You said flattening the curve only works if there is a vaccine.
The evidence proves this is false. It also works if there is contact tracing and testing.
You then changed topics from the virus itself to the economy. That is goalpost shifting.
Irontruth wrote: You said flattening the curve only works if there is a vaccine.
The evidence proves this is false. It also works if there is contact tracing and testing.
You then changed topics from the virus itself to the economy. That is goalpost shifting.
And I call ######## on that weak claim.
If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
Hammering the global economy as we are now is not sustainable.
Ipso facto - sans effective vaccine, contact tracing and testing won't work long term. Because it's not just testing and tracing. It's all the other restrictions along with that which allow testing and tracing to work.
The economy in New Zealand is bad, Portugal is dreadfully bad. Don't even ask about Brazil or Russia. There are no major or minor league sports under the New Zealand model because the teams can't make bank at it... and so on for dozens of other sub-sections of the global economy and/or national economies... Just, no!
OTOH CO2 emissions will stay much closer to the +1.5°C target.
:D
New Zealand has had 11 new cases in the past month. Adjusting for population, if the US had the same rate, that would be 750 new cases over a 30 day period. Right now, we over 25,000 per day, or 750,000 new cases over the same period.
I would consider a reduction from 750,000 to 750 to be extremely successful.
I don't care about the factors. Tell me why a reduction that significant is not successful.
If you have to rely on mitigating the success by pointing to it being an island, or less dense, you've failed, because you are not addressing the fact that they did succeed. Saying anything else would be an attempt to b&~!%$$~ us.
I am willing to discuss the economy and how other countries have handled the virus, but those are separate points. If you have to use those to distract from this point, then you've failed, because you are trying to b~*%$%~& us.
New Zealand has essentially eradicated the virus from the island. For your earlier claim to be true, then they have a vaccine. Do they have a vaccine?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: New Zealand huh? That country with a total population sitting between the Central African Republic and Mauritania? That country with the population density sitting between Papua New Guinea and Niger? That New Zealand? Yes, the New Zealand with nearly twice the population density of Sweden.
Quark Blast wrote: Not a big accomplishment relatively speaking. So no new cases of the coronavirus for several weeks is "not a big accomplishment"... but Sweden's continued viral growth is a triumph of public health policy.
Quark Blast wrote: OTOH, if what people are arguing is:
If we are willing to totally #### the global economy for an indeterminate amount of time, test constantly and lock people down who fail the test (and pay for all that magically), we can lower the death rate.
...and here, finally, we have the real reason for the irrational insistence that Sweden is doing so very well.
A portion of the population have apparently come to believe that taking significant action to stop the spread of the pandemic is bad for the economy. Which is exactly backwards. The worse the pandemic gets, the greater its economic impact will be. This should be obvious, but somehow isn't.
A study of cell phone movement within the US found that people began decreasing their travel BEFORE government imposed lockdowns went into effect, and indeed by the time each state imposed their lockdown the reduction in travel was already at or near its peak. In short, the government lockdowns just formalized what people were doing anyway.
Nor has travel returned to previous levels as the lockdowns have lifted. Many people around the country continue to avoid outside contact as much as possible.
It seems like it should be obvious that many people are going to continue to take precautions so long as there is an ongoing deadly public health threat. Which, again obviously, is going to cause decreased economic activity. Ergo, logically, it seems like you would want to do as much as you can to minimize the public health threat quickly so that economic activity can resume.
...which is why New Zealand has now been able to remove ALL internal restrictions put in place to deal with the outbreak (they are down to just limits on incoming international travel, to prevent reintroduction), while Sweden has actually had to add more (e.g. new restrictions on access to retirement communities). New Zealand is 'back to normal' except for international travel, while people in Sweden are still being directed to limit contact with others.
This is the exact same failure of logic that we have seen with global warming: 'We cannot take action to reduce global warming / spread of the coronavirus. We have to protect the economy!'. Meanwhile, the longer the problem remains unresolved the worse it gets and the greater the economic impact.
New Zealand is an island that takes the better part of two or three days to get to from most of the world by air; far longer by boat. Other than rich tourists virtually no one goes there, and with air passenger flights down 90%, and cruise ships down right at 100%, there's not been much influx. Sweden has schengen to deal with. They also have a high relative proportion of foreign nationals compared to NZ.
As I said previously:
If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
And:
Contact tracing and testing won't work long term. <-- Note: LONG TERM.
If the "flat curve" has no termination point on the upper end, and viral flare-ups keep happening, then NZ will catch up eventually or pay a stiff price - say 10%+ of their GDP on an ongoing basis. <-- That sounds like a winning option!
Quark Blast wrote: New Zealand is an island that takes the better part of two or three days to get to from most of the world by air; far longer by boat. Other than rich tourists virtually no one goes there, and with air passenger flights down 90%, and cruise ships down right at 100%, there's not been much influx. Sweden has schengen to deal with. They also have a high relative proportion of foreign nationals compared to NZ.
Does NZ have a vaccine? Yes or no.
Quark Blast wrote: New Zealand is an island Around six hundred islands actually.
Quark Blast wrote: If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same. You continue to not understand 'flattening the curve'. The total deaths do NOT remain the same. The entire point is to REDUCE the number of deaths by keeping the number of active cases low enough that medical infrastructure does not become overloaded.
Quark Blast wrote:
If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
Just for the record, SARS did not simply disappear on its own. It was beaten by measures to reduce its spread. Measures like contact tracing and testing.
Now obviously, it never got as deeply or widely established, so that was a much easier task, but it's misleading to portray it as if it just vanished.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
Just for the record, SARS did not simply disappear on its own. It was beaten by measures to reduce its spread. Measures like contact tracing and testing.
Now obviously, it never got as deeply or widely established, so that was a much easier task, but it's misleading to portray it as if it just vanished. Well, I actually wasn't saying is just vanished so much as implying it could come back, though apparently won't given how long it's been. Regardless, good point of clarification.
My followup would be this question:
Is it possible to contact trace and test 7.6 billion people?
And the answer is three part:
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Economically, #### no!
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
Just for the record, SARS did not simply disappear on its own. It was beaten by measures to reduce its spread. Measures like contact tracing and testing.
Now obviously, it never got as deeply or widely established, so that was a much easier task, but it's misleading to portray it as if it just vanished. Well, I actually wasn't saying is just vanished so much as implying it could come back, though apparently won't given how long it's been. Regardless, good point of clarification.
My followup would be this question:
Is it possible to contact trace and test 7.6 billion people?
And the answer is three part:
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Economically, #### no! Of course not, but you don't have to. You use lockdowns to stop the worst of the spread, masks and distancing to afterwards and to slow transmission, then you can use contact tracing and testing once it's mostly under control to nip any new outbreaks in the bud.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
My followup would be this question:
Is it possible to contact trace and test 7.6 billion people?
Does New Zealand have a vaccine?
Your point about the world population is irrelevant. Either New Zealand has a vaccine, or it doesn't.
You claimed that covid-19 can only be solved through a vaccine. Since, we already know that New Zealand has effectively solved the situation for themselves, that means either they have a vaccine, or you are wrong.
You like to b*%*@ about how I get pedantic. The reason I get pedantic, is you refuse to acknowledge simple facts, and you make b$&&!&~+ claims that violate those simple facts.
Does New Zealand have a vaccine?
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: If the Coronavirus is not simply gone someday - like SARS apparently is - then we will be flattening the curve in perpetuity. In such a case, the area under the curve (aka total deaths) remains approximately the same.
Just for the record, SARS did not simply disappear on its own. It was beaten by measures to reduce its spread. Measures like contact tracing and testing.
Now obviously, it never got as deeply or widely established, so that was a much easier task, but it's misleading to portray it as if it just vanished. Well, I actually wasn't saying is just vanished so much as implying it could come back, though apparently won't given how long it's been. Regardless, good point of clarification.
My followup would be this question:
Is it possible to contact trace and test 7.6 billion people?
And the answer is three part:
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Economically, #### no! Of course not, but you don't have to. You use lockdowns to stop the worst of the spread, masks and distancing to afterwards and to slow transmission, then you can use contact tracing and testing once it's mostly under control to nip any new outbreaks in the bud.
That works in theory. Works in practice for areas that are remote and/or sparsely populated and a few places where government control is draconian. I doubt it'll work for the majority of humanity in practice without also having an effective vaccine.
BTW - if you want to pick a country that's done a good job, I'd go with Taiwan. I also like their national health care system; best in the world afaik.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Study of Covid-19 economic impacts
"The fundamental reason that people seem to be spending less is not because of state-imposed restrictions," Chetty said. "It's because high-income folks are able to work remotely, are choosing to self-isolate and are being cautious given health concerns. And unless you fundamentally address that concern, I think there's limited capacity to restart the economy."
Nice to have detailed economic analysis confirming the obvious, but it still should have been obvious all along.
Rich people spend money?
Yeah, that's obvious.
:D
What about this though?
Specifically the part where you said, "Yet still also absolutely true that whatever the total impact eventually is will be an insignificant blip in terms of climate impact."
If we don't "restart" the economy, then we will continue to see a reduction in global CO2 output going forward. If this lasts more than a couple of years, and it could, then we may have a chance of something less than a +2.5°C year 2100.
That's more than a "blip" and absolutely not "insignificant".
Quark Blast wrote: If we don't "restart" the economy, then we will continue to see a reduction in global CO2 output going forward. If this lasts more than a couple of years, and it could The global economy has already 'restarted' and GHG emissions have swung back up in response.
You just agreed that it was obvious that economic activity would resume when the virus is largely contained. Most of the world has achieved that. Only a few countries that had weak / short-lived efforts to control the outbreak are still seeing large numbers of new daily cases.
US vs EU coronavirus cases
That said, even if every country remained under their strictest lockdown conditions for a few years... that would STILL be an 'insignificant blip' in terms of AGW. We're talking about well under a 10 ppm reduction in atmospheric GHG levels... and that's assuming that the decreased activity during the pandemic wouldn't be offset by increased activity afterwards.
Quark Blast wrote: then we may have a chance of something less than a +2.5°C year 2100. Which was also entirely possible before the coronavirus pandemic even existed... so yes, that is so insignificant that it isn't a 'change' at all.
Here's another good summary of why carbon pricing, of some sort, needs to be a thing:
Impact of Covid-19 and climate change
Don't think we'll get there (heck, even Switzerland isn't on it's pledged Paris Agreement target path yet) but maybe the Coronavirus pause will shift the global economy into that mode by default. The path around a strange attractor is a little hard to model.
In other news, maybe Japan is my new favorite country (with Sweden now in second place):
Coronavirus: Japan's mysteriously low virus death rate
BBC wrote: What happened in Japan?
At the height of the outbreak in Wuhan in February, when the city's hospitals were overwhelmed and the world put up walls to Chinese travellers, Japan kept borders open.
As the virus spread, it quickly became clear that Covid is a disease that primarily kills the elderly and is massively amplified by crowds or prolonged close contact. Per capita, Japan has more elderly than any other country. Japan's population is also densely packed into huge cities.
Greater Tokyo has a mind-boggling 37 million people and for most of them, the only way to get around is on the city's notoriously packed trains.
Then there is Japan's refusal to heed the advice of the World Health Organization (WHO) to "test, test, test". Even now, total PCR tests stand at just 348,000, or 0.27% of Japan's population.
Nor has Japan had a lockdown on the scale or severity of Europe. In early April, the government ordered a state of emergency. But the stay-at-home request was voluntary. Non-essential businesses were asked to close, but there was no legal penalty for refusing.
Many paragons of Covid strategy, such as New Zealand and Vietnam, used tough measures including closing borders, tight lockdowns, large-scale testing and strict quarantines - but Japan did none of that.
Yet, five months after the first Covid case was reported here, Japan has fewer than 20,000 confirmed cases and fewer than 1,000 deaths. The state of emergency has been lifted, and life is rapidly returning to normal.
Boom! Go Japan!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: Here's another good summary of why carbon pricing, of some sort, needs to be a thing:
Impact of Covid-19 and climate change
Don't think we'll get there (heck, even Switzerland isn't on it's pledged Paris Agreement target path yet) but maybe the Coronavirus pause will shift the global economy into that mode by default. The path around a strange attractor is a little hard to model.
In other news, maybe Japan is my new favorite country (with Sweden now in second place):
Coronavirus: Japan's mysteriously low virus death rate
BBC wrote: What happened in Japan?
At the height of the outbreak in Wuhan in February, when the city's hospitals were overwhelmed and the world put up walls to Chinese travellers, Japan kept borders open.
As the virus spread, it quickly became clear that Covid is a disease that primarily kills the elderly and is massively amplified by crowds or prolonged close contact. Per capita, Japan has more elderly than any other country. Japan's population is also densely packed into huge cities.
Greater Tokyo has a mind-boggling 37 million people and for most of them, the only way to get around is on the city's notoriously packed trains.
Then there is Japan's refusal to heed the advice of the World Health Organization (WHO) to "test, test, test". Even now, total PCR tests stand at just 348,000, or 0.27% of Japan's population.
Nor has Japan had a lockdown on the scale or severity of Europe. In early April, the government ordered a state of emergency. But the stay-at-home request was voluntary. Non-essential businesses were asked to close, but there was no legal penalty for refusing.
Many paragons of Covid strategy, such as New Zealand and Vietnam, used tough measures including
...
It's not that mysterious and it's not at all the path taken by Sweden. Japan's not going for herd immunity, they're handling the problem.
From that same story: Quote: Japanese people began wearing face masks more than 100 years ago during the 1919 flu pandemic and they've never really stopped. If you get a cough or a cold here it is expected that you will don a mask to protect those around you.
"I think it (a mask) acts as a physical barrier. But it also serves as a reminder to everybody to be mindful. That we still have to be careful around each other," says Keiji Fukuda, an influenza specialist and director of the School of Public Health at Hong Kong University.
Quote: These discoveries led to the government launching a nationwide campaign warning people to avoid the "Three Cs".
Enclosed spaces with poor ventilation
Crowded places with many people
Close contact settings such as face-to-face conversations.
Quote: "Japan's mild lockdowns seems to have had a real lockdown effect. Japanese people complied despite the lack of draconian measures." By your prior arguments they're just delaying things and they'll all get screwed in the second wave.
Also, per his earlier statements, it is impossible for Japan to have gotten covid-19 under control... unless they have a vaccine.
If you want to be Japanese things might work out ok but I seriously doubt they want you. Same with New Zealand. It's ok to visit but they don't want you there long term unless you're rich or you have a very useful set of technical skills (which the vast majority of even 'western' educated humanity doesn't have).
OTOH a significant proportion of the NZ economy depends on tourism and as long as that's the case they'll be vulnerable to repeat virus episodes. Japan has similar vulnerabilities but I'm not so sure they couldn't maintain their standard of living without all the icky tourists.
If the approach is to "handle the problem" in perpetuity and they can take the hit on their economy, then go for it. That won't work everywhere. Heck stateside there are decades-long 'blue' cities in decades-long 'blue' states that basically took everything Dr Fauci said as gospel (and were in practice even more cautious) and those areas got relatively hammered by the Coronavirus (and still are/will again).
So yeah, long term, sans vaccine for the Coronavirus, no country that accepts foreign nationals will be immune to it unless/until a persistently effective vaccine is developed. 'Tis true!
Except... Sweden's doing fine and will have herd immunity by the end of summer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
Except... Sweden's doing fine and will have herd immunity by the end of summer. They were supposed to have herd immunity in May, but only got to around 7%. I haven't seen any more recent studies, but I doubt they're on track for fall either.
But mostly I'm just amused by you talking up both Sweden and NZ, when they took radically different approaches. It almost seems like you're just opposed to mandated lockdowns, regardless of the reasons or effects.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Sweden's doing fine Sweden conducting inquiry into failed coronavirus strategy
He's been ignoring such evidence for a month already.
Irontruth wrote: Sweden launches probe into handling of pandemic... because it went well?
Oh wait, government probes usually come after things don't go well.
Yes, but there's a difference of degree.
They had always planned to do a review of how their policy performed towards the end of the year. The story you linked from a month ago was about discussions starting on bringing the date of that review forward due to concerns about the way things were going. Now they openly admit that the strategy failed and have actually begun a review of what they need to do to fix it.
"We have thousands of dead," Swedish prime minister Stefan Lofven said at a press conference on Wednesday, while admitting that the country's handling had exposed Sweden's "shortcomings," The Times of London reported.
"Now the question is how Sweden should change, not if."
Not sure why you're trying to "well actually" me. We're in agreement. I'm pointing out that QB doesn't give a s@@%.
If you're going to "well actually" me, it'll have to be on QB taking evidence seriously.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sweden's reaction shows the parallel to ours and to what QB was talking about earlier with people not being willing to tolerate shutdowns long enough: they're also not willing to tolerate dying in large numbers for the sake of the economy.
Try to rush to herd immunity and you'll see lots more deaths, but enough people will start wearing masks and distancing to slow the spread and tank the economy. They'll just do it too late as a reaction to things getting bad rather than up front as a preventative.
Stay locked down indefinitely and you'll face other problems - in the US's case made far worse by one political party agitating against the shutdown from the start. Leading to not even being able to maintain masks and minimal social distancing that would keep it under control or let the government react appropriately to new hotspots before they get really bad.
Can I just say, being brand new to this thread and only having read the last page so far, thanks for the education? Seriously, I'd forgotten what rational discourse looked like. Except for QB, who never answered IT about countries they praise that don't have a vaccine. Bad faith actors.
What Sweden did wrong, and they did it far less wrong than NY state/city, was not protecting old people enough - the ones in care/retirement centers. The investigation that the govt is initiating is one that was already planned from the beginning and unlikely to discover anything we don't already know, but they have to do it in the public way they are because...
I mean seriously; How many dead from the Coronavirus is too many?
So the BS statements from the Swedish PM are all about playing to the political necessity. Guess he wants to get reelected.
Everything is ####### hype anymore - and this is key - no one can talk intelligently about anything anymore without being totally butthurt over the most trivial disagreements. This thread is no exception. I think the Interwebs attract the extremes and encourage said behavior... because, hey!, it gets clicks and clicks get ads.
Everything in the news is FL and TX, and yeah they're having a second bump of infections that is seemingly worse than the first, but so is SoCal and - note this - SoCal never got off their 'lock-down' protocol and yet they're getting hit every bit as hard as FL or TX.
Go figure.
:D
And for that matter, per capita dead in FL and TX is still... what? 5x, 6x, 7x less than NY/NJ. Now maybe FL and TX will catch up eventually but it was never a good idea to send Coronavirus-sick old people back to the retirement homes in order to "save space" in the hospitals. But that's what they did in NY - all those deaths were totally preventable. And they knew better, even at the time. Total ######## ######## if you ask me.
The countries that have done the best are also the least open to outsiders and/or run in a totalitarian way or are remote/small populations. Without an effective vaccine the ####show we're seeing in SoCal and Melbourne (to give just two current examples) is going to be our weekly fare somewhere in across the globe for years to come. But lock-downs by and large are a thing of the past - we can't afford them.
Quark Blast wrote: Without an effective vaccine the ####show we're seeing in SoCal and Melbourne (to give just two current examples) is going to be our weekly fare somewhere in across the globe for years to come. But lock-downs by and large are a thing of the past - we can't afford them. Reality: As new cases surge in various places they are re-instating lockdowns. They can't afford not to.
Letting a pandemic run rampant does nothing to 'protect the economy'. The only way to get to economic recovery is to get the pandemic under control first.
Meanwhile; Natural gas is losing its political clout
We are now at the point where political and financial support is shifting from natural gas to less expensive renewable power sources. That will just further increase the imbalance between the two and produce a snowballing rapid transition effect... just as we saw with the collapse of coal over the past decade. Oil is right on the verge of a similar tipping point as EVs fall below the cost of ICEVs in various countries. That'll be a global reality within a few years.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Without an effective vaccine the ####show we're seeing in SoCal and Melbourne (to give just two current examples) is going to be our weekly fare somewhere in across the globe for years to come. But lock-downs by and large are a thing of the past - we can't afford them. Reality: As new cases surge in various places they are re-instating lockdowns. They can't afford not to.
Letting a pandemic run rampant does nothing to 'protect the economy'. The only way to get to economic recovery is to get the pandemic under control first. And even without lockdowns, people get scared and economic activity drops. Enough to hurt the economy, but too late to keep the cases from spiking.
Lockdowns and careful (partial) reopenings not only save lives, but they're better for the economy as well.
And masks. Masks for everyone. That doesn't hurt the economy at all.
thejeff wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Without an effective vaccine the ####show we're seeing in SoCal and Melbourne (to give just two current examples) is going to be our weekly fare somewhere in across the globe for years to come. But lock-downs by and large are a thing of the past - we can't afford them. Reality: As new cases surge in various places they are re-instating lockdowns. They can't afford not to.
Letting a pandemic run rampant does nothing to 'protect the economy'. The only way to get to economic recovery is to get the pandemic under control first. And even without lockdowns, people get scared and economic activity drops. Enough to hurt the economy, but too late to keep the cases from spiking.
Lockdowns and careful (partial) reopenings not only save lives, but they're better for the economy as well.
And masks. Masks for everyone. That doesn't hurt the economy at all. Yeah, well... we're "under lock down" here and you can't tell from the traffic outside. Though I suspect you can tell if you go to your favorite bar and it's closed or severely limited in occupancy - which they likely are. Lock downs are only better for the people who would otherwise die or suffer from a permanently injured post-full-blown COVID-19 state.
And yes (like duh!) the economy is already and will continue to stay hurt by the Coronavirus for years to come.
One thing I expect to stay as a permanent dent in the economy is office space. Don't want to be in that business as it's become amply clear that a good chunk of the work force can be every bit as effective doing the WFH thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see 30% overcapacity or more this time next year. Not an investment opportunity for the foreseeable future. Shopping malls are in a similar situation (for different specific reasons) to about the same net effect - say 30% closures by this time next year.
And masks do hurt the economy, though not as much as they help... so net positive there I suppose but shopping in a mask is not so comfortable and for that reason I'm quite certain people shop less than they used to.
Back to the OP:
While China may have ramped up CO2 output, much of that is of the 'make work' sort as they struggle to keep people employed at anything. They won't be keeping that up forever but they'll try for another year at least. If we have an effective vaccine by this time next year then China may actually be able to dig itself out of the hole they're getting into at the moment.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Without an effective vaccine the ####show we're seeing in SoCal and Melbourne (to give just two current examples) is going to be our weekly fare somewhere in across the globe for years to come. But lock-downs by and large are a thing of the past - we can't afford them. Reality: As new cases surge in various places they are re-instating lockdowns. They can't afford not to.
Letting a pandemic run rampant does nothing to 'protect the economy'. The only way to get to economic recovery is to get the pandemic under control first. And even without lockdowns, people get scared and economic activity drops. Enough to hurt the economy, but too late to keep the cases from spiking.
Lockdowns and careful (partial) reopenings not only save lives, but they're better for the economy as well.
And masks. Masks for everyone. That doesn't hurt the economy at all. Yeah, well... we're "under lock down" here and you can't tell from the traffic outside. Though I suspect you can tell if you go to your favorite bar and it's closed or severely limited in occupancy - which they likely are. Lock downs are only better for the people who would otherwise die or suffer from a permanently injured post-full-blown COVID-19 state.
And yes (like duh!) the economy is already and will continue to stay hurt by the Coronavirus for years to come.
One thing I expect to stay as a permanent dent in the economy is office space. Don't want to be in that business as it's become amply clear that a good chunk of the work force can be every bit as effective doing the WFH thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see 30% overcapacity or more this time next year. Not an investment opportunity for the foreseeable future. Shopping malls are in a similar situation (for different specific reasons) to about the same net effect - say 30% closures by this time next year.
And masks do hurt the economy, though not as much as they help... so net positive there I suppose but shopping in a mask is not so comfortable and for that reason I'm quite certain people shop less than they used to. Or people aren't shopping as much because they're worried about being in public spaces, not because they don't bother because masks aren't comfy.
Not sure where you are or what "lock down" means there. Not a lot of the US is officially in a full lock down.
But the point is again that the measures we've taken (partial closings, full lockdowns, etc) don't hurt the economy nearly so much as the disease by itself. As CB said, we can't afford not to lockdown. Don't lock down and COVID-19 will lock down for you. People will hide.
The thing is that if the virus takes down the economy well its a virus. It has a negative popularity rating already.
If government shuts down the economy (even if its a good idea, even if it ends up costing you less than the virus theoretically would) the government gets blamed for it. People don't compare a downturned economy that they do see with a hypothetical really downturned economy and a lot of deaths: they just see the reality they live in and get angry about it.
The downside to democracy is that the right action isn't always popular.
BigNorseWolf wrote: The thing is that if the virus takes down the economy well its a virus. It has a negative popularity rating already.
If government shuts down the economy (even if its a good idea, even if it ends up costing you less than the virus theoretically would) the government gets blamed for it. People don't compare a downturned economy that they do see with a hypothetical really downturned economy and a lot of deaths: they just see the reality they live in and get angry about it.
The downside to democracy is that the right action isn't always popular.
Letting the virus run uncontrolled isn't looking very popular either.
Not at all popular but it didn't keep SoCal from looking like FL or TX; though I think NY is still in its own category for now as they seem to have gotten the Coronavirus nominally under control by unintentionally doing what Sweden has done on purpose (something about 50%-60%+ COVID-19 antibody presence in a few of the boroughs tells me herd immunity has been effectively achieved - now if they could just keep non-locals out like New Zealand has NY would be fine until an effective vaccine is produced).
Alas though I'm getting tired of even the very mild version of Internet ###hattery here in these forums, but one last hurrah for now:
The supposed C02 "blip" will certainly be more than that. It's looking like the economy is going to be slow for at least another 24 months if we're lucky and likely won't return to pre-virus levels for many months more (if not years). I don't think technology will get us to a +2.5 year 2100 but it's not off the table yet mainly due to the reprieve that the Coronavirus has given us. Though for some perspective remember that the Tesla Model S has been on the market for over eight years and the Model 3 for over three years (with only 76k delivered for Q2 this year). When EVs stop being luxury purchases then we'll see a difference in ICE emissions on a global scale (the only scale that counts viz-a-viz AGW).
For now I'll adopt the wisdom of Wrath and Scythia
Quark Blast wrote: I think NY is still in its own category for now as they seem to have gotten the Coronavirus nominally under control by unintentionally doing what Sweden has done on purpose (something about 50%-60%+ COVID-19 antibody presence in a few of the boroughs tells me herd immunity has been effectively achieved A: Antibody levels that high have only been found in cases where people have REQUESTED antibody tests. Most do so because they believe they have already had the virus... which creates a huge selection bias. When people in the same areas are RANDOMLY sampled the percentage with antibodies is much lower.
B: It is vastly easier to get to high infection levels in a few small insular communities than it is for a country as a whole... and the corresponding death rate for such a mass infection would be devastating.
C: There have been many confirmed cases of coronavirus reinfection. This suggests that viable antibody levels to prevent infection may not last long. In which case, 'herd immunity' will be a fleeting and largely useless 'achievement'.
Sweden is nowhere near 'herd immunity', getting there by letting the virus spread freely would cause massive deaths and severe economic damage, and there is growing evidence that any such immunity would be short-lived.
Quark Blast wrote: The supposed C02 "blip" will certainly be more than that. It's looking like the economy is going to be slow for at least another 24 months if we're lucky and likely won't return to pre-virus levels for many months more (if not years). So... maybe 5 years of reduced emissions due to the pandemic? At the outside?
Estimates for emissions reductions in 2020 as a whole come out to less than 5%. So even if that lasted for 5 years we'd be talking about roughly 25% of a normal year's worth of emissions. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing by about 2 parts per million (ppm) per year. So... the coronavirus pandemic is going to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level by less than 0.5 ppm from what it would have been without the virus.
That's a blip.
BigNorseWolf wrote: The thing is that if the virus takes down the economy well its a virus. It has a negative popularity rating already.
If government shuts down the economy (even if its a good idea, even if it ends up costing you less than the virus theoretically would) the government gets blamed for it. People don't compare a downturned economy that they do see with a hypothetical really downturned economy and a lot of deaths: they just see the reality they live in and get angry about it.
The downside to democracy is that the right action isn't always popular.
Current polling data suggests the opposite. People are fine with lockdowns and government restriction... but only as long as it also seems like the government is taking steps to fix the problem.
A majority of Americans support quarantine efforts.
A majority of Americans did not support the anti-quarantine protests.
And it isn't just like a 51-49 split either, it's 70+ for both.
Irontruth wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: The thing is that if the virus takes down the economy well its a virus. It has a negative popularity rating already.
If government shuts down the economy (even if its a good idea, even if it ends up costing you less than the virus theoretically would) the government gets blamed for it. People don't compare a downturned economy that they do see with a hypothetical really downturned economy and a lot of deaths: they just see the reality they live in and get angry about it.
The downside to democracy is that the right action isn't always popular.
Current polling data suggests the opposite. People are fine with lockdowns and government restriction... but only as long as it also seems like the government is taking steps to fix the problem.
A majority of Americans support quarantine efforts.
A majority of Americans did not support the anti-quarantine protests.
And it isn't just like a 51-49 split either, it's 70+ for both. And that's with our current ridiculously divided politics and strong anti-lockdown messaging from prominent elements in one party. Imagine how much stronger support would be if the GOP leadership was also back quarantine measures.
Quark Blast wrote: Not at all popular but it didn't keep SoCal from looking like FL or TX; though I think NY is still in its own category for now as they seem to have gotten the Coronavirus nominally under control by unintentionally doing what Sweden has done on purpose (something about 50%-60%+ COVID-19 antibody presence in a few of the boroughs tells me herd immunity has been effectively achieved - now if they could just keep non-locals out like New Zealand has NY would be fine until an effective vaccine is produced). As CB said, those aren't random samples and they're only in specific communities. Herd immunity doesn't really work like that, since people in those communities will still be exposed as they mix with people in communities that have less immunity. All assuming immunity actually persists.
Beyond that, the idea that herd immunity would only function if they kept non-locals out is contradictory - the whole point of herd immunity is that enough people are immune that a disease won't spread even if introduced. Besides, NY still has enough cases that it doesn't need outsiders to start a new spike, it just needs to get sloppy about precautions.
Looks like hope coming out of the initial human trials of the Oxford study. From what I heard over the weekend and this article though, best case we have a vaccine by next year. This seems to suggest mask wearing, social distancing and maybe even continued shelter in place would all be good preventative measures for the time being.
Also, does anyone know the firm benefits of moving data away from the CDC to the DHHS? I hear lots of politically charged speculation on both sides, but the only actual reason I'd heard was for streamlining the data reporting. How can it get MORE optimized, besides being beamed directly into my brain?
A new study has collected strong evidence that the lower and higher ends of the possible climate sensitivity range (i.e. <2C or >4C by 2100 for doubling of atmospheric CO2) are highly unlikely.
That is, if we were to increase atmospheric CO2 levels from the ~280 ppm historical range up to ~560 ppm then global temperature increase through 2100 would almost certainly be somewhere between 2.2C and 4.1C... with ~3C still being the most likely result.
The higher and lower extremes some people have pushed in recent years are just not consistent with existing evidence.
This doesn't really 'change' the mainstream thinking on global warming... it just shows that the outliers are even more implausible than previously known.
It all depends on Tipping Elements and how real they are. OTOH this more or less proves my contention that if all countries kept their Paris Accord promises then the year 2100 is +2.5°C anyway. Or worse of course, it can always be worse.
:D
Then there's this:
Sweden had one of the most relaxed COVID-19 lockdowns in the world. There's growing evidence that it helped it weather 2020's economic storm better than anywhere else.
BI wrote: A report from Capital Economics published on Tuesday found that the Swedish economy was the least harmed in Europe, describing it as the "best of a bad bunch."Though Sweden was not immune to the pandemic's economic impact, it was the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report noted. .
And this:
Swedish epidemiology boss says questioned COVID-19 strategy seems to be working
Reuters wrote: "The epidemic is now being slowed down, in a way that I think few of us would have believed a week or so ago," he told a news conference.
Daily COVID-19 death rates as well as the number of infected in intensive care have been slowing gradually since April, with seven new deaths and no new ICU admissions reported by the health agency.
"It really is yet another sign that the Swedish strategy is working," Tegnell said. It is possible to slow contagion fast with the measures we are taking in Sweden."
Both of which are examples of reporting sans hype.
What's happening right now in Melbourne?
That?
Yeah that can't happen in Sweden. Unless they import a metric #### ton of outsiders.
Quark Blast wrote:
What's happening right now in Melbourne?
That?
Yeah that can't happen in Sweden. Unless they import a metric #### ton of outsiders. Why can't it? It did. It isn't at the moment, but that's more due to the measures Sweden is taking, even if they're looser than much of the rest of Europe used at first.
Though much of the rest of Europe has also relaxed their lockdowns, mostly without serious problems.
Quark Blast wrote: OTOH this more or less proves my contention that if all countries kept their Paris Accord promises then the year 2100 is +2.5°C anyway. Or worse of course, it can always be worse. That is not what you have contended in the past. Rather, you have repeatedly said;
"The only trend I have been arguing is that the trend we are on is a +2.5°C year 2100. Minimum."
That emissions in line with the current Paris Accord pledges would exceed +2.5°C warming by 2100 is, in fact, my position;
"The current pledges under the Paris Agreement work out to about +2.7°C by 2100."
You have long claimed that +2.5°C is the "minimum" warming we could see by 2100. In contrast, I have argued that since even the 'first round' Paris pledges put us only a little above +2.5°C that instead seems likely near the maximum plausible outcome.
The Paris pledges have always been intended to be revised every five years, so we should be getting a revised picture next year. I'm expecting to see most countries pledging greater reductions. Not because of any sort of altruism or enlightenment, but simply because that is what is happening anyway.
As to Sweden. We have truly reached the point where people can choose their own 'reality'. Headlines from the past 24 hours directly counter to the views you expressed;
"Sweden’s Coronavirus Approach Doesn’t Pay Off for the Economy"
"Grim coronavirus death toll projected in Sweden after lax approach to pandemic"
CBDunkerson wrote:
As to Sweden. We have truly reached the point where people can choose their own 'reality'. Headlines from the past 24 hours directly counter to the views you expressed;
"Sweden’s Coronavirus Approach Doesn’t Pay Off for the Economy"
"Grim coronavirus death toll projected in Sweden after lax approach to pandemic" The "grow in the first quarter" part of his link was pretty obviously misleading. Anyone could predict that not shutting down at the start of the pandemic would boost the 1st quarter economy. The outbreak really only got going in Europe in mid-March. So in the first quarter you'd only see the initial lockdown effects on the economy, but since the outbreak wouldn't have been significantly lessened by those measures yet there'd be no signs of a quicker recovery. The second quarter will be more telling.
And in the long run, we'll see whether the fantasy of being immune to a second wave works out. Or if there's a second wave at all, rather than simply continuing outbreaks that need to be fought.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
What's happening right now in Melbourne?
That?
Yeah that can't happen in Sweden. Unless they import a metric #### ton of outsiders. Why can't it? It did. It isn't at the moment,...
CB said some of his usual misleading / misunderstanding "reply".
To straighten him out I'll just repeat the relevant portion of my post he purposely overlooked.
Or worse of course, it can always be worse.
Taking the article uncritically / at face value, and doing the same with the Paris Accord, a +2.5°C year 2100 is a generous concession used to make a point. A point some are too dense to comprehend apparently.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
What's happening right now in Melbourne?
That?
Yeah that can't happen in Sweden. Unless they import a metric #### ton of outsiders. Why can't it? It did. It isn't at the moment,... ** spoiler omitted ** I figured that was your theory, but it's a joke. There's no reason to think Sweden is anywhere near an effective level of immunity.
They've had more cases than elsewhere in Europe, but not nearly enough to get there.
thejeff wrote: I figured that was your theory, but it's a joke. There's no reason to think Sweden is anywhere near an effective level of immunity.
They've had more cases than elsewhere in Europe, but not nearly enough to get there.
A "joke" huh?
Yeah, you see that form of incredible ingenuous ingenuity may strictly meet the letter of the forum rules but it does nothing to actually further the discussion. Be like that if you want to but I recommend standing out by being less of a #########. Your choice tho.
Facts:
Sweden has done nothing different re the Coronavirus for months now.
Sweden's death rate has continued to drop.
Sweden's hospitalization rate has continued to drop.
Sweden's infection rate is about the same as Belgium's, yet Belgium is subject to the "Melbourne Effect" and Sweden isn't.
Related stats:
The top 5 states (USA) for deaths/capita are all "blue".
Etc.
No, this virus situation will set back global CO2 emissions for years to come and with that will do more to correct AGW than the Paris Accord ever could.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I figured that was your theory, but it's a joke. There's no reason to think Sweden is anywhere near an effective level of immunity.
They've had more cases than elsewhere in Europe, but not nearly enough to get there.
A "joke" huh?
Yeah, you see that form of incredible ingenuous ingenuity may strictly meet the letter of the forum rules but it does nothing to actually further the discussion. Be like that if you want to but I recommend standing out by being less of a #########. Your choice tho.
Facts:
Sweden has done nothing different re the Coronavirus for months now.
Sweden's death rate has continued to drop.
Sweden's hospitalization rate has continued to drop.
Sweden's infection rate is about the same as Belgium's, yet Belgium is subject to the "Melbourne Effect" and Sweden isn't.
Related stats:
The top 5 states (USA) for deaths/capita are all "blue".
For that last, give it a bit: deaths lag cases and they're starting to spike in the currently hard hit states. There's at least one county in Texas starting to triage - not treating patients who are less likely to survive.
Meanwhile the blue states with high death rates currently have low caseloads and death numbers. But according to your theory, since they've had lots of cases and deaths up front, they're doing it right. Isn't that your basic argument?
The thing about Sweden is that despite not having the hard lockdown, they do have measures in place and are getting a lot of voluntary cooperation. That's why their cases are dropping. Not because they've hit a natural limit.
You know #### well "lots of deaths up front" is nothing I ever implied. My first mention of Sweden was with the caveat that they didn't protect 'old folk homes' well enough.
Melbourne did everything right yet they need to lockdown again. Sweden won't have to do that.
One, that's ONE, county in Texas where (like so many of the protesters) people were too ####### ###### to not social distance and wear masks. There will be dozens (NOT 100s or 1000s) of extra deaths. That's your big counter argument? LOL I'll take that.
And yeah I know Sweden has measures in place - the same ####### measures they've had in place for months!
Like I said from my first post on Sweden: they're doing fine.
Quark Blast wrote: You know #### well "lots of deaths up front" is nothing I ever implied. My first mention of Sweden was with the caveat that they didn't protect 'old folk homes' well enough.
Melbourne did everything right yet they need to lockdown again. Sweden won't have to do that.
One, that's ONE, county in Texas where (like so many of the protesters) people were too ####### ###### to not social distance and wear masks. There will be dozens (NOT 100s or 1000s) of extra deaths. That's your big counter argument? LOL I'll take that.
And yeah I know Sweden has measures in place - the same ####### measures they've had in place for months!
Like I said from my first post on Sweden: they're doing fine.
No, that's one county in Texas where the hospital is small enough to already be overwhelmed. There will be more.
The most recent numbers for Texas I see were a couple days ago: 10,000+ new cases and almost 200 new deaths. A new record for both, though only by a little. Florida's in the same ballpark.
As for Sweden: what percentage of the population do you think has had COVID-19? What's your evidence for that number?
|
