heroic measures could save a few lives today while mass numbers die from starvation in future months. I applaud the wisdom and courage of the man.

 

[b2bailey]

No, basically what the article is suggesting is to pay employers to keep their employees on the payroll during the shutdown that would otherwise be laid off due to the shutdown. That way the employees would keep their benefits and keep their jobs intact. This is what is now being termed as “employment insurance” as opposed to “unemployment insurance.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The two benefits of paying employers, as I see it, would be 1. Pay would remain the same (Although now I 'm thinking there would need to be a maximum salary amount) 2. They would keep their health insurance.

The current plan to send checks to people -- some who don't really need it , and that would include me -- does not target the real issue. It's like they said: "Let's just throw some money at the problem and hope it helps.

(I realize I mixed Apple's and oranges above.)

 

[goaliedave]

Yes, I agree. They did not offer a solution other than saying: "America urgently needs a pandemic strategy that is more economically and socially sustainable than the current national lockdown."

In their defense, I do not think the article was overly critical. I think it was more pragmatic and they tried to display compassion for small businesses and people who will be laid off. I think this was a needed article because it is not popular right now to think about how the economic costs could be as great, if not greater, than the actual costs of the virus.

USA had a pandemic strategy, and an office of experts funded by govt, but it was defunded and cancelled recently lol.

Sent from my SM-A505G using Tapatalk

 

[goaliedave]

I would guess Korea and Singapore. Both relied on early detection and isolation of those infected and it worked quite well. Alas not preparing ahead of time precluded us from that tract.

Yup

Sent from my SM-A505G using Tapatalk

 

[Brett]

USA had a pandemic strategy, and an office of experts funded by govt, but it was defunded and cancelled recently lol.

yes, the experts fired in 2018, offices disbanded .....

 

[bbodb1]

I’d say we are more debating different economic principles than anything political. Keynesian vs Monetarist for example. We are absolutely choosing a Keynesian approach here - when the private sector pulls back - the public sector steps in with temporary spending to prevent a major economic contraction.

The bolded portion of the quote sums up (rather nicely I might add) the plan we need to have in place.
Health and safety must come first - but in achieving that goal we cannot cripple the economy (which is also needed to survive).

 

[Rolltydr]

Plain talk from an expert:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/20/emily-landon-coronavirus/

Harry

 

[HitchHiker71]

The bolded portion of the quote sums up (rather nicely I might add) the plan we need to have in place.
Health and safety must come first - but in achieving that goal we cannot cripple the economy (which is also needed to survive).

Yes, the inherent problem, and AFAIK a problem that Keynes never dealt with, is that these days we are all Keynesians all the time - meaning we run deficits constantly. The Keynesian approach requires that governments run surpluses when the private sector is booming, so that when the private sector goes into recession, the government can deficit spend and eat up the aforementioned surpluses. We already have 21+ trillion in national debt - which presents a real problem when adopting a Keynesian approach.

Watch out for negative interest rates coming soon to the US - which is the only way to finance runaway deficit spending on social programs - just like the EU has been doing now for many years via the ECB. People look at the EU countries and the generous social programs and say we should be doing the same thing - but the reality is that the EU runs negative interest rates primarily because the social programs are not affordable nor sustainable for the governments if they have to actually pay interest on the deficits/debts. It’s a good gig when you control the ECB outright - meaning the ECB has no real independence from the political establishment like our Fed has - but it’s a huge experiment that many economists think is going to fail over in the EU - because politicians aren’t economists, yet the politicians ultimately have a good deal of control over the EU money supply.

We certainly do live in interesting times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WVBaker]

I do not get it.

Insanity destroys reason, but not wit.