Coronavirus 2019

[Thrag]

Maggie Haberman (maggieNYT)

[Menzo]

@Aceris

Since if they did the herd immunity strategy would pretty obviously involve less death than the would be caused by the depression that would result from sustained lockdowns.

Uh, what? Did you just wake up from falling asleep two weeks ago? Even Boris Johnson agrees that the herd immunity strategy was flawed and would result in way more deaths, partially due to healthcare systems being overwhelmed.

[gruntled]

The economy won’t ‘recover’ if restrictions get lifted too soon. Because the obvious impact will be skyrocketing infection and death rates, followed by re-imposition of restrictions.

[scottagibson]

@Aceris

Since if they did the herd immunity strategy would pretty obviously involve less death than the would be caused by the depression that would result from sustained lockdowns.

I’m not sure how that is pretty obvious at all. Maybe you can show your work?

In any event, the question rather depends on what policies prevail during that depression.

[MikeOberly]

As Heinz Guderian said in early spring of ‘45, “The mess we’re in is fantastic!”

[Aceris]

No, my claim is that the British left’s claims about excess deaths from public spending being lower than they desire are vastly exaggerated. I’m not saying herd immunity is a good strategy.

The depression from COVID is going to hit capital harder than individuals, but I reckon we’re going to see a very substantial reduction in real output (10%+), especially in the west, over the medium term. Clearly that will result in a reduction in publci spending. Given simply increasing public spending 1%-2% slower than the left wants kills 10s of thousands of people every year (supposedly), a 6-7% reduction in real public spending can easily be modelled to cause more excess deaths than coronavirus.

[Wallapuctus]

I get it. I do. And, I think most people get it. There’s a very real problem right now where people are going to lose their homes if they don’t get back to work.

My son’s best friend’s dad got laid off last week. There’s still nothing from the government. No mortgage and rent holidays, no cash coming yet. What is he going to do? Bills are still due. You can be sure as fuck that if he’s 15 days late on a mortgage payment the bank will foreclose. (You laugh but this happened to me when I wasn’t even late, they just thought I was). He works in construction. The world needs to get going again so these construction jobs resume and he can work.

You can be sure if there’s millions of people in this situation they’re going to gamble on going back to work to avoid being homeless.

[BennyProfane]

@legowarrior

Can we all just call it quits on 2020? Just, shut down as much as possible, have the government send out checks, maybe refuse to have birthdays, and come January 1st, we do it all again, a 2020 redo.

We all just promise not to buy new stuff unless something breaks.

For most things, fine, but we REALLY need to have an election.

[gruntled]

@scottagibson

It was also Mattis’ defense, and Kelly’s defense, but is there any actual evidence that they moderated anything of consequence?

Both Mattis and Kelly went to work for Trump. Fauci went to work technically for Reagan, but truthfully for HIV victims and at-risk populations.

What, exactly, would you counsel Dr. Fauci to do?

[Wallapuctus]

@gruntled

What, exactly, would you counsel Dr. Fauci to do?

The moment he speaks out against Trump is the moment he’s sidelined and of no help to anyone. He might already be doomed based on his comments recently.

[legowarrior]

Yeah, I guess that last one is an important exception.

[Mark_Weston]

@scottagibson

Sure, that’s fair enough; but I don’t think it makes much sense to believe that the consensus medical view didn’t consider questions like what if an infected person touched the food . Surely we ought to believe that they did consider that question, and they still hold the consensus view that you aren’t going to catch coronavirus from eating food.

OK, but let’s be honest about the dynamics of a conversation on an internet forum. Links posted in here, nearly always, are not going to represent any expert consensus except by accident. We all know how this works, because I’m sure we’ve all done it at one time or another; those links represent the first one to three google results that properly reinforced the posters’ existing position on the subject. I don’t believe anyone taking part in this conversation has conducted a real literature review on the issue.

[Menzo]

Here’s what annoys me most, right now at least.

In 2001 Al-Qaeda killed 3,000 people in New York. The US has since spent 20 years and more than $10 trillion fighting them.

How much would Republicans have spent if Al-Qaeda had killed 3,000 people in every city in the US? The answer is obvious: infinite dollars. There would be no amount too high, no cost too great, to fight them.

But since we can’t bomb Coronavirus, and the money spent would more likely go to actual US citizens rather than the defense industry, they’re getting squeemish about the economic costs.

[lordkosc]

Trump needs to be banned from the briefings.

[magnet]

@Aceris

Clearly that will result in a reduction in publci spending.

It will almost certainly result in increased public sector (ie government) spending in any sane country, and also in the US. That’s the exact opposite of austerity.

[Ginger_Yellow]

@Aceris

The depression from COVID is going to hit capital harder than individuals, but I reckon we’re going to see a very substantial reduction in real output (10%+), especially in the west, over the medium term. Clearly that will result in a reduction in publci spending. Given simply increasing public spending 1%-2% slower than the left wants kills 10s of thousands of people every year (supposedly), a 6-7% reduction in real public spending can easily be modelled to cause more excess deaths than coronavirus.

But why is the reduction lower without than with a lockdown? The whole point of a lockdown is to take short-term pain to reduce the long-term damage, in economic terms and lives. And in the short to medium term, public spending is going to skyrocket, even under the Tories (the government is suddenly paying 80% of many people’s wages, for instance). It’s not like Labour are saying shut down everything and don’t spend any public money.

[Menzo]

@gruntled

The economy won’t ‘recover’ if restrictions get lifted too soon. Because the obvious impact will be skyrocketing infection and death rates, followed by re-imposition of restrictions.

I think Trump is looking at Russia and thinking: yeah, they’ve got it right.

Remove all restrictions and instruct doctors to classify all deaths as pneumonia or whatever the complication was. Diabetes, heart disease, whatever.

Watch your Coronavirus infected and death count plument. Declare “Mission Accomplished” in front of a hospital with a big banner.

Reality and facts mean nothing to him.

[Aceris]

It will result in increase public spending as a proportion of GDP, but:

1. GDP will be smaller
2. The increased public spending will be spread across far more people in need, and much of it will cover newly nationalised industries.

[Aceris]

@Menzo

I think Trump is looking at Russia and thinking: yeah, they’ve got it right.

Remove all restrictions and instruct doctors to classify all deaths as pneumonia or whatever the complication was. Diabetes, heart disease, whatever.

Watch your Coronavirus infected and death count plument. Declare “Mission Accomplished” in front of a hospital with a big banner.

Reality and facts mean nothing to him.

Hah, scariliy believable.

[magnet]

All the same, the left is internally consistent when it calls for increased government spending in times of economic crisis.