There were almost 40,000 new cases of COVID in the US yesterday. I think that's a new daily high. I'm ready to call that the revised-down 60,000 deaths calculation was way off and we're looking at 100,000+ deaths in the US by the end of the summer. Another wave in the fall looks likely too. Meanwhile in Ireland shitloads of masks are arriving in the country and some kind of announcement is due on May 5th re phased opening. I hurt my leg and can't fucking go anywhere anyway so I guess I can wait.

Yes. That's why we invent labour saving devices - because employment stinks. I bet you thought it was so we could do more work. :roll: — unenlightened

I think you try to be sarcastic.

I think we do have an economic depression now around us. Only later will it be admitted. The pandemic has only been the trigger for it.

* * *

On another note, on Friday I went to the local hospital for an x-ray checkup.

It was quite an experience.

First, there were huge signs in red before entering the hospital that urged people NOT to come into the hospital if they had any cough or flew symptoms and a number to call if they had them. The large reception area was totally empty besides one clerk sitting behind the reception stand. Before there had been at least some patients smoking a cigarette at the entrance of the hospital or somebody going into or out of the hospital, even during night time (and now it was daytime). Now there was nobody except that one person. It was as if the hospital was totally closed. When I walked to the elevators there was a sign: "WARNING! Please use the stairs is possible." The X-ray waiting room did have some people who were sitting separately and finally some hospital staff around. What was noticeable was that the hospital staff didn't wear facemasks. This hospital wasn't treating any COVID-19 patients. (There aren't many of those now, yet anyway.)

The hospital felt a far safer place than the supermarket I drove to afterwards.

There were almost 40,000 new cases of COVID in the US yesterday. I think that's a new daily high. I'm ready to call that the revised-down 60,000 deaths calculation was way off and we're looking at 100,000+ deaths in the US by the end of the summer. — Baden

Soon the total cases will be over 1 million in the US I guess.

I've heard from two ED docs now that theres a concern that ventilators are doing more harm than good. I'll believe it when I hear it from a pulmonologist. Still, it does show that the idea is out there. Maybe lesions that can't take any positive pressure.

My assumption has been that It's all the other complications that are killing people.

Whether they get to zero or not, what Australia and New Zealand have already accomplished is a remarkable cause for hope. Scott Morrison of Australia, a conservative Christian, and Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s darling of the left, are both succeeding with throwback democracy — NYT - Vanquish the Virus? Australia and New Zealand Aim to Show the Way

Being an Australian and no fan of Morrison; I nevertheless have to admit that he has aquitted himself pretty well during this coronacrisis, apart from initial slowness to respond and some stupid statements (such as announcing on Friday that from Monday gatherings of more than five hundred will be banned, "but I'm still going to the footie tomorrow").

I hurt my leg and can't fucking go anywhere anyway so I guess I can wait. — Baden

How the fuck (being more or less housebound I imagine) did you manage to hurt your fucking leg?

Tried to kick the computer when reading Hansover's posts. M-fucker is going to kill me one of these days. :lol:

Nah, was effing about with a football and twisted it.

:rofl: Oh, it's on account of that infuriatingly flippant, misguided fellow: I understand perfectly.

But, yeah, stupid injuries are often the result of what you would think are perfectly safe activities. I sometimes do my back in just turning and bending (somehow the wrong way) to pick up any light object.

My neighbour is running the ventilators for the covid-19 patients when he's on duty (he's an anithesiologist (or however your write that in english)). And it's the only thing he's doing for 28 patients. It's complicated and requires constant surveillance and tweaking of, if I recall correctly, five different variables. Ventilators that are set appropriately aren't killing people, badly set ventilators will.

Yep, that's what I do. 28 patients is way too many for one person. :grimace:

Just a small anecdote that shows how US Stimulus packages work in real life:

With the first "small business" stimulus package roughly 80% of the money went to 4% of the applicants. How did that happen? Well, US banks wanted profits, of course:

Four class-action lawsuits have been filed against banks doling out federal stimulus funds earmarked for small businesses, accusing them of channeling funds to the largest companies to collect bigger fees.

Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bancorp “rigged the loan process to benefit their bottom line,” the Stalwart Law Group, which filed the lawsuits Sunday in federal court in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

The banks failed to process applications for the taxpayer money on a first-come, first-served basis ― as the Trump administration required ― and instead prioritized requests from the biggest companies because they would get larger loans and generate bigger banking fees, according to the complaints. Banks collect a percentage based on the size of the loan.

That left thousands of small businesses — 90% of applicants, according to the suits — with nothing as the $349 billion in funds for the Paycheck Protection Program ran dry on Friday, less than 14 days after it launched. The program is part of the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

I think we do have an economic depression now around us. Only later will it be admitted. The pandemic has only been the trigger for it. — ssu

It's only a problem if the small percentage of people who "own" the resources decide not to share them. then there's an immediate trickle down effect, resulting in no jobs. That's a type of hoarding which could be triggered by fear, as we saw with the hoarding of toilet paper. I think there would only be a serious economic depression if the fear snowballs.

With the first "small business" stimulus package roughly 80% of the money went to 4% of the applicants. How did that happen? Well, US banks wanted profits, of course: — ssu

Looks like the hoarding might already be kicking in.

It's only a problem if the small percentage of people who "own" the resources decide not to share them. then there's an immediate trickle down effect, resulting in no jobs. That's a type of hoarding which could be triggered by fear, as we saw with the hoarding of toilet paper. I think there would only be a serious economic depression if the fear snowballs. — Metaphysician Undercover

? ? ?

Sharing? I'm not so sure what your idea is.

First of all, let's think about this just from the US point of view. Those 26 million or basically 30 million now newly unemployed, which constitute roughly about 15% of the workforce, have already put the economy on a downward trend. The measures taken to fight the corona virus have triggered the collapse of the speculative bubble which has been propped up since the Great Recession of 2008. Hence all won't come back to normal even if every country would ease the restrictions to fight the pandemic.

You think those now unemployed people will spend as they did before? How many are going to go take that trip in the summer? How many in general are going to take that trip somewhere next summer? How many people in general are going to make huge investments like buying a house now? The vast majority will postpone trips and people simply will spend less. And when tens of millions of Americans doing that, it has huge consequences, no matter if the 0,01% are doing OK.

People spending less will mean that the aggregate demand will plunge and hence the economy won't recover in a V-shaped manner. This will mean that only a portion of those now unemployed will get their jobs back. There will be an economic recession.

Then add the fact that this is happening around the World. It will be a global recession. The central banks can save the banks, they can get prop up the stock markets, but they cannot get unemployed to spend as they were when employed.

All thanks to a country where capitalism reigns and any kind of welfare state is an after thought. Even in Britain which is heading in that direction, the measures are going to mitigate against mass unemployment. Although the general slump will not be avoided.

If the cash evaporates as quickly as you suggest, then the only answer for the US is a universal income. Put the money where the hungry mouths are.

Cash won't evaporate, it will go to the rich people. :grin:

And there's a long way to get universal income especially to the US. What likely will happen, actually quite unintentionally (even if many will disagree with the unintentionality), is socialism for the rich. Because what the central bank will do and is doing right now is not to let this become a banking crisis. And what Trump easily understands is that if people's savings are lost (if the stock market plunges), that has a huge impact on a lot of voters. And btw, on Trump's own wealth too. Hence we will see many stimulus packages to come.

These awkward stimulus packages to "ordinary" people are going be done with the efficiency equivalent to universal corona-testing program. But once or twice done time stimulus won't go far.

We are seeing this now. The S&P500 Index is below the top only -16%. In truth the worst economic situation for decades isn't really comparable just to a -16% drop from the all time highs, but that's the issue. Asset inflation was the answer last time, and they'll try it again.

Will Europe stay on lockdown longer because of their governmental form?

I assume many countries will start loosening up their restrictions and adapt more of the approach that Sweden has. I think they are starting to be confident that their health care systems won't collapse.

A lot of countries are planning to open schools etc. Spain is ending it's strict curfew. France is planning to open school at the 11th of May. Austria on the 18th of May. Norway is opening primary schools I think today. And for example here the "lock down" hasn't been a curfew with places like barber shops having been open and there has been always the possibility of going outside to exercise, just remembering that social distancing.

I see. So who is mostly impacted financially by the lockdown?

New Zealand, the land (paradise) of rich white retired bastards:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52436658

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgewm7/gop-states-reopening-early-will-push-people-scared-to-work-off-unemployment

"Republican governors in states like Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina have announced plans to begin reopening their states’ economies despite warnings by health officials that it’s too early to do so. The decisions mean that businesses may soon start calling people back into work before they feel safe, creating a coronavirus-specific dilemma: If people in those states are offered their jobs back, but refuse to take them out of fear for their safety, they will likely no longer qualify for unemployment benefits—even though they’re taking the same precautions as people one state over."

Work or Die. Or just Die. It's all the same to these pigs.

coronavirus-specific — StreetlightX

That's a compound adjective, right?

Those naturally who cannot work because of the lockdown and have bills to pay. I assume that the hardest hit is the service sector. Travel, restaraunts etc. It will be some time before tourists will flock to Northern Italy, you know.

When will we see these kinds of crowds? In a few years perhaps, likely not this year and the next...

So it could be years before some sectors of the economy recover.

There were a couple of days when you were being reasonable on this whole thing and now it's a big attack on everything scientific and almost conspiracy-theory like stuff on the economy being shut down. — Baden

Oh, please, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You're just a de-legitimizer of all who don't speak the gospel (backatcha).

I've simply questioned the extent to which our healthcare system is doing anything meaningful to increase the lifespans of those afflicted with the coronavirus. Neither of us know what that is, and so it isn't entirely reasonable to go to such lengths to make sure there is a hospital bed for each person afflicted if that bed is no better than the one at home for you.

We've premised the closing of the entire world's economy on the principle that we needed to be sure there was sufficient healthcare for the infected, and no one can tell us what the treatment is doing for folks. And since I've always said that it is in fact a matter of how many we're saving, you need to identify how many of the now living would have died but for the healthcare they've received. I'll accept some have been saved by the healthcare, but what percentage? 1%, 25%, 80%? No one knows, and so here we are preaching for more hospital space because we're just so sure the sick belong in the hospital because that's just always where we put them.

And I'm right here. And that sucks for you. If I don't take it as a given that our healthcare system provides care for one's health, we have a quandary, and in this great big instance, we have no data to show our good doctors (and they are) are doing a whole lot of good here.

Anyway, I don't attack science. I've just asked for the scientific basis for the current treatment protocol, and I've been told that it is just whatever it is.

Load of bum. Google "coronavirus models". That's how many people would have died and that's why things needed to be shut down. All this blathering about whether ventilators are 50 or 80% effective is not going to change that.

Load of bum. Google "coronavirus models". That's how many people would have died and that's why things needed to be shut down. All this blathering about whether ventilators are 50 or 80% effective is not going to change that. — Baden

Let's say 1m will have severe cases (however we define that) on Date X if we don't quarantine at all. Let's then say we have 500k hospital beds. Assuming no better way to triage, 500k of the last ones to show up looking for a bed will be sent home. The question then is how many of the 500k will now die who wouldn't have died had there been 1m beds.

The answer, despite every model out there, is "beats me." For some reason, that's not important. You even say

All this blathering about whether ventilators are 50 or 80% effective is not going to change that. — Baden

It would seem that if ventilators were 100% effective, 500k more will die under my example. Why do you say my question about the effectiveness of treatment is irrelevant then?

This company seems to be a better modeling format. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/bluedot-used-artificial-intelligence-to-predict-coronavirus-spread.html
This technology (if you read and watch) takes factors into consideration that the old models do not.

It explains why some countries got a head start.

This:

We've premised the closing of the entire world's economy on the principle that we needed to be sure there was sufficient healthcare for the infected — Hanover

is what I object to. And you know it because it keeps being pointed out to you. The primary reason we shut down the economy was to suppress the spread of the disease and lower fatalities. Whether or not there was sufficient healthcare, we needed to do that because we knew not doing it would result in massive amounts of death, regardless of healthcare effectiveness, which can only ameliorate or exacerbate the situation, not solve it. Take a hypothetical country with no healthcare at all, it would have needed to shut down. Take a hypothetical country with excellent healthcare, it still would have needed to shut down because a) not everyone can be saved by treatment and b) no country no matter how good its healthcare system is would be able to handle the number of patients an unimpeded spread of the disease would lead to.

So, you are trying to leverage the uncertainty about healthcare into uncertainty about whether we should have shut down or not and it doesn't work because the uncertainty regarding healthcare, e.g. re ventilators, would have had zero influence on whether we needed to shut down. If you have a disease that has a circa 1% mortality rate and is likely to infect 60-80% of your population in a short period of time if you don't shut things down, then, in the absence of a similarly effective alternative, you shut down. Period. The fact that it's a new disease means you will then have to make some common-sense medical decisions on stuff that you haven't had time to fully research yet. Like, if someone can't breathe by themselves, you put them on a ventilator rather than allow them to die. You also need to consider exactly when they need to go on a ventilator. If you put them on too early could it be harmful etc?

The point is that you're mixing up levels here and you keep doing it. Yes, let's talk about the effectiveness of ventilators, but stop trying to link it to the broad question of whether suppression was necessary or not. It's a completely different argument.

I'll accept some have been saved by the healthcare, but what percentage? 1%, 25%, 80%? No one knows, and so here we are preaching for more hospital space because we're just so sure the sick belong in the hospital because that's just always where we put them. — Hanover

Just to be clear, your reaction to a risk which has an unknown magnitude is to just take the risk to see what happens? Because "we don't know" seems like a perfectly good reason to err on the side of caution when what "we don't know" is how many thousands of "extra" deaths we will have.

is what I object to. And you know it because it keeps being pointed out to you. The primary reason we shut down the economy was to suppress the spread of the disease and lower fatalities. — Baden

No it's not. The primary reason we shut down the economy was to slow the spread of the disease so that our healthcare system wouldn't be overwhelmed because it was assumed the healthcare system would reduce fatalities if it were available. We're not reasonably going to be able to hide away from this virus until a vaccine is found, meaning leveling the curve only drags out the total number of infected over a longer period of time. If that were not the case, we shouldn't be talking about opening the economy for many more months. It's still very much around and is going to spread some more..

Because "we don't know" seems like a perfectly good reason to err on the side of caution when what "we don't know" is how many thousands of "extra" deaths we will have. — Echarmion

Sure, so let's feed popcorn to every infected person because we don't know what it'll do, and we might as well err on the side of caution. Best case, fewer deaths. Worst case, belly full of popcorn.