Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[version]

 

[constant escape]

Wow. Goldman Sachs saying US GDP to fall by -5%.

Where can I look into this?

 

[IdleRich]

I did thanks Comelately. There is a lot of red there... but I think Pelosi is smarter than most and is less likely to have exposed herself to risk than the two fools above her. Or maybe that's wishful thinking.

 

[baboon2004]

Fair to say that this is probably the scariest thing I've read, er, ever about life in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...il-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised

"If the mortality rate turns out to be the 1% many experts are using as their working assumption then that would mean 531,100 deaths. But if Whitty’s insistence that the rate will be closer to 0.6% proves accurate, then that would involve 318,660 people dying."

On an 80% infection rate, so about roughly 40-something million people will get this.
7.9 million hospitalised in a country which now has something like 175000 hospital beds and is paying private companies millions per day as well. But not hospitalised consistently over year, but in two or three horrific peaks when the service is going to collapse.

"Testing services are under such strain that even NHS staff will not be swabbed, despite their key role and the risk of them passing the virus on to patients."

 

[droid]

There was a doctor on the radio this morning saying that figures coming out of Italy point to as much as 5% mortality.

 

[baboon2004]

What was the detail of that, do you recall? I know that the proportion of deaths to known cases is 7%, but presumed that unknown infection rates would be guessed to be much higher, bringing the actual rate down to far lower than 5%

 

[droid]

She was more or less shouted down, but I think its basically down demographics and the ability of the health service to cope with cases.

https://www.livescience.com/why-italy-coronavirus-deaths-so-high.html

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

certainly many countries have weathered many times such losses as we're seeing currently with no radical restructuring

well, as I keep saying, I firmly think the economic damage will be the determining factor

or rather, to what extent this wreaks changes in current global economic and socioeconomic structures

"economic" meaning chains of supply, patterns of economic behavior and resulting demand, etc

"socioeconomic" being more of what droid mentioned: massive health care spending and general social safety nets, nationalization, etc

(I may not be using either of those terms strictly but you get what I mean by that division between them, tho of course they're related)

the former - economic change - is guaranteed, though it's impossible to say what forms it will take exactly

one thing I'd guess is that many governments and/or business will decide they don't want to be as reliant on fragile global supply chains

the latter is harder to say - no one truly knows how long this will go, how bad it will be in terms of the virus or socioeconomic disruption, how the recovery will go, etc

it's a strange thing because on the hand this is leading to many frighteningly authoritarian policies, on the other to many things progressives have long dreamed of

it's hard to say how much either will last, is what I'm saying

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Do you think that his death would result in widespread social unrest?

absolutely. or rather it would significantly raise the current level of social unrest to more dangerous levels.

how dangerous? enough to counteract the short and long-term benefits of his death? I don't know, but enough that I'd rather not find out.

as John says, he would become a (completely undeserved) martyr to the kinds of people who think he's the only honest man in politics.

which there are a surprising number of

 

[constant escape]

one thing I'd guess is that many governments and/or business will decide they don't want to be as reliant on fragile global supply chains

Any examples of this, or theories? Not pressing you - I'm just curious.

I agree in that such may result from all this. Interconnectedness at the cost of independence/autonomy in some cases. Could be worth some some losses (merely gross or perhaps even net) in the eyes of some businesses who would like to remain buoyant in times like this. In other words, some may opt out (when they can) from global supply chains that would otherwise promise the best rates etc, all in the interest of securing more or less independent operability in extreme scenarios.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

we're also mostly past the time, I think, where a competent President could have really helped. that damage is done.

I mean, he'll still be counter-productive, of course, but at this point there isn't much to do but roll up sleeves/tighten belt and try to get through this.

a serious, coordinated national level response 4-5 weeks ago would have made a huge difference. now we're being forced to do that anyways.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Any examples of this, or theories?

not really, no. I'm not an economist or anything, just a dude on the internet. but it makes sense.

I assume many people know intellectually that global supply chains are alarmingly fragile, but it's one thing to know that and another to experience it

plenty of businesses will no longer exist when the dust settles. some will be unavoidable, but some will presumably be largely due to breakdowns in supply.

and we're also seeing that despite the globalized economy, in a crisis it's still national borders and every country for itself.

governments, businesses, and individuals will all want to know that in a future crisis, food will reliably be on shelves etc

and some business or industries - which ones, I don't know - will want to trade reliability for lower production costs

presumably they'll mostly pass that cost on to consumers

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Wow. Goldman Sachs saying US GDP to fall by -5%.

for the quarter, not the year.

massive, but not a surprise. or would've been a surprise 2 weeks ago, now not so much.

 

[version]

Any examples of this, or theories? Not pressing you - I'm just curious.

I agree in that such may result from all this. Interconnectedness at the cost of independence/autonomy in some cases. Could be worth some some losses (merely gross or perhaps even net) in the eyes of some businesses who would like to remain buoyant in times like this. In other words, some may opt out (when they can) from global supply chains that would otherwise promise the best rates etc, all in the interest of securing more or less independent operability in extreme scenarios.

Germany would like to localize supply chains, nationalization possible, minister says

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it's hard to see how this won't kickstart a recession, either way

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Germany would like to localize supply chains, nationalization possible, minister says

we'll see more of this talk

the question is how much of it will be put into action, what forms that action will take, and what changes that will wreak in global economic structures

 

[version]

I imagine we'll see growing anti-Chinese sentiment too, both in terms of supply chains, manufacturing etc and anger at their being the apparent source of the outbreak.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

its basically down demographics and the ability of the health service to cope with cases

that makes perfect sense

one thing this may lead to is a different approach to housing the elderly, nursing homes being - to my understanding - already a hotbed of MRSA etc

tho I doubt it as again the logic there is one of profit (see also: why I strongly don't want to wind up old and poor in America)

this may also delay the graying of populations in places where that's a concern, like Japan and most of Europe

I don't mean to sound ghoulish, or wish for anyone's death, just trying to think through possible longer-term effects

in the decades after the Black Death for example, standards of living often rose sharply as wages went up due to labor shortages, food prices dropped, etc

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I imagine we'll see growing anti-Chinese sentiment too, both in terms of supply chains, manufacturing etc and anger at their being the apparent source of the outbreak.

I wouldn't be surprised

even without anti-Chinese sentiment, I wouldn't be surprised at more moves toward nationalization, and encouraging domestic production

which China, as the world's leading exporter of goods, will naturally suffer from the most

it turns out having so much stuff made in one place is probably a bad idea

and then yes, there will also be specific anti-Chinese sentiment on top of that

 

[version]

It's interesting when you factor in Brexit as the people who voted for it think it means jobs coming back and encouraging domestic production and the Tories know it means winding down various industries and selling them off.