California Ag 90 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

So what's your answer, completely destroy the country waiting on a vaccine?

Seriously we need to start opening up, protect the old and weak and move forward slowly now. Plus we may just find out that Sweden was right. Don't know yet. Plus places like ny need lockdowns maybe HOUSTON doesn't?

---

The United States is a strong country with vast resources and ingenuity. The country can economically survive 2-3 months of shelter-in-place restrictions in large sections of the country if that is how it plays out.

I'm not going to argue when and where the U.S. should specifically start opening back up, I don't have enough knowledge or done enough homework to even opine on that. Some people seem to make sense on both sides of that argument, but there also seems to be a lot of 'We don't know enough yet' aspects to the arguments.

But the U.S. is going to be fine long-term and get through this, regardless. That, I'm 100% CONFIDENT in. The country is not going to get 'destroyed' by either COVID-19 or any actions taken to defeat COVID-19.

---

i basically agree up to the point where you are so confident we are going to be fine long-term even if we get through this no matter how long.

that is not remotely clear, and is no less 'hopeful' than statements we should open up and let the chips fall where they may.

our social infrastructure is far more fragile than salaried professionals who largely populate this board realize.

---

I live in a Central American country in its 5th week of an extensive and very restrictive lockdown and no signs yet of some societal collapse down here. People here are generally still showing patience and understanding despite significant economic issues. Yes, I have faith that American society is similarly resilient enough to get through these tough times.

Jack Boyett said:

---

The shut down option should never have been on the table. I think you guys will be shocked at the damage that is already done.

---

Both options were terrible. I'm all too aware of the economic cost of this virus. People aren't going to fly planes, go to restaurants, go to sporting events, etc. In blissful ignorance as the death toll rises exponentially even if the governments choose not to do "lock downs". The existence of this virus is causing far more damage than the government action... And the faster we get the virus under control, the faster we can focus on economic recovery. There's a fed paper I've posted that looks back at the 1918 Spanish Flu and economic outcomes based on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus. Those that successfully implemented action to stop the virus had better economic outcomes.

The economic damage is also tragic. But we will not return to normal without some sort of handle on this virus. The herd immunity route means hundreds of thousands if not millions dead and all the economic damage that will cause... And it's actually far from a guarantee we actually have immunity. The alternative is gain control of the virus and take measured steps to keep it under control. There are no do overs so you better be right if you go the herd immunity plan - otherwise we are all ****ed a few orders of magnitude worse by every concievable metric.

We are going to go through a recession and all the hardship that entails, end of story. The question is what is the lasting damage and how many people die. The evidence that we have suggests controlling the virus is the most important scenario to both outcomes.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560

I think you underestate the impact the elderly dying off would have on the economy and the healthcare industry

I'm sure all these elderly are going to do us the kindness to die in their beds and not overrun hospitals thereby cratering all health care for months on end

And of course there's the problem of how in America a lot of young people are dying because a significant portion of our population isn't healthy to begin with

but **** em, get back to work

Cone, the virus is not effecting the young much at all.

Jack Boyett said:

---

Can you explain. How does the death of the elderly hurt the economy?

Doesn't there need to be loss of productivity? Some increase to business expenses somewhere? Less spending? ????

---

In Louisiana, 23% of deaths under 65

In NYC, 29% of deaths under 65

these aren't the expendable retirees we are nobly sacrificing at the altar of commerce

And roughly 40% of hospitalizations but again don't bother with facts

Jack Boyett said:

---

Can you explain. How does the death of the elderly hurt the economy?

Doesn't there need to be loss of productivity? Some increase to business expenses somewhere? Less spending? ????

---

I can only speak for myself, but I have several older generation engineers on my team. Losing any one of those guys would be devastating to the program.

Just because you are older does not mean you are worthless. Horrible attitude you have there.

Jack Boyett said:

---

Can you explain. How does the death of the elderly hurt the economy?

Doesn't there need to be loss of productivity? Some increase to business expenses somewhere? Less spending? ????

---

Elders are consumers. They pay for travel for leisure, buy property, invest in real estate, pay for medical services through Medigap and Medicare Plus policies, fund their children and grandchildren's lifestyles, home purchases and home improvements and they provide a lot of volunteer hours at VA facilities, schools, hospitals and civic facilities that would otherwise require taxpayer funding. They eat at restaurants, play at golf courses, pay for gym memberships and buy guns and ammo.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190930-the-untapped-potential-of-the-longevity-economy

Edit to say that the number of younger parents sitting in car lines at food banks seems to contradict your notion that the elderly seem to be the drain on the economy.

Great points all around. Let's get rid of them kids too while we're at it am I right? Kids don't contribute much to the economy either. Lazy f******.

Jack Boyett said:

---

I don't buy the economic damage either way argument. Spanish flu did not affect elderly only like this one.

Where is the damage to the economy in the death of a retiree? Not talking about moral or ethical issues. Purely economic. This for the most part is only affecting elderly. What is the economic damage done when an non-contributing member of the economy dies? Is it a positive or a negative for the assets of a saver to be transferred to a spender (the younger heirs)? Is it a positive or a negative for a citizen that is a drain on medicare and social security to die?

Even if the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands, I don't think there is much of a downturn in the economy just based on the type of people that this affects.

---

Why hasn't this post been removed? Pathetic. And hateful.

Jack Boyett said:

---

I don't buy the economic damage either way argument. Spanish flu did not affect elderly only like this one.

Where is the damage to the economy in the death of a retiree? Not talking about moral or ethical issues. Purely economic. This for the most part is only affecting elderly. What is the economic damage done when an non-contributing member of the economy dies? Is it a positive or a negative for the assets of a saver to be transferred to a spender (the younger heirs)? Is it a positive or a negative for a citizen that is a drain on medicare and social security to die?

Even if the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands, I don't think there is much of a downturn in the economy just based on the type of people that this affects.

---

When this is all over, I'll be happy to maintain social distancing with you.

California Ag 90 said:

---

94chem said:

---

What am I missing? Is National Review just click bait now? This doesn't look like a great strategy. Again, what am I missing?

https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden

---

this entire thread is debate over this very subject. lots of input to read on all sides of the discussion.

---

No, I see 3 pages of discussion, largely about Sweden's decision, but no mention of numbers from actual modeling. Seems like a discussion better suited for the Congressional Budget Office.

Jack Boyett said:

---

My suspicions about the income and spending of the elderly (like my early suspicions re corona virus) were correct. Check out the chart - it's basically a bell curve. Spending of the >75 crowd is just slightly more than the <25 crowd. More than 2 times less (2x!!) than a middle aged person.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/consumer-expenditures-vary-by-age.htm

And again - my one and only point is that the economic destruction we are currently undergoing is orders of magnitude greater than the do nothing scenario.

---

That's because the 60-70 age cohort are the prime spenders. Why? Income transfers to their kids and grandkids. That is why they don't show up in consumer spending in government stats.

Going to continue to ignore the fact that you have constantly been putting out statements that have been far from true?

Jack Boyett said:

---

My suspicions about the income and spending of the elderly (like my early suspicions re corona virus) were correct. Check out the chart - it's basically a bell curve. Spending of the >75 crowd is just slightly more than the <25 crowd. More than 2 times less (2x!!) than a middle aged person.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/consumer-expenditures-vary-by-age.htm

And again - my one and only point is that the economic destruction we are currently undergoing is orders of magnitude greater than the do nothing scenario.

---

Reading this poster go through an economic bean counter arguing that letting an older person die would be preferable to someone younger losing income for a bit, feels like I'm reading a script for one of those The Purge movies.

Personally, the most glaring takeaway I've learned the last few weeks is just how beholden to the almighty dollar a large part of our society is. I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Are there people truly hurting? Sure. But I'd imagine a lot of the people clamoring for "open things up!" aren't in real danger of putting food on the table. But they may be im danger of not living the lifestyle they're accustomed to. I guess I'm used to not having a lot, so for me lives trump $$$.

I have several friends on social media who have, before this, spent almost every day lecturing about how conservatively Christian they are (as am I) but in this instance they are more worried about their $$$ than saving lives.

It's really been an interesting thing to watch.

Yep. I've lost a ton of respect for a ton of people during this situation.

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

Personally, the most glaring takeaway I've learned the last few weeks is just how beholden to the almighty dollar a large part of our society is. I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Are there people truly hurting? Sure. But I'd imagine a lot of the people clamoring for "open things up!" aren't in real danger of putting food on the table. But they may be im danger of not living the lifestyle they're accustomed to. I guess I'm used to not having a lot, so for me lives trump $$$.

I have several friends on social media who have, before this, spent almost every day lecturing about how conservatively Christian they are (as am I) but in this instance they are more worried about their $$$ than saving lives.

It's really been an interesting thing to watch.

---

Great post.

Jack Boyett said:

---

Can you explain. How does the death of the elderly hurt the economy?

Doesn't there need to be loss of productivity? Some increase to business expenses somewhere? Less spending? ????

---

My question is how stable is an economy going to be with older folks in constant danger, especially given that they can be easily exposed by younger co-workers, family, friends, church etc. We live in a society where this is reality:

- President is over 60
- Dem nominee for President is over 60
- most of the Senate is over 60
- Huge percentage of House is over 60
- More than half of State Governors are over 60
- Avg age of a CEO in US is 58, meaning half are 58 or older (according to Fortune)
- Over 20% of the labor force in the US is 55+ (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Wall street is going to be an ongoing mess if we are losing large swaths of those folks month by month.

Quote:

---

That's pretty misleading Cone. NYC is a young city but deaths/100K are very similar to other areas.

---

I don't see the post as misleading. I see its making a different point.

A key point throughout this entire ordeal has been that what is perceived as a "low" death rate among a population large enough still equals lots of death and disruption.

in that same dataset, 4% of confirmed cases 45-64 are now dead

you can argue it's progressing through the younger cohort faster (thankfully?), but it's still very deadly to working age people

furthermore 25% of that 45-64 age group has required some stay of hospitalization