Coronavirus II

[maxwelhse]

You can't play "devil's advocate" without at least allowing a response to what you have said. The "devil's advocate" position of just let the at-risk population die is a position of encouraging genocide. If you're going to point out that it's a possibility, I'm going to point out that it's a horrific one.

The Devil's advocate part was that IF 6% die, because that's a pretty aggressive number, not who gets to live or die being decided by economic factors. Sorry... Poor choice of words given the prior conversation and I understand where you're coming from.

I'm offering the factual statement that the elderly don't engage in as much consumer spending as younger generations, and if the 6% comes from primarily the elderly (not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm not) then the economic impact may not be as severe as you suggested. That's all I was getting at.

 

[nonobaddog]

I guess the explicit warning that I wasn't advocating for anything didn't convince you, so I'll say it again: I'm not advocating we go murder all of the old people.

My point was that the consumer spending of the elderly vs. specifically middle agers isn't even a contest. if the death toll goes as high at 6%, the current data suggests most of those folks will be elderly, therefore the economic impact you're predicting likely won't be as severe as you fear.

That is all I'm saying. Not "Go kill all the old people." You wanna read back through the 700 or so pages of CV you'll see me be very "let's not kill lots of people, regardless" in my positions.

I'm kinda getting mixed messages here.

 

[maxwelhse]

I'm kinda getting mixed messages here.

Your purple broken or is it actually reading like I'm wanting the old folks to die because I like money?

 

[Alpo]

The Devil's advocate part was that IF 6% die, because that's a pretty aggressive number, not who gets to live or die being decided by economic factors. Sorry... Poor choice of words given the prior conversation and I understand where you're coming from.

I'm offering the factual statement that the elderly don't engage in as much consumer spending as younger generations, and if the 6% comes from primarily the elderly (not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm not) then the economic impact may not be as severe as you suggested. That's all I was getting at.

It's not an easy thing to augur without a lot of data. Old people have fewer mortgages, have less reason to save and lots of time on their hands. Other than the last 1 1/2 to 2 years before death, most old folks today are very active. They are living longer than prior generations.

vs. a gen-x/y family of 4 with a mortgage, 1 or 2 car payments, braces for little Sally and a broken Kenmore dryer.....

....I'd say the influence on the economy might go to the grey hairs.

 

[CampingJosh]

The Devil's advocate part was that IF 6% die, because that's a pretty aggressive number, not who gets to live or die being decided by economic factors. Sorry... Poor choice of words given the prior conversation and I understand where you're coming from.

I'm offering the factual statement that the elderly don't engage in as much consumer spending as younger generations, and if the 6% comes from primarily the elderly (not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm not) then the economic impact may not be as severe as you suggested. That's all I was getting at.

It's not going to be an instant recovery not matter what, but the worst outcome is if we have a massive population decrease along with the rest of all this disruption.

Even if the elderly aren't spending as much as I assume, they are occupying houses. If those houses all suddenly become available, then it's going to be years before we need any new home construction. Good bye to a lot of great jobs if that happens.

 

[JettaKnight]

Probably a lot of grandparents with money taking their grandkids on a cruise.

Hopefully not dropping them out the window.

 

[Alpo]

Your purple broken or is it actually reading like I'm wanting the old folks to die because I like money?

Of course not!

That's Cameramonkey.

 

[jkaetz]

6% forever vs. 30% for two months. Which one comes out ahead after a year?

If it would simply be 30% for two months then sure, but I have a hard time believing that there will be a return to "normal" anytime soon. We don't even know if two months is all it will take or if it will re-appear. I suspect the impact of the path we've taken will be felt forever as well. The impact on businesses is going to be staggering. What successful business plans to have zero or near zero income for two months or more? Having a spouse working in non-profit where all their revenue is generated from events and half of those events have been canceled for 2020 they are staring at a big hurdle to even pay rent on a building they aren't using and pay staff that can only do so much right now. All of the businesses and individuals that would normally donate to them are also in limbo waiting to see what will happen next.

WOW!
So, how many dead loved ones thrown in a pile would make you guys happy?
Make the best of what you've been dealt.



Remember.... We are all in this together. Just separately.

Can't tell if there is supposed to be some purple in here, but I don't think anyone has advocated for that, rather acknowledging that it may have been the lesser evil. Nevermind the fact that the it's highly probable that the death estimates were way off the mark. We'll never really know since we don't have a reset or save state button for life.

 

[HoughMade]

The Devil's advocate part was that IF 6% die, because that's a pretty aggressive number, not who gets to live or die being decided by economic factors. Sorry... Poor choice of words given the prior conversation and I understand where you're coming from.

I'm offering the factual statement that the elderly don't engage in as much consumer spending as younger generations, and if the 6% comes from primarily the elderly (not that I'm lobbying for that, because I'm not) then the economic impact may not be as severe as you suggested. That's all I was getting at.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer here, but the issue is how many people will lose their jobs. Certainly, the economy will recover, but how long will it take?

Businesses are going to close down and never reopen over this. The people who worked there will not have income to spend.

"But if there's a market, someone will fill it and new jobs will be created."

#1 Yes, eventually, but that takes time- months on the short end, or longer.
#2 If enough people lose their jobs, they will lose their ability to spend, or it will be greatly reduced at least for a while...and how many other businesses will this kill off?

Will people change their spending habits?

Absolutely- not having a job tends to do that as does getting a glimpse of the apocalypse. We can only hope that saving rated increase, and sure that will provide additional capital, but that, again, takes time to affect the market.

I have no idea how bad this will be, and for some, it will be temporary and easily recovered from, for others, this will be devastating.

 

[Brad69]

Ok let me be clear I am not advocating we take out Alpo at this time he has great inside information on the Democrats!

 

[maxwelhse]

It's not an easy thing to augur without a lot of data. Old people have fewer mortgages, have less reason to save and lots of time on their hands. Other than the last 1 1/2 to 2 years before death, most old folks today are very active. They are living longer than prior generations.

vs. a gen-x/y family of 4 with a mortgage, 1 or 2 car payments, braces for little Sally and a broken Kenmore dryer.....

....I'd say the influence on the economy might go to the grey hairs.

I'm seeing all of that stuff you mentioned as being buckets of money dumped into the economy that retirees generally already did while they were working. I feel like you've made my point for me.

My direct evidence is anecdotal, but all of the successful retired folks I've known made sure they had a new roof, new car, new whatever before they left the employment pool. They spent all of that money already where as the working folks are still dumping it all into the economy. The unsuccessful retired folks were probably unsuccessful their entire lives and being a failure knows no age boundaries. So if you're really wanting to fire up the ovens, go after the poor...

 

[jamil]

I'm pretty sure people just hear what they want to hear, based on their own confirmation biases.

All Trump said, in the press conference I saw (that led to this whole, ridiculous fiasco), was that the treatment had shown some evidence that was promising, that "it might work, it might not work" (he explicitly said this, multiple times), but that he, personally, was hopeful.

Nothing Fauci said refuted anything that Trump said. Fauci was giving FDA-speak, which is probably appropriate for him and his position. (I know FDA-speak. I live in FDA-speak.)

Bias. What you heard maybe that. What I heard was Trump trying to make more of the hope of it than the facts allow, and then Fauci trying to walk the expectations back delicately, to turn the statement into, a "I'm hopeful that it'll work" kind of statement. And without getting fired as he manages it. Trump called it a "game changer" at one point. There's no evidence that it is a game changer. Fauci was right to back the language down to "I'm hopeful". It was after that statement reset that Trump explicitly said it several times. But you're right, it was a ridiculous fiasco. People aren't in their right mind who think "it could be a game changer" means you should drink anything you have in your cleaning supply closet that has the same chemical as a medicine. They were in their 60s though, so it's too late to have a darwin effect if they've already passed their DNA on.

------------

This is an interesting read that gives a little insight into Fauci's relationship with Trump, as well as his emergence as a phenom of sorts. People look to him as the voice of reason and twitter goes ape**** when there's a presser on covid without him present. Dude's gotta sleep sometime.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-tries-make-white-house-listen-facts-pandemic

The dude is a real pragmatist. Doesn't get upset about Trump's adlibbing. He just understands it as it's just something Trump does, and so he takes it on to manage that.

 

[jamil]

Apparently NY doesn't agree with this, they are ordering a million of doses...

Well, they're desperate. I hope it works. Would be great. We could all use some good news.

 

[Alpo]

Ok let me be clear I am not advocating we take out Alpo at this time he has great inside information on the Democrats!

Thanks.

Like I said, however, give it your best shot. Just so you know, since I'm old, I don't sleep like normal people. I do stay up all night.

Oh....and one time my wife almost shot the pizza delivery guy who came to the wrong address.

Just sayin.


You might want to have maxwellhouse, the day trader, run point. Always good to be the major and not the corporal in these situations, if you get my drift. And daytraders are a dime a dozen.

 

[ditcherman]

WOW!
So, how many dead loved ones thrown in a pile would make you guys happy?
Make the best of what you've been dealt.




Remember.... We are all in this together. Just separately.

Paging Cameramonkey to the thread, Cameramonkey to the thread please.

 

[nonobaddog]

Waves from pretty darn close. Originally from Columbus Indiana,then Whiteland for years.
Moved to a bit north of Two Harbors in 2012. Came back to up here 8 days ago.

So you know the answer to "Where's Waldo?".

Great country up there plus easy access to Boundary Waters, nice.

 

[maxwelhse]

It's not going to be an instant recovery not matter what, but the worst outcome is if we have a massive population decrease along with the rest of all this disruption.

Even if the elderly aren't spending as much as I assume, they are occupying houses. If those houses all suddenly become available, then it's going to be years before we need any new home construction. Good bye to a lot of great jobs if that happens.

Funny you bring up housing, because that is going to happen anyhow no matter how many, or who, live or die. Foreclosures are going to be on the rise, bigly, and probably more from the younger end of home owners who didn't have as much time to build savings, pay down their debt, and bought in the bubble. I'm pretty strongly suspecting that at least 3 of my neighbors are going to be losing their houses in the coming months, and they're all probably in their early 30s. They bought houses for $220k that cost $120k 5 years ago and they did it with the cheapest and easiest to get mortgages that we've ever seen. Bad recipe...

Again, this isn't a hope, it's a prediction. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[chipbennett]

That's the thing about averages chip. There are people on both sides of the median and/or mean.

And that would seem to include OLD PEOPLE.

In addition, grampaw and grandmaw are more than likely paying the freight for the loser daughter and her 50 year old crack addict husband to travel with them.

Yes, the bell curve does include the elderly. Assuming a normal distribution, there are approximately as many 60-70 year-olds as there are 10-20 year-olds, and approximately as many 70-80 year-olds as there are newborn to 10-year-olds. (Granted, the bell curve is likely biased toward the elderly, for multiple reasons, so shift that by maybe 5-10 years on the high side.)

And there is a reason that the mainstream cruise lines - CCL, RCL, and NCL - all have a fleet of ships of a certain size, offering a certain set of amenities and activities: all of them are clearly catering to the middle-aged adults and families with children demographics (booze cruises, catering to 20-30 somethings, notwithstanding). If you want a cruise line catering to the older demographic, you have to look at HAL if you want mainstream (and even HAL is shifting marketing to a younger demographic), or one of the luxury cruise lines.

The cruise industry of the 2020s is not the cruise industry of the early 2000s, much less the cruise industry of the 70s/80s/90s.

 

[jamil]

No we are not waiting 18 months. I believe we will soon let those sick volunteer to "test" these drugs. Why otherwise would NY order a million doses?

I'm okay with that. Maybe it's a game changer. Or maybe not. I hope it works.

 

[maxwelhse]

Thanks.

Like I said, however, give it your best shot.

And I do stay up all night.

Oh....and one time my wife almost shot the pizza delivery guy who came to the wrong address.

Just sayin.

I already know it's a trap when you offer to let me kill you for your resources. I'm also fairly confident that if I needed your resources that badly, you'd probably help me out as much as you could anyhow... as I would for others as well.

So...