Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 8926176)

IIRC the cross-country evidence from Sweden versus the other Scandinavian countries showed.

1. The overall reduction in activity was relatively similar, despite being entirely voluntary in Sweden.

2. Projected shrinkage of GDP across the countries is fundamentally identical.

3. Yet Sweden has a far higher death rate. Not as high as the worst-hit parts of the world like NYC, but higher than neighboring countries, or the U.S. as a whole.

The conclusion would suggest that the reduction in economic activity would happen regardless of whether social distancing was mandatory or voluntary.

Basically it very well may be the lessening of social distancing doesn't cause a "second wave." But the economy won't quickly recover either in that case.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8925856)

But I guess that's been the case everywhere.

Asia is pretty much completely reopened. Most of Europe, many places in Americas. At this point, we probably have much more people living in places reopened than in places with restrictions.

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8926253)

I hear you. I don't give a poop about cases though. It means literally nothing. I only care about hospitalization and deaths.

But the political narrative is quite different. The Illinois governor is acting like if ONE business opens up before he deems them ready, people will DIE. This hyperbolic language is literally their 'go-to' answer to questions the media ask of them. But, let's say 70% of the economy is shut down and then another 20% is allowed open. Even if these businesses see only 50% of their usual business, this is still a good case study to compare to places that are still in a strict lockdown, right?

I mean, we are told people will die if businesses open back up, period. If this isn't the case, we certainly shouldn't ignore that. Even CNN is conceding the Georgia and Florida case and they had a doctor on last night that stated wearing a mask while riding a bike is completely unneeded. I understand why politicians would want to prove lockdowns work, they are the ones who decided that. It's human nature to want to be right(look on this forum lol). But as casual observers, if a place like Georgia opens up, and it's been open now for almost a month, and things are getting better, this throws a wrench in the stick lockdown narrative. It doesn't mean its scientific proof, of course, but it should get us questioning some things.

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8926233)

I don’t think I know more than the experts, but I recognise their biases and priorities. It’s not their knowledge but their view of the trade offs that I am questioning.

Someone like Neil Ferguson knows an awful lot about epidemiology (although his models have always been wrong and erred significantly on the side of more negative scenarios). But that doesn’t mean he should decide public policy, that preventing as many deaths as possible regardless of other costs should be the objective, and so on. Not to mention he’s enjoyed the media attention (at least until recently).

Doctors have as their priority, perhaps only priority, the saving of lives. That’s good and admirable in a doctor. Policymakers have other things to consider. Just because an expert in virology and epidemiology says that the way to minimise the loss of life is to keep society “locked down”, with social distancing, no non-essential travel, no restaurants or bars, no large gatherings, and so on until there is a vaccine does not mean that is the right course of action - even if they are correct that this will save lives.

Originally Posted by JoninATX (Post 8926086)

Honestly from what I've been told by hotel staff in Austin is that more people are starting to come. Alot of hotels occupancy is around 50% or more. Up from 20% last month.

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8926233)

I don’t think I know more than the experts, but I recognise their biases and priorities. It’s not their knowledge but their view of the trade offs that I am questioning.

Someone like Neil Ferguson knows an awful lot about epidemiology (although his models have always been wrong and erred significantly on the side of more negative scenarios). But that doesn’t mean he should decide public policy, that preventing as many deaths as possible regardless of other costs should be the objective, and so on. Not to mention he’s enjoyed the media attention (at least until recently).

Doctors have as their priority, perhaps only priority, the saving of lives. That’s good and admirable in a doctor. Policymakers have other things to consider. Just because an expert in virology and epidemiology says that the way to minimise the loss of life is to keep society “locked down”, with social distancing, no non-essential travel, no restaurants or bars, no large gatherings, and so on until there is a vaccine does not mean that is the right course of action - even if they are correct that this will save lives.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8926367)

The pain to workers, companies, museums, etc., is another topic. We could bail them out for months, far more effectively than we have. As discussed above somewhere, even three months of heavy bailouts would be cheap compared to the packages we've gotten.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8926367)

While there are many legit issues beyond that, such as mental health, childhood social development, and so on, enjoyment isn't a priority and shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8926689)

Yes, I've made the same point about the bailouts.

For starters, maybe everyone with a low/average income should have gotten an aid check in April, which they did. But the next one should be based on need. It should help keep people afloat, rather than only trying to stimulate spending.

There's no easy answer on the business side. It gets political...states trying to act responsibly should be aided by the federal government, not discouraged as a way to get them to open too early.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8926367)

That's why policy-makers make policy, and health agencies advise. I give them a pass for using blunt objects for a while, because finely-tuned approaches can be impossible in a short time, to implement and for the public to understand. In recent weeks, governors (like WA/OR) have been gradually rolling out updated policies that are largely about reopening things with a finer grain. This is also due to the effective shutdowns that have reduced our numbers...Washington was the initial #1 outbreak, and is now half the average aggregate death rate in the US, while Oregon has avoided a major outbreak at all.

The pain to workers, companies, museums, etc., is another topic. We could bail them out for months, far more effectively than we have. As discussed above somewhere, even three months of heavy bailouts would be cheap compared to the packages we've gotten.

While there are many legit issues beyond that, such as mental health, childhood social development, and so on, enjoyment isn't a priority and shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8926901)

Brazil crossed the 1,000 deaths barrier. First country aside the US to reach this terrible mark.

1,179 deaths were registered in the country today, 324 in São Paulo state, most of them in the metro area, but growth upstate has been faster for the past two weeks.

Originally Posted by SteveD (Post 8926903)

yes I just noticed that...this refers to 1,000 or more deaths in a single day for those wondering...

Brazil's President when asked to comment on the country's rising death toll: "so what??"

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8926702)

Speak for yourself. (And it’s also essential to mental health)

Anyway it’s a red herring. The things I can enjoy right now, like going to the park and getting some sun, are largely free. The things I enjoy that I can’t do right now generally cost money. One man’s enjoyment is another’s livelihood, and the leisure, entertainment, hospitality and travel sectors employ tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people globally.

And frankly I’m more concerned about restaurants dying (and not coming back for some time) than some additional 80-somethings. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8926954)

So, you're worried about:
--Economic outcomes, which we could bail out if we wanted to
--Some other consequences that we're agreeing on, like mental health
--Enjoyment

We can figure out the first. The second is a big challenge but much can happen without reopening most things. The third (enjoyment) isn't worth killing hundreds of thousands for in the US alone.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8927034)

Much of my point is that we could have spent the existing bailouts better. But we can certainly afford more, to a point.

Your business could have been (and could be) aided like the others.
.