Understanding the true severity of Covid-19

a reply to: TheRedneck
I'm not looking for that, I'm saying nobody has it, so the claim that "the economy has been destroyed" isn't based on anything solid so it can easily be an exaggeration.

a reply to: daskakik

Then let me ask you this: how much damage (not quantitative; your opinion) do you think has been done to the economy in general?

Is this a coming disaster of great Depression proportions, is it just a little hiccup that will be forgotten when the next news cycle starts?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ketsuko

Did we have it or just a cold/flu like we all thought? Who can say ... The timing turns out to be about right.

That is why I am interested to be tested....I been in isolation working from home since Mar 18, so if I tested positive then it means I got it back in Dec when I was sick.

i understand, if you give blood to the american red cross, they automatically test your blood for the antibodies.

My wife went to doctor for something totally unrelated and was automatically tested for Covid (negative). SHe never gets sick though.

I feel like I get a bout with flu every year so wouldnt' surprise me if I test positive.

There IS NO TEST FOR COVID. Why cant people get that thru their heads?

a reply to: TheRedneck

something as vast and intertwined as the national economy

You are looking at it as half empty. I think vast and intertwined makes the economy strong not weak.

If the 2020 troubles stopped right now, I think the economy would recover pretty fast. The problem is there surely is more to come.

This was all scripted 10 years ago in a Rockafeller book and everything is going to plan just like event 201 predicted , then add in a few Ariel shots of mass graves being filled to frighten the peeps .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets do a little time travelling and go back to 2012 shall we this is coming soon and the director just happened to flip and kill all his family after he made this

And this show Utopia [ uk 2013 ] www.youtube.com...

I wonder what is on the school wall a bit like a clockwork Orange bar scene

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where are all the videos of people dropping dead in the streets in the west

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why go for a fast kill when you can do it slow and make loads of money of it

Well worth the watch the uk version of Utopia

a reply to: TheRedneck
I really couldn't say. Not having read much about the great depression I don't know what caused it.

I quick search on the net says it was many things, among them; the stock market crash, banking panics and monetary contraction, the gold standard and decreased international lending and tariffs.
www.britannica.com...

I'm not even going to pretend to understand it but the markets seem to be fine, I have not heard of any bank panics and there is no longer a gold standard and, according to that article, the international lending and tariffs seemed to be what caused the spread to foreign countries.

At least from that very superficial take on things I'd say it doesn't look like a disaster of great depression proportions. I'm also sure it will be more than a little hiccup. Might be similar to 2007 instead of the great depression.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

It's a two-edged sword. The vast and entwined properties make a complete collapse much harder, but it also serves to spread trouble throughout the system. That's what happened in Venezuela; they were not diversified, so all it took was a direct hit at the major industry to collapse the economy.

Of course, being deeply in debt through entitlements didn't exactly help...

So far the basics of manufacturing and retail are sound, and some service companies have even found a niche market in the hysteria... but the simple fact remains that there is less money to be spent as long as substantial portions of the economy are closed. We will recover, yes (that's assuming we don't decide to close everything down again), but we will not be as strong after the recovery as we were before it as some of our diversity will be gone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

2007 was pretty darn bad from my perspective. There's an old saying: a recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work.

The thing is, based on the results in the various states, it does not appear the shutdowns have had any real effect on the number of deaths or hospitalizations. States similar in population density which had widely varying shutdowns have had about the same number of both per capita. Alabama, Louisiana, and Michigan have about the same rate of hospitalizations, despite Mighigan's much more draconian shutdown. North Dakota has had about the same number of hospitalizations after a shutdown as South Dakota, despite South Dakota never officially locking down. So the deleterious effects of the shutdowns, to whatever degree, appear to have been unnecessary in the first place.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

I have not heard of any bank panics and there is no longer a gold standard


www.investmentwatchblog.com...

Some people will be snapping things up for cents on the dollar soon just like in 29

83 Tons Of Fake Gold Bars: Gold Market Rocked By Massive China Counterfeiting Scandal

www.zerohedge.com...

Have plenty toilet paper handy the brown stuff is coming soon

a reply to: TheRedneck
2007 may have been bad but it wasn't a disaster of great depression proportions.

According to the graphs I posted in the last page comparing May to September cases are higher, hospitalization are the same and deaths are half what they were in May. Then you have that dip in the middle when the lockdowns happened in many places.

All I can say is that that was the idea of the lockdowns. Instead of those things happening in June and July they are happening later. Mileage may vary from state to state and that is why each state did their own thing.

Of course, my point wasn't about "draconian" measures or whether they were needed or not. All I said was that "they destroyed the economy" might be an exaggeration.

a reply to: stonerwilliam
The article said the bank panics caused bank runs. That wasn't a bank run.

Did it actually collapse?

a reply to: daskakik

2007 may have been bad but it wasn't a disaster of great depression proportions.

Maybe not for you; for me, 2007 was very much like the Great Depression, based on those in my family who lived through that.

That's what I was trying to point out... any economic downturn will affect some people much more than others. I'm sure the Rockefellers enjoyed the Great Depression.

According to the graphs I posted in the last page comparing May to September cases are higher, hospitalization are the same and deaths are half what they were in May. Then you have that dip in the middle when the lockdowns happened in many places.

The graphs you posted have no baseline. This one does:
This is a graph I made based on state data form the CDC as of a couple weeks ago. States are arranged in ascending order based on population density (2019 estimated from the US Department of Commerce). I have long said the severity would be a function of population density, and this seems to bear me out as the graph increases with increasing population density. However, all states did not lock down equally. North Dakota had a lockdown; South Dakota did not. Both have similar population densities, and both are adjacent to each other, but South Dakota had no lockdown whatsoever. North Dakota did. If the lockdown in North Dakota was effective, we would expect to see a substantial decrease in the number of hospitalizations. We do not see that.

Michigan had a severe lockdown; Walmarts in the area were actually partially locked down; seeds and gardening equipment for instance were prohibited to be sold. People were banned from all unnecessary travel, even to go to a vacation home they owned. Here in Alabama, where we actually have a similar population density, the lockdowns were much less severe and for the most part unenforced... but we had similar numbers for hospitalization rates.

These results appear to indicate the lockdowns were completely ineffective at reducing the medical load... which was their stated purpose.

Incidentally, some states are still locked down... one cannot state that the decline you mention coincided with the lockdowns unless one focuses on specific states. Perhaps the bulk of the lockdowns could be said to have occurred in that time frame, but that is oversimplification. Also, case numbers are a completely unreliable metric since testing has varied in both number and accuracy during the last 8 months. There may be issues with hospitalizations and deaths as well, but I would consider them much more accurate than case numbers.

All I can say is that that was the idea of the lockdowns. Instead of those things happening in June and July they are happening later. Mileage may vary from state to state and that is why each state did their own thing.

Agreed, the idea that they were needed to prevent the medical system overload (which never materialized even in New York) was the selling point. However, we now have the benefit of hindsight. The lockdowns were an exercise in futility. The ironic thing is that, had we used a national lockdown instead of state-specific lockdowns, we would not be able to say how effective they were(n't). We would have no such comparison data as we do now.

Of course, my point wasn't about "draconian" measures or whether they were needed or not. All I said was that "they destroyed the economy" might be an exaggeration.

And again, what may appear to be total devastation for one might be a mere inconvenience for another. The economy is vast. The elephant is not long and slim like a snake... you're just feeling its tail.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

Re: Great Depression

Did it actually collapse?

For most people, yes. For a select few, no.

Again, one cannot make absolute statements about something as vast as the economy. The mentions of a "destroyed economy" are based on a generalization. All economic statements are based on generalizations.

You might as well talk about the temperature of the ocean. Yes there's an average temperature. Yes, it affects oceanic ecology. No, we cannot give it exactly because we can't observe all the different points at one time. No, we cannot look at the average and state there is or is not any sea ice. The ocean is too vast.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: stonerwilliam
The article said the bank panics caused bank runs. That wasn't a bank run.

Did it actually collapse?

Some things are never rushed just give it time ,,

What goes up must come down , unless it is a thermal blanket from NASA,s sts88

a reply to: TheRedneck
That post had a link to an article about Deutsche Bank collapsing. That was what I was asking about.

As for your previous post. I had already stated that in any economic downturn some will suffer more than others. Don't know why you feel the need to go on about things that have already been stated. Same goes for each state getting different results from lockdowns while as a whole, which was what Chaotic Order was talking about, the charts I posted show a difference.

a reply to: stonerwilliam
What does that have to do with what was being discussed?