Coronavirus

[DavidSSS]

Yes, there is an economic impact and that has real effects on people. What riles me is the idea that the economic impact is somehow more important than the impact on people, the idea that we need to sacrifice some people for the sake of the economy.

Government debt, and how the current social payments are eventually paid for, is a complex issue, governments are not households. We can see this especially in the period 1914 to about 1950. Governments in the west went into massive debt to fund wars, this debt wasn't so much paid back as eroded by inflation, in some cases reneged on, in some cases property was nationalised, economic growth made the debt easier to pay off, etc. After going into massive debt (look at the debt/GDP ratios after WWII) we had a period of sustained growth and expanded social payments. The impact of government deficits to make social payments now is not a given, there are choices as to how we deal with this.

Not a good set of infection numbers in Vic today, although less than yesterday and the 7 day trend not rising at the same rate it did yesterday:

7 July: 102.29
8 July: 111.00
9 July: 123.57
10 July: 155.29
11 July: 170.71
12 July: 199.14
13 July: 206.29
14 July: 217.57
15 July: 232.43
16 July: 254.14
17 July: 274.14
18 July: 274.29
19 July: 287.14
20 July: 301.14
21 July: 316.00
22 July: 351.14
23 July: 363.43

The large number of infections on 17 July will drop out of the 7 day trend tomorrow, so, if we see less infections tomorrow the curve may turn down. The question as always is if the trend turning down is sustained.

DS

 

[mrposhman]

Yes, there is an economic impact and that has real effects on people. What riles me is the idea that the economic impact is somehow more important than the impact on people, the idea that we need to sacrifice some people for the sake of the economy.

Theres more to it than that though. Its not just sacrificing lives for the economy, its potentially saving a life now (in the lockdown scenario) which potentially could result in a loss of life later.

I've pulled this from a study in 2013 looking back at the GFC.

Impact of 2008 global economic crisis on suicide: time trend study in 54 countries

Objective To investigate the impact of the 2008 global economic crisis on international trends in suicide and to identify sex/age groups and countries most affected. Design Time trend analysis comparing the actual number of suicides in 2009 with the number that would be expected based on trends...

www.bmj.com

" There were an estimated 4884 (95% confidence interval 3907 to 5860) excess suicides in 2009 compared with the number expected based on previous trends (2000-07). The increases in suicide mainly occurred in men in the 27 European and 18 American countries; the suicide rates were 4.2% (3.4% to 5.1%) and 6.4% (5.4% to 7.5%) higher, respectively, in 2009 than expected if earlier trends had continued. For women, there was no change in European countries and the increase in the Americas was smaller than in men (2.3%). Rises in European men were highest in those aged 15-24 (11.7%), while in American countries men aged 45-64 showed the largest increase (5.2%). Rises in national suicide rates in men seemed to be associated with the magnitude of increases in unemployment, particularly in countries with low levels of unemployment before the crisis (Spearman’s rs=0.48). "

So after the GFC (and the impact on the economy could be far worse this time) suicide rates increased by 4.2% in europe and 6.4% in the americas. I'll take 5% as a mid point.

Annual suicides in Australia are around 3,000. A 5 % increase is equivalent to around 150 additional suicides, which is more than the number that have currently died in Australia from Covid.

Like I said, now may not be the time to answer this question but if the impact on the economy is likely to be prolonged, don't fall into the trap that the only impact on society of an economic impact is purely monetary.

 

[MD Jazz]

Yes, there is an economic impact and that has real effects on people. What riles me is the idea that the economic impact is somehow more important than the impact on people, the idea that we need to sacrifice some people for the sake of the economy.

But there is a cost to those decisions. That is what the article pointed out. Saving these lives now will have unintended consequences in other areas that will cost other lives. They just won't be as directly measurable.

 

[Ian4]

VIC
New Cases: 386 (403 with 17 reclassified)
Total Cases: 7125
Active Cases: 3630 (up 222).
5 deaths (49 Total).
27,151 tests (1,413,115 Total)

NSW
New Cases: 19
Total Cases: 3633
Active Cases: *110 (not yet updated from yesterday, so the real figure is probabaly low 120s based on recent trends).
0 deaths (51 Total). Note: NSW Government website says 51 deaths, other sites say 49.
24,640 tests (1,261,260 Total)

 

[Althom]

Is the game against GWS still going ahead in Sydney?

 

[spook]

Correctly counting the cost shows Australia's lockdown was a mistake
The future will now be worse because the flawed pandemic health projections didn't correctly calculate their effects on economic welfare.

Gigi FosterContributor
May 25, 2020 – 2.44pm
Save
Share
Australia’s economic policies in response to the coronavirus threat have been driven in the main by projections of death and infection rates, produced by epidemiological modelling, that since have been proven to be orders of magnitude above what any country anywhere in the world, regardless of policy, has experienced.

Meanwhile, the welfare costs of our economic policy responses have been either overlooked entirely, gestured towards vaguely but not actually calculated, or calculated in waysstrikingly out of alignment with international best practice when estimating the welfare costs of different policy alternatives – eg, using full value-of-a-statistical-life (VSL) numbers, rather than age-adjusted VSL or quality-adjusted life years, when valuing lives lost to COVID-19 (which are predominantly the lives of older people with a few years, not an entire life, left to live).

The costs of what we have done are enormous and will show up most obviously over the next few months in the body counts sacrificed to causes other than COVID-19. AAP

A leading reason for points 1 and 2 is that it’s a lot less work to count bodies and point to scary body-count projections than to think hard about the many and various costs – many invisible and requiring a reasonable counterfactual that is, again, mentally taxing to create; many manifesting only over time – that arise when we take the drastic economic policy actions we have taken.

The costs of what we have done are enormous. These costs will show up most obviously over the next few months in the body counts sacrificed to causes other than COVID-19 – like from famine, preventable diseases and violence in lower income countries; and deaths from despair, isolation, and non-COVID-19 health problems that have lost resourcing in better-off countries such as Australia – but will also stem from sources that don’t have actual deaths of presently living people attached to them.

Lower GDP now and going forward means lower levels of government services on education, healthcare, research and development, infrastructure, social services, and myriad other things that keep us happier, healthier and living longer.




Advertisement

RELATED
How they got the returns wrong
Kids whose education has been disrupted due to our mandates that schools and universities move activities online, and young people who have lost their jobs or are entering the job market during the recession we have created, will carry the impact of these disruptions for years.
Discoveries of cures for diseases other than COVID-19 will be delayed; IVF babies won’t be born; our progress on lifting up the tens of thousands of Australian children who live in poverty will be set back.
The future we’ll now have is worse than the future we could have had without the policy responses we have seen.
That comparison of what-we-will-have to what-we-could-have-had can be expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and wellbeing-adjusted life years (WELLBYs), and compared directly to estimates of the QALY and WELLBY costs of the COVID-19 deaths and suffering that our policies have averted.
When you make this comparison, correctly, the evidence is clear that Australia’s lockdown has been a mistake.
In hindsight, instead of reacting out of fear, our government could have understood its primary role early on to contain and reduce the population’s fear; it could have set proportionate and targeted policy, not blanket policy (eg, extreme lockdowns were not what drove the decline from peak infections in Australia: when many of the harshest measures were set, infections were already on the decline); and it could have been perennially mindful of the massive economic and hence human welfare costs implicit in any decision to stop trade, pull children out of school, or lock people away from their friends and family.
In normal times, we jump up and down and fill national airwaves about changes in GDP or unemployment rates that are an order of magnitude less than what we are seeing now. In normal times we don’t track single-digit daily death rates from any cause as a leading indicator of whether it’s safe to venture outside, knowing that hundreds of people in Australia die each day from myriad causes. In normal times we talk about striving for health not through sitting at home and avoiding other people, but by building our strength and supporting our immune systems. People today have lost their perspective on what is normal.

RELATED
Coronavirus shutdown: did it go 'too far'?
As the costs of our decisions become more and more apparent, with time, our fear will stop controlling our minds. I hope the perspective of the public and policy-makers returns quickly, so we have a chance of handling things better if the next wave of the virus attacks again what is now one of the most immunologically unprepared high-income countries in the world: Australia.

The shutdown didn't go far enough. We could have eliminated the virus, like New Zealand, and be walking around, flying around, Australia as per normal.

This article is two months old. Since it was published, another 48,000 Americans have died (but hey! only 5000 Swedes and they're open! That's equivalent to only 12,500 dead Australians - that's not many!). I wonder if she still has the same opinion. I wonder if her 'expert' opinion was one of those used to justify/pressure the easing of restrictions that has resulted in the current outbreak(s).

It is the opinion of a neoliberal Friedman economist with seemingly no understanding or at least care for the science, health impacts and highly contagious nature of the virus. She is wedded to the once radical, then mainstream, soon-to-be-discredited economic rationalist ideology.

She writes: "Lower GDP now and going forward means lower levels of government services on education, healthcare, research and development, infrastructure, social services, and myriad other things that keep us happier, healthier and living longer."

Ah, only if we choose that. We could choose to increase all of those things, and justify them economically as well as socially. All we have to do is reject the "market knows best" horseshit ideology that has driven us to the point of such inequality and deep dissatisfaction in supposedly wealthy countries, and embrace economics that serve the people.

 

[Coburgtiger]

The economy is fictional.

The virus isn't.

 

[Ian4]

NSW active cases up 282% since last thursday (44 - 124).
VIC active cases up 163% since last thursday (2233 - 3630).

obviously a massive difference in numbers, but still concerning signs for NSW.

 

[jb03]

The shutdown didn't go far enough. We could have eliminated the virus, like New Zealand, and be walking around, flying around, Australia as per normal.

This article is two months old. Since it was published, another 48,000 Americans have died (but hey! only 5000 Swedes and they're open! That's equivalent to only 12,500 dead Australians - that's not many!). I wonder if she still has the same opinion. I wonder if her 'expert' opinion was one of those used to justify/pressure the easing of restrictions that has resulted in the current outbreak(s).

It is the opinion of a neoliberal Friedman economist with seemingly no understanding or at least care for the science, health impacts and highly contagious nature of the virus. She is wedded to the once radical, then mainstream, soon-to-be-discredited economic rationalist ideology.

She writes: "Lower GDP now and going forward means lower levels of government services on education, healthcare, research and development, infrastructure, social services, and myriad other things that keep us happier, healthier and living longer."

Ah, only if we choose that. We could choose to increase all of those things, and justify them economically as well as socially. All we have to do is reject the "market knows best" horseshit ideology that has driven us to the point of such inequality and deep dissatisfaction in supposedly wealthy countries, and embrace economics that serve the people.

Yep. At least those pro economy anti-life journalists have stopped referencing Sweden and Florida.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Victorian Health Department told people awaiting test results ‘go to work’
Rohan Smith
news.com
July 23, 2020

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews delivered a sobering statistic on Wednesday as the state’s cases rose to a single-day record of 484 cases.

He said that between July 7 and July 21, 90 per cent of all people who were confirmed to have coronavirus in Victoria “did not isolate between when they first felt sick and they went to get a test”.

He went on to say that he was “equally saddened” to learn that 53 per cent of those confirmed cases “did not isolate … did not stay at home … between when they had their test taken and when they got the results of that test”.

“They continued to go shopping, continued to go to work, continued to do all sorts of things,” Mr Andrews said.

“From when you get tested to when your results come through, every person who gets tested is provided with very clear instructions about staying at home and waiting until those results come through.”

It would seem to be at best an extraordinary lapse in judgment and at worst a deliberate contravention of the rules from Victorians who were told explicitly to self-isolate after tests.

But there’s a problem with that interpretation of what went wrong.

On July 4, Victoria’s Department of Health and Human Services released contradictory advice.

In a statement on its website, DHHS wrote that people who had been tested in Melbourne’s hot zones but did not show any symptoms “are not required to self-isolate while you wait for your results”.

News.com.au has approached DHHS for comment.

Epidemiologist and University of South Australia Professor Adrian Esterman told news.com.au that “40-50 per cent of infected people are asymptomatic, and there is evidence that they could infect others”.

“Since they have no symptoms, they would only be picked up by surveillance testing, or through contact tracing,” he said.

“In the early days of the epidemic, we did not know this.”

- - - - -

Can that be correct - 40-50% of all infections show no symptoms? That just doesn't sound right. There would be no stopping it.

 

[MD Jazz]

She writes: "Lower GDP now and going forward means lower levels of government services on education, healthcare, research and development, infrastructure, social services, and myriad other things that keep us happier, healthier and living longer."

Ah, only if we choose that. We could choose to increase all of those things, and justify them economically as well as socially. All we have to do is reject the "market knows best" horseshit ideology that has driven us to the point of such inequality and deep dissatisfaction in supposedly wealthy countries, and embrace economics that serve the people.

That's right we just need to print more money hey?

FWIW I am hoping the outcome of the current lock downs is a reduction to levels where elimination is a real possible outcome. But not even experts can agree on the correct strategy.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...ination-strategy-replace-suppression/12452660

I assume it is likely the only way Australia can function correctly going forward is to eliminate the virus in all states.

 

[Brodders17]

Annual suicides in Australia are around 3,000. A 5 % increase is equivalent to around 150 additional suicides, which is more than the number that have currently died in Australia from Covid.

The comparison isn't how many have died, it should be how many would have without the restrictions, with best guesses being 1000s.

 

[Brodders17]

Victorian Health Department told people awaiting test results ‘go to work’
Rohan Smith
news.com
July 23, 2020

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews delivered a sobering statistic on Wednesday as the state’s cases rose to a single-day record of 484 cases.

He said that between July 7 and July 21, 90 per cent of all people who were confirmed to have coronavirus in Victoria “did not isolate between when they first felt sick and they went to get a test”.

He went on to say that he was “equally saddened” to learn that 53 per cent of those confirmed cases “did not isolate … did not stay at home … between when they had their test taken and when they got the results of that test”.

“They continued to go shopping, continued to go to work, continued to do all sorts of things,” Mr Andrews said.

“From when you get tested to when your results come through, every person who gets tested is provided with very clear instructions about staying at home and waiting until those results come through.”

It would seem to be at best an extraordinary lapse in judgment and at worst a deliberate contravention of the rules from Victorians who were told explicitly to self-isolate after tests.

But there’s a problem with that interpretation of what went wrong.

On July 4, Victoria’s Department of Health and Human Services released contradictory advice.

In a statement on its website, DHHS wrote that people who had been tested in Melbourne’s hot zones but did not show any symptoms “are not required to self-isolate while you wait for your results”.

News.com.au has approached DHHS for comment.

Epidemiologist and University of South Australia Professor Adrian Esterman told news.com.au that “40-50 per cent of infected people are asymptomatic, and there is evidence that they could infect others”.

“Since they have no symptoms, they would only be picked up by surveillance testing, or through contact tracing,” he said.

“In the early days of the epidemic, we did not know this.”

- - - - -

Can that be correct - 40-50% of all infections show no symptoms? That just doesn't sound right. There would be no stopping it.

Yesterday, after Andrews, Sutton clarified that people without symptoms did not need to isolate. He said they positive tests from asymptomatic people were incredibly low. This journo should know that.

 

[caesar]

Is the game against GWS still going ahead in Sydney?

Yes, they couldn't play us in QLD anyway they would have to 14 day quarantine

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Yesterday, after Andrews, Sutton clarified that people without symptoms did not need to isolate. He said they positive tests from asymptomatic people were incredibly low. This journo should know that.

Yeah it seemed like a trashy article. Maybe that's why it was hidden away at news.com.

 

[Althom]

Yes, they couldn't play us in QLD anyway they would have to 14 day quarantine

This is what I don't get. GWS would have to quarantine for 14 days if the match was in QLD and yet Richmond can play the Bulldogs 5 days after being in contact with GWS in Sydney

 

[spook]

That's right we just need to print more money hey?

I know you think this response and clever and superior. It's neither.

Unlike gold, or land, or water, money is not a finite resource. There is more of it now than there's ever been and next year there will be more again. Where do you think it comes from? Where did we "get the money" for the $270 billion in new defence spending?

Even Friedman was an advocate of "a steady, small expansion of the money supply". What a Keynesian will argue (and be able to show works) is that in a time of economic contraction, government should increase the money supply to keep the economy moving. Austerity leads to recession or worse.

This neocon idea that we have to "pay off the debt", that a government should be run like a business or a household budget, that "we can't afford to burden our children" is wrong and has been shown to be wrong. Google it. Our national debt is minuscule. If we take on more of the right debt we will outgrow it. This other nonsense is myth and misconception, either a total misunderstanding by the conservative side or a deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[craig]

This will be Darwinism at it's finest.
Choose to not wear a mask because you are a *smile* and Caucasian, cop a fine and live with an increased chance of catching Covid and transmitting it to others.
Or, wear a mask and maintain high levels of personal hygiene and reduce your risk of getting the Corona virus.
A mask looks to be a pretty
reasonable request.

So what has being caucasian got to do with anything ??

 

[MD Jazz]

I know you think this response and clever and superior. It's neither.

Unlike gold, or land, or water, money is not a finite resource. There is more of it now than there's ever been and next year there will be more again. Where do you think it comes from? Where did we "get the money" for the $270 billion in new defence spending?

Even Friedman was an advocate of "a steady, small expansion of the money supply". What a Keynesian will argue (and be able to show works) is that in a time of economic contraction, government should increase the money supply to keep the economy moving. Austerity leads to recession or worse.

This neocon idea that we have to "pay off the debt", that a government should be run like a business or a household budget, that "we can't afford to burden our children" is wrong and has been shown to be wrong. Google it. Our national debt is minuscule. If we take on more of the right debt we will outgrow it. This other nonsense is myth and misconception, either a total misunderstanding by the conservative side or a deliberate misrepresentation.

Where did I argue against government spending now? I'm only pointing out I disagree with the theory (MMT) you are a fan of. And I'm not a supporter of the likes of that knob Tim Wilson. I just don't like the idea of governments controlling the macroeconomic levers.

I'm not an economist and like everything there are plenty of smart people who support MMT and plenty who don't. Most are influenced by political persuasion.

 

[DavidSSS]

MMT is contentious, but the notion that a sovereign currency issuing government has to manage funds like a household (as Thatcher used to claim) flies in the face of reality.

Increasing money supply can lead to inflation, it can also be useful when the economy is in a slump. In any case, as the Bank of England said a few years ago, the size of the money supply is determined by demand because supply can just be created. The point though is that increasing the money supply does not necessarily lead to inflation as claimed by monetarists - we can see this because the money supply has increased recently and was massively added to following the GFC and, hey presto, inflation did not result.

It is possible that political persuasion is influenced by observation of what is actually going on. I'm sure there are plenty of economists who study the economy and how it works and their political persuasion stems from what they find - this goes both ways.

The other point is that when this crisis is over, then we have choices as to how we deal with the aftermath. Governments went into massive debt after WWII and they didn't choose to tax the rich at a lower rate, they didn't choose to reduce social security, they didn't defund health and education. In fact, they did the opposite, the UK introduced the NHS (we waited until 1974 to do the same and then the local Tories got rid of it and it was restored under Hawke), education funding went up, social security was expanded etc. Taxes were made way more progressive, not just on income but also on inheritances. Inequality reduced (progressive taxes worked despite what a lot of right wing economists claim) and did this lead to a period of stagnant growth or recession? No, the economy grew healthily in the 1950s and 1960s. There were a host of issues and it was far from perfect, but the doom and gloom predictions that high taxes, progressive taxes, inheritance taxes, freely provided education, national health schemes, generous social security etc would lead to economic harm just did not happen.

DS