TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

---

It's too bad there's never been one or even hundreds of scientific studies performed that show where that correlation is causation on this matter.

---

Look dude. How do you know the disease hadn't already run it's course through the country and what they did had no effect on the inevitable outcome. Show me that study.

k2aggie07 said:

---

is your baseline assumption that he's wholly incompetent or only mostly?

---

Where did I say he is incompetent? I asked a question, which I believe is pertinent. I have no baseline assumptions.

All models make assumptions, what, where and how did he arrive at the numbers?

You yourself cited 2 studies that had polar opposites in the % of asymptotic infections. So yes assumptions can be based on faulty and/or incomplete information.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3101135/replies/56209185

If you read my response below to your posts, it is apparent that faulty assumptions can lead to different conclusions. It does not in any way reflect competence.

Quote:

---

Sorry I missed the reporting that the 2 strains study was debunked. I could not find a link, I apologize my search skills are lacking.

The study you cited claimed,"We therefore assume that two-thirds of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate (if required by policy) within 1 day of symptom onset,"

But you state above "86% of transmissions may be undetected / asymptomatic / subclinical."

These seem polar opposites.

---

Remember,
"All models are wrong, some are useful" by George E.P. Box

Because we don't live in fantasyland and haven't had our hospital system overrun with pneumonia patients. Good lord. Is this an Alex Jones conspiracy or something?

I'm going to stop trying to answer, because truth is I don't know for sure, especially in other countries, but on a general level if you come in with symptoms of the virus and test positive for it and die, it's a +1 for the virus. But you're clearly asking wondering if the numbers are inflated, yet conversely the numbers could also be underreported because this is a new virus and could be creating complications in people who are dying who aren't being tested at all for the virus.

Tell you what, let's call it +/-10%. What changes in what it is you're arguing because I'm not sure what it is anymore

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

---

It's too bad there's never been one or even hundreds of scientific studies performed that show where that correlation is causation on this matter.

---

Look dude. How do you know the disease hadn't already run it's course through the country and what they did had no effect on the inevitable outcome. Show me that study.

---

I used to think that was a slight possibility but not anymore. Everything is happening pretty textbook in the US of an outbreak with origin being the first one we found as positive who came from Wuhan.

If they're able to develop a test to look for similar things in Americans that mirror that of confirmed positive cases we may be able to know how many were exposed at some level. Not sure if it'll even matter at thet point though. Focus will be on fighting it once infected and ultimately a vaccine.

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

---

It's too bad there's never been one or even hundreds of scientific studies performed that show where that correlation is causation on this matter.

---

Look dude. How do you know the disease hadn't already run it's course through the country and what they did had no effect on the inevitable outcome. Show me that study.

---

I'm positive I can't give a good enough answer but given the highly contagious nature of the virus and the total population of the country, if it had run through the country pre-quarantine then you'd expect the infection numbers and deaths to be far greater than they already are. I say "and deaths" because it would mean they hadn't been testing and Germany is proving the effectiveness of aggressive testing on preventing deaths. If we are going to lift the quarantine it's probably in that scenario - where we are actually prepared for aggressive testing to catch cases early

Because acting as if he is totally unaware of basic confounding flaws in methodology is assuming a pretty high level of incompetence.

As for that I answered it already:

On the assumptions. The two papers are unrelated, and the Science study of the R0 spread in China was published after the Imperial college, and was not cited by it. You can see they use a range of R0 values in the Imperial college study.

They're not strictly related though. The 86% figure from science is for undetected cases, meaning, did not seek medical attention or get tested - which they assume / attribute to extremely minor or totally asymptomatic. The Imperial College paper assumes 66% of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate. Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, because a portion of the cases that went undetected in China could be sufficiently symptomatic.

///
But it doesn't matter because the two studies were looking at different things.

I already answered this question for him on another thread with the genome sequencing information. He's either trolling or is simply unwilling to actually consider information contrary to his opinions.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I already answered this question for him on another thread with the genome sequencing information. He's either trolling or is simply unwilling to actually consider information contrary to his opinions.

---

Sir, this would never happen on forum 16.

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

---

How can you be so sure that we are overreacting? You don't use numbers, we've established that. So what evidence is there that anything that's been done is an overreaction. What evidence is what we have done worse, both from an economic or health outcome, than doing nothing? I've seen literally nothing but internet bravado, childish name-calling (e.g. "numbers guy"), ignorance to experts, and assurances that there are a million billion asymptomatic cases that would suggest you can back up that "nothing" leads to better outcomes. There's been plenty of evidence shown that doing nothing leads to terrible outcomes whether you choose to believe it or not.

---

You are asking me to defend something that has no data for support. I.e our reaction is saving X number of lives. I'm just saying that when one considers we are using data from China (communism controls information) that the outcomes must be flawed as well. Now, assume that data in other countries is at least slightly flawed( human nature, political bias, etc) the outcomes we generate can't be used with great confidence, especially because Chinese data is a large percentage of the data. So if we are talking fractions of a percentage (who knows), and apply that to a large population (us) the difference can be hundreds of thousands in terms of total deaths. We are acting on that Chinese data, which logically means our death number projections are inflated. So if 19 ends up being statistically no worse than h1n1, we have overreacted in comparison. The overreaction is going to cause severe economic damage and put many more lives at risk(suicides, loss of health insurance, food, loss of housing, etc).

But there is no way to accurately predict the effects of quarantining us will have on the outcomes.

---

We know it's significantly worse than H1N1. That much is way beyond debate. Plenty of evidence in this thread that absolutely proves that beyond doubt. But if you have no data to support your stance then maybe you really don't have a point. At the end of the day we aren't going to potentially let millions of people die because of your intuition... Because you refused to be.a "numbers guy" or listen to anybody that's an expert in the field. If you can't back up your position, honestly, you have no position at all.

I think everybody understands the gravity of the decisions being made. I work in oil. I will likely lose my job because of this virus. I have a significant amount of money in the stock market - especially for my age. The idea that I don't understand the gravity of the economic consequences is ridiculous. I am, unfortunately, all to aware. However, I'm not convinced doing nothing is a better economic or health outcome. And the evidence is beyond debate - this is orders of magnitude worse than H1N1. You really shouldn't use that as an argument because it clues everyone into the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you're wondering how we know this hasn't already spread through society we could start with the fact that only 10% of those tested are testing positive (as of today). And the only people being tested have symptoms. So we know that only a tiny fraction of 10% have the virus TODAY. But that will change very quickly at current rates. If you know anything about economics, you know that 20% compounded every day is a very large number very quickly. So the fact only 10% of tests are poisitve today shouldn't be any consolation that this isn't a serious problem.

Testing now available is ramping up numbers as stated by others. Just due to that you are a sham.

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

They did not quarantine themselves. Had high infection and death rates. Started quarantining and bent the curve over.

---

Correlation is not causation.

---

It's too bad there's never been one or even hundreds of scientific studies performed that show where that correlation is causation on this matter.

---

Look dude. How do you know the disease hadn't already run it's course through the country and what they did had no effect on the inevitable outcome. Show me that study.

---

I'm positive I can't give a good enough answer but given the highly contagious nature of the virus and the total population of the country, if it had run through the country pre-quarantine then you'd expect the infection numbers and deaths to be far greater than they already are. I say "and deaths" because it would mean they hadn't been testing and Germany is proving the effectiveness of aggressive testing on preventing deaths. If we are going to lift the quarantine it's probably in that scenario - where we are actually prepared for aggressive testing to catch cases early

---

If you read the whole thread, what he is arguing has changed 20 times. I feel like he could test positive and he would argue with the test administrator.

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

---

How can you be so sure that we are overreacting? You don't use numbers, we've established that. So what evidence is there that anything that's been done is an overreaction. What evidence is what we have done worse, both from an economic or health outcome, than doing nothing? I've seen literally nothing but internet bravado, childish name-calling (e.g. "numbers guy"), ignorance to experts, and assurances that there are a million billion asymptomatic cases that would suggest you can back up that "nothing" leads to better outcomes. There's been plenty of evidence shown that doing nothing leads to terrible outcomes whether you choose to believe it or not.

---

You are asking me to defend something that has no data for support. I.e our reaction is saving X number of lives. I'm just saying that when one considers we are using data from China (communism controls information) that the outcomes must be flawed as well. Now, assume that data in other countries is at least slightly flawed( human nature, political bias, etc) the outcomes we generate can't be used with great confidence, especially because Chinese data is a large percentage of the data. So if we are talking fractions of a percentage (who knows), and apply that to a large population (us) the difference can be hundreds of thousands in terms of total deaths. We are acting on that Chinese data, which logically means our death number projections are inflated. So if 19 ends up being statistically no worse than h1n1, we have overreacted in comparison. The overreaction is going to cause severe economic damage and put many more lives at risk(suicides, loss of health insurance, food, loss of housing, etc).

But there is no way to accurately predict the effects of quarantining us will have on the outcomes.

---

We know it's significantly worse than H1N1. That much is way beyond debate. Plenty of evidence in this thread that absolutely proves that beyond doubt. But if you have no data to support your stance then maybe you really don't have a point. At the end of the day we aren't going to potentially let millions of people die because of your intuition... Because you refused to be.a "numbers guy" or listen to anybody that's an expert in the field. If you can't back up your position, honestly, you have no position at all.

I think everybody understands the gravity of the decisions being made. I work in oil. I will likely lose my job because of this virus. I have a significant amount of money in the stock market - especially for my age. The idea that I don't understand the gravity of the economic consequences is ridiculous. I am, unfortunately, all to aware. However, I'm not convinced doing nothing is a better economic or health outcome. And the evidence is beyond debate - this is orders of magnitude worse than H1N1. You really shouldn't use that as an argument because it clues everyone into the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you're wondering how we know this hasn't already spread through society we could start with the fact that only 10% of those tested are testing positive (as of today). And the only people being tested have symptoms. So we know that only a tiny fraction of 10% have the virus TODAY. But that will change very quickly at current rates. If you know anything about economics, you know that 20% compounded every day is a very large number very quickly. So the fact only 10% of tests are poisitve today shouldn't be any consolation that this isn't a serious problem.

---

1918 H1N1? You think we were on track for 2.2 million dead?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

At any rate, you don't know how many people are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and how many of these are going to be able to get tested compared to before.

---

Epidemiologists everywhere

---

And, yet, on this very board, sooooo many people don't seem to factor it in...

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

That balance is already gone. We've gone full chicken little.

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only by allowing limited and at least slightly tainted data into the equations that your statement can be made with certainty. If you look at trending, it's very possible that they will be statistically similar when it's over.

---

Show your work.

---

Learn deductive reasoning.

---

I've seen zero deductive reasoning by the "my feels" group.

What variable would you like me to change before it aligns with your feels?

---

The other number that's exponentially growing at a faster rate that you're leaving out of your equation. 400k Don't ask me to explain it because I'm not as smart as you, you've made that amply clear. I'll give you a hint though. In all those studies I'm too dumb to read, all the expert say something about the majority.

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

Lester Freamon said:

---

That's a poignant anecdote that significantly overstates our current situation. COVID does not have a doubling time of one day (even right now, even with massive testing increases in last week) and that scenario assumes constant exponential growth.

---

Well, with that doubling rate, in less than a month over 390 million people in America will have it. That will teach the 60 million illegal aliens a thing or two...

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

I think social distancing is theoretically only able to halve the total deaths.

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

If we didn't do anything, you may have already fought CV19 and died. Prove me wrong.

See how that's an impossible argument? That's your logic.

Well, let me know when you figure it out. I'm not calculating anything.

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

I think social distancing is theoretically only able to halve the total deaths.

---

Are you taking into account the possibility/likelihood of less pathogenic variants?

Philip J Fry said:

---

Well, let me know when you figure it out. I'm not calculating anything.

---

I'm not the one who doesn't have it figured out. You know the old saying, garbage in garbage out?

How is this virus much different than the flu strains where our vaccine predictions are off (which is common). We have a population of people without vaccinations and a highly contagious virus that kills elderly and those with pre-existing conditions in both scenarios. I'm sure its different but by how much? If we had daily trackers with new cases and total deaths plotted, how much pandemonium could the press and politicians conjure up and make similar cases for social distancing and lock-downs?

Patentmike said:

---

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

I think social distancing is theoretically only able to halve the total deaths.

---

Are you taking into account the possibility/likelihood of less pathogenic variants?

---

Why? We have one virus and all viruses mutate.

The best social distance experiment was the 1918 H1N1 flu.

St. Louis deaths/population was 1/2 of the Philadelphia deaths/population.

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

Nobody has ever said to do nothing.

But even if we did, the negative effects would be a fraction of what's already been put in place.

There's a a very stark difference between a little tightening of the belt and using a belt to sever your legs from your body.

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

mazag08 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

Nobody has ever said to do nothing.

But even if we did, the negative effects would be a fraction of what's already been put in place.

There's a a very stark difference between a little tightening of the belt and using a belt to sever your legs from your body.

---

Your confusing my position. I'm making a point that the Fox can't calculate the differences in financial difference therefore can't argue that the health measures will not create some benefit.

There are posters on here who absolutely would do nothing in order to keep everything business as usual, until they were personally impacted and or the normal course of business was massively interrupted by lack of confidence, lack of travel because of fear, complete collapse and chaos of medical resources, etc which would undoubtedly cause a major economic meltdown.

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is your calculation though, that's the whole ****ing point? Prove your math. What's the number? What would the economy be like in 8 weeks if we have 150MM infected and deaths are nearing several million.