SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

iheartthed Mar 7, 2022 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 9559381)
We went from Texas is killing grandma to NYC schools lifting mask mandates.


It's almost as if Texas wasn't insane a year ago :D

(Texas has an overall lower case count per 100k than NY and a lower death rate per 100k)

That's not the flex you think it is. Nearly half of all New York reported deaths from COVID occurred by June 1, 2020. Barely any of Texas's reported COVID deaths had occurred by June 1, 2020. In other words, roughly 38,000 deaths have been reported in NYS since June 1, 2020, while about 82,000 deaths have been reported in Texas over that time. So Texas's rate of death over that time was 50% higher than New York's.

SAN Man Mar 8, 2022 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9559598)
That's not the flex you think it is. Nearly half of all New York reported deaths from COVID occurred by June 1, 2020. Barely any of Texas's reported COVID deaths had occurred by June 1, 2020. In other words, roughly 38,000 deaths have been reported in NYS since June 1, 2020, while about 82,000 deaths have been reported in Texas over that time. So Texas's rate of death over that time was 50% higher than New York's.

Yeah NY's death toll would be much lower by tens of thousands if their nursing home death toll were lower in the early months, that's basically the bulk of deaths in the pandemic here in the US.

pdxtex Mar 8, 2022 1:06 AM

^^^^^ nobody is ever going to win the valuation argument, was it worth it? was it worth it to shut down the world over a respiratory virus? i have my opinion but many will disagree it. from a statistical standpoint as a percentage of overall population, lockdown oregon had a mortality rate of .2% of our population. wild west no lockdown south dakota, .3. one tenth of 1 percent. difference. oh but we had catastrophic, societal melt down too.. was it worth it? not in my book.

hauntedheadnc Mar 8, 2022 11:59 AM

Crime Went Down During the Pandemic. But Cities Got More Dangerous. -- A novel approach to measuring crime rates clears up the confusion.

Quote:

Is the pandemic-era crime wave the most serious issue facing American cities, or a media-driven distraction that threatens to quash important social reforms? Some version of that question has been haunting the metropolis since the summer of 2020. The answer is complicated by divergent and incomplete data, entrenched political positions, and crime-happy media coverage.

Untangling reality from perception, in the case of the current spate of lawbreaking, is hard because the data has sent mixed signals. For example: Is shoplifting really eating cities alive? Probably not. Are cities more dangerous? Murders in major cities rose in 2020 and 2021— setting all-time records in cities as varied as Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia—but rapes, robberies, and property crimes all decreased in 2020, and preliminary statistics from 2021 don’t show a clear trend.

***

A new working paper from a pair of economists who study crime may square the circle. Total crime numbers went down in 2020, the paper argues, but the odds of being a victim went up. “We wanted to understand what it meant to have overall crime be down, in a context of overall reduced activity,” explained Maxim Massenkoff, an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in San Francisco, and one of the authors.

That might sound intuitive, for a period where normal life was severely disrupted. Similar trends have been reported on highways, where traffic fell but fatalities per mile traveled rose, and on the New York City subway, where overall crime fell but crime per rider rose.

***

For crime data, the duo used statistics from New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, which enabled them to sort for violent crime that occurred in public—a category that included streets, parks, alleyways, commercial establishments, and offices.

The results: From March to December, 2020, public violence in the three cities was 19 percent lower than it had been in 2019. But when put into the context of how little Americans left the house that year, that data takes on a different significance. In April, for example, violent street crime fell by 30 percent—but the risk of being a victim of such a crime rose by almost 40 percent. A similar pattern held for the whole year: Even as street crime fell, the risk of being a victim of a crime rose between 15 and 30 percent over the previous year, depending on which measure of “outdoor activity” was used. In short, if you spent time in public, you were more likely to be robbed or assaulted in public in 2020 than in 2019.

For what it’s worth, that risk remained very, very small: 12 violent crimes per million outdoor hours, or more than 80,000 safely-spent outdoor hours for each violent crime.

the urban politician Mar 8, 2022 2:49 PM

Well, we are now paying the price for the lockdowns economically.

Inflation is getting ridiculous. That's what happens when you print trillions of dollars. Of course, the Russia-Ukraine thing ain't helping

eschaton Mar 8, 2022 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9560126)
Well, we are now paying the price for the lockdowns economically.

Inflation is getting ridiculous. That's what happens when you print trillions of dollars. Of course, the Russia-Ukraine thing ain't helping

Saying inflation is due to lockdowns is pretty ridiculous (formal lockdowns only lasted a few months in 2020 anyway). The global supply chains got fucked due to...global issues. Along with a global shift in consumer preferences which businesses couldn't adjust back to immediately post pandemic. This stuff would have happened regardless of what any state/local government did - or even regardless of what the U.S. did.

iheartthed Mar 8, 2022 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAN Man (Post 9559658)
Yeah NY's death toll would be much lower by tens of thousands if their nursing home death toll were lower in the early months, that's basically the bulk of deaths in the pandemic here in the US.

That's some of it, but not all. Nursing home deaths in New York probably accounted for about 1/3 of the toll prior to June 1, 2020. But New Jersey's rate of death is even higher than New York's so I don't think the nursing home situation was a distinguishing factor. NY's and NJ's higher rate of death was likely due to being the epicenter of early outbreak, particularly when the virus was spreading undetected in February and early March 2020.

10023 Mar 8, 2022 4:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 9560148)
Saying inflation is due to lockdowns is pretty ridiculous (formal lockdowns only lasted a few months in 2020 anyway). The global supply chains got fucked due to...global issues. Along with a global shift in consumer preferences which businesses couldn't adjust back to immediately post pandemic. This stuff would have happened regardless of what any state/local government did - or even regardless of what the U.S. did.

This is not true.

Firstly the global response was the problem, particularly in Europe and Asia. There would have been little impact from the virus itself, it was almost all driven by the policy response*. Supply chain issues are one consequence. Then there’s the fact that when you pay people a lot of money not to work, they don’t want to work. Economic productivity went down and government borrowing (and money printing) increased. And there was a terrible amount of waste - every face mask and bottle of hand sanitizer produced was essentially useless production which diverted resources from things that are actually useful.

The big economic question for a decade has been about when central banks start shrinking their balance sheets and reversing the tide of surplus money supply that was created in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis (and in Europe subsequent recessions circa 2011), and how they do that without triggering recessions. Instead we got Covid, or more accurately the policy responses to Covid, which required them to amp up this quantitative easing to support government spending rather than winding it down.

And now they’ve lost control and we’re heading for 1970s style inflation and high interest rates. It might not have been quite that bad, but since Vladimir Putin is an absolute fucking asshole and added an oil shock and likely food supply issues to the mix, we are heading for a lost decade.



————————
* If you want to be totally coldhearted technocrat about it, then no, millions of old people dying might not have even been a net negative. Certainly not from a fiscal standpoint, as it would have partly corrected the demographic problems faced by all developed countries, but even from a labor/productivity standpoint (these were generally non-working people) or even consumer spending (inheritance would have worked like stimulus checks, but without adding to deficits).

pdxtex Mar 8, 2022 5:28 PM

I'll try and be more optimistic. I don't think its going to be a lost decade but the covid response was ludicrous. At the end of the day it probably just accelerated trends that were already taking place, but instead of clearing the table neatly, we hastily ripped out the table cloth and everything crashed to the floor. Texas, Arizona, Utah and Florida will laughing all the way to the bank for the next 30 years.

eschaton Mar 8, 2022 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9560255)
This is not true.

Firstly the global response was the problem, particularly in Europe and Asia. There would have been little impact from the virus itself, it was almost all driven by the policy response*. Supply chain issues are one consequence. Then there’s the fact that when you pay people a lot of money not to work, they don’t want to work. Economic productivity went down and government borrowing (and money printing) increased. And there was a terrible amount of waste - every face mask and bottle of hand sanitizer produced was essentially useless production which diverted resources from things that are actually useful.

The big economic question for a decade has been about when central banks start shrinking their balance sheets and reversing the tide of surplus money supply that was created in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis (and in Europe subsequent recessions circa 2011), and how they do that without triggering recessions. Instead we got Covid, or more accurately the policy responses to Covid, which required them to amp up this quantitative easing to support government spending rather than winding it down.

And now they’ve lost control and we’re heading for 1970s style inflation and high interest rates. It might not have been quite that bad, but since Vladimir Putin is an absolute fucking asshole and added an oil shock and likely food supply issues to the mix, we are heading for a lost decade.



————————
* If you want to be totally coldhearted technocrat about it, then no, millions of old people dying might not have even been a net negative. Certainly not from a fiscal standpoint, as it would have partly corrected the demographic problems faced by all developed countries, but even from a labor/productivity standpoint (these were generally non-working people) or even consumer spending (inheritance would have worked like stimulus checks, but without adding to deficits).

My point was from a U.S. response. It makes no sense to say "if only we..." when it wasn't solely up to U.S. policy - other countries played a role as well, along with just the individual reactions of consumers adding up in aggregate.

Even in the most Republican states in the country (where opposition to social distancing was the greatest) you still saw a big downturn in things like travel, restaurants, transit utilization, etc. And TBH the differences across the country were probably more driven (outside of April 2020) by peer groups than policy responses. You can't say "if only we didn't panic" any more than you can say "if only everyone didn't sell stock in 1929." People don't behave in perfectly rational fashions, particularly in large groups.

iheartthed Mar 8, 2022 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 9560376)
Even in the most Republican states in the country (where opposition to social distancing was the greatest) you still saw a big downturn in things like travel, restaurants, transit utilization, etc. And TBH the differences across the country were probably more driven (outside of April 2020) by peer groups than policy responses. You can't say "if only we didn't panic" any more than you can say "if only everyone didn't sell stock in 1929." People don't behave in perfectly rational fashions, particularly in large groups.

Yeah, agreed. I don't buy this idea that the public health policies in response to the outbreak were the problem. The problem is that the government failed to get ahold of the outbreak before it spun out of control. There were basically three types of responses: 1) a quick and forceful early reaction, 2) slow early reaction and prolonged limbo state, or 3) no reaction. Pretty much only third world countries did the third response. Asia and eastern Pacific countries mostly opted for the first. Europe and the Americas mostly went with the second response.

the urban politician Mar 8, 2022 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9560430)
Yeah, agreed. I don't buy this idea that the public health policies in response to the outbreak were the problem. The problem is that the government failed to get ahold of the outbreak before it spun out of control. There were basically three types of responses: 1) a quick and forceful early reaction, 2) slow early reaction and prolonged limbo state, or 3) no reaction. Pretty much only third world countries did the third response. Asia and eastern Pacific countries mostly opted for the first. Europe and the Americas mostly went with the second response.

^ Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you aren't blatantly wrong.

Guys, use your brain. This is common sense. Economics 101:

A. Government shuts down numerous industries
B. Even after opening them up, it restricts them (limited capacities, etc)
C. Government now has to bail them out by printing trillions of dollars in money
D. Government also has to bail out people who lost jobs by printing trillions of dollars in money
E. Government also has to bail out people who didn't pay rent due to eviction moratoriums that were stupid, immoral, and lasted way too long by--you guessed it--printing trillions of dollars.

What is the end result of printing all of that money? INFLATION. Tons of it.

That's what happens, folks. Basic economics, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to put 2+2 together.

10023 Mar 8, 2022 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 9560376)
My point was from a U.S. response. It makes no sense to say "if only we..." when it wasn't solely up to U.S. policy - other countries played a role as well, along with just the individual reactions of consumers adding up in aggregate.

Even in the most Republican states in the country (where opposition to social distancing was the greatest) you still saw a big downturn in things like travel, restaurants, transit utilization, etc. And TBH the differences across the country were probably more driven (outside of April 2020) by peer groups than policy responses. You can't say "if only we didn't panic" any more than you can say "if only everyone didn't sell stock in 1929." People don't behave in perfectly rational fashions, particularly in large groups.

I meant “we” as in humanity, or at least developed countries, rather than “we” as in the US. Which should make sense, since I don’t even live in the US.

10023 Mar 8, 2022 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9560430)
Yeah, agreed. I don't buy this idea that the public health policies in response to the outbreak were the problem. The problem is that the government failed to get ahold of the outbreak before it spun out of control. There were basically three types of responses: 1) a quick and forceful early reaction, 2) slow early reaction and prolonged limbo state, or 3) no reaction. Pretty much only third world countries did the third response. Asia and eastern Pacific countries mostly opted for the first. Europe and the Americas mostly went with the second response.

Once the virus spread beyond that wet market (or lab, it doesn’t matter) in Wuhan, there was nothing any government could reasonably do to “get ahold of the outbreak”. By the time it reached the United States, it was already bound to infect most people on earth eventually.

mrnyc Mar 8, 2022 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9560438)
Once the virus spread beyond that wet market (or lab, it doesn’t matter) in Wuhan, there was nothing any government could reasonably do to “get ahold of the outbreak”. By the time it reached the United States, it was already bound to infect most people on earth eventually.

except it didn't come close to that.

and like every other pandemic it won't. :rolleyes:

suburbanite Mar 8, 2022 7:08 PM

Ya where is this mythical country where they got a hold of the pandemic early on and then led economically unobstructed lives for the next 2 years?

Places that went zero-Covid implemented the strictest lockdowns in modern history, and still face Covid waves as inevitable mutations of the virus occur across the globe.

Places that went hybrid like the U.K. or most parts of Canada faced restrictions of varying degrees for the better part of two years while having case counts continually bounce up against the capacity limits of the healthcare system.

The most "let er rip" jurisdictions in the U.S. faced the highest death counts in the Western world, but also got back to leading relatively normal lives the fastest.

As far as I can tell there is no magical strategy that could keep case counts and hospitalizations low while avoiding massive top-down restrictions and business disruptions.

the urban politician Mar 8, 2022 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9560438)
Once the virus spread beyond that wet market (or lab, it doesn’t matter) in Wuhan, there was nothing any government could reasonably do to “get ahold of the outbreak”. By the time it reached the United States, it was already bound to infect most people on earth eventually.

Basically. Which is exactly what is happening.

eschaton Mar 8, 2022 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9560435)
^ Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you aren't blatantly wrong.

Guys, use your brain. This is common sense. Economics 101:

A. Government shuts down numerous industries
B. Even after opening them up, it restricts them (limited capacities, etc)
C. Government now has to bail them out by printing trillions of dollars in money
D. Government also has to bail out people who lost jobs by printing trillions of dollars in money
E. Government also has to bail out people who didn't pay rent due to eviction moratoriums that were stupid, immoral, and lasted way too long by--you guessed it--printing trillions of dollars.

What is the end result of printing all of that money? INFLATION. Tons of it.

That's what happens, folks. Basic economics, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to put 2+2 together.

But aside from the lending programs run by the federal reserve, none of that spending involved increasing the money supply. It was just typical deficit spending.

iheartthed Mar 8, 2022 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9560438)
Once the virus spread beyond that wet market (or lab, it doesn’t matter) in Wuhan, there was nothing any government could reasonably do to “get ahold of the outbreak”. By the time it reached the United States, it was already bound to infect most people on earth eventually.

A lot more could have been done, and a lot more was done in many countries. And I'm not even talking about lockdowns. The U.S. bungled just about every part of the early public health response at a national level, from messaging to clearly communicating steps that individuals could take to mitigate their personal risk. The U.S. also spent far too long waiting for evidence to direct public health recommendations that just gave the virus even more time and opportunity to spin out of control. It's actually mind-boggling when you look at some of the early directions we were given, versus what are told to do now. It wasn't rocket science that masking was an effective way to mitigate viral spread without forcing everyone to sit in their houses for three months. The Japanese knew that in March 2020, while the U.S. was telling Americans not to worry about covering their faces but instead focus on washing their hands.

pdxtex Mar 8, 2022 9:36 PM

Yes I agree with the masking bit. Had there been a national mask mandate but no shutdowns or wfh orders, things would have been fine. Had people been given the choice to work from home versus stay at the office I bet most would have still gone home given the panicky tone from the outset. Honestly I was kind of scared shirtless for about two weeks, then I calmed down, then I became furious that our leaders kept banging the drum louder and louder. City of Portland employees are still, STILL working at home. Honestly fck this state's leadership. Oregon deserves every single bit of hardship it receives.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.