COVID Economy

[Pakuni]

Pakuni 

Say 40 million fit that bill - it's still better than quarantining 300 million. As for people at risk who need caregivers, It's awful but they are at risk no matter what you do.

Agreed.
But 300 million people aren't being quarantined. Or anything close to it.
I live in a supposedly locked down state. In the last two days I've made multiple trips to the grocery store, gone to the Home Depot for gardening supplies, visited a bike shop, stopped at a pet supply store for something for my kid's fish tank, picked up dinner at a local restaurant and taken walks through public parks.
Things definitely aren't normal, but it's a long way from quarantine.

[Lennys Tap]

Agreed.
But 300 million people aren't being quarantined. Or anything close to it.
I live in a supposedly locked down state. In the last two days I've made multiple trips to the grocery store, gone to the Home Depot for gardening supplies, visited a bike shop, stopped at a pet supply store for something for my kid's fish tank, picked up dinner at a local restaurant and taken walks through public parks.
Things definitely aren't normal, but it's a long way from quarantine.

But we are (finally) trying our best to quarantine the nursing homes. To the extent that's it's feasible I'd like us to try to also quarantine (and subsidize) those 40 million in the multi generational families most at risk.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Pakuni 

Say 40 million fit that bill - it's still better than quarantining 300 million. As for people at risk who need caregivers, It's awful but they are at risk no matter what you do.

Home health care and companion care didn't stop with lockdown.  Those clients still received their care.  I know you know that, Lenny, but it doesnt fit in with others' agendas.

[Pakuni]

Home health care and companion care didn't stop with lockdown.  Those clients still received their care.  I know you know that, Lenny, but it doesnt fit in with others' agendas.

Point missed.

[The Sultan]

Pakuni 

Say 40 million fit that bill - it's still better than quarantining 300 million. As for people at risk who need caregivers, It's awful but they are at risk no matter what you do.

But we aren't quarantining 300 million.  We never were.

The fallacy is we really can't truly be open, have essential workers go to work, and protect the vulnerable all at the same time.  So we have to create workspaces where people can be reasonably safe, open up businesses if they can reasonably accomodate distancing and require masking as much as possible, and then take care of people who don't have a job because of the above accomodations.

[rocky_warrior]

The fallacy is we really can't truly be open, have essential workers go to work, and protect the vulnerable all at the same time.  So we have to create workspaces where people can be reasonably safe, open up businesses if they can reasonably accomodate distancing and require masking as much as possible, and then take care of people who don't have a job because of the above accomodations.

At this point, I don't even understand the "open up the economy" statements.  Many things are already open to the capacity/restrictions we *think* is safe. 

Are we just supposed to go back to March 10 and pretend nothing has happened?

No doubt "shutting down" has had a major effect on the economy.  But despite appearances, I have a feeling a lot of companies would have had disappointing 2nd Q numbers regardless.  Based on what I saw in the 1Q (pre-shutdown), financials were not in the picture perfect shape that was being projected.

[pbiflyer]

Interesting perspective.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-24/republicans-risk-political-backlash-in-trump-s-haste-to-reopen

In states Trump won in 2016, 23 people have lost a job for every 1 person infected. In states Democrat Hillary Clinton won, 13 people have lost a job for every person infected.

Put another way, in Trump country, the virus's greater pain has been economic, which helps explain why support for a swift reopening is so much more intense there.

[Lennys Tap]

Interesting perspective.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-24/republicans-risk-political-backlash-in-trump-s-haste-to-reopen

In states Trump won in 2016, 23 people have lost a job for every 1 person infected. In states Democrat Hillary Clinton won, 13 people have lost a job for every person infected.

Put another way, in Trump country, the virus's greater pain has been economic, which helps explain why support for a swift reopening is so much more intense there.

Relatively speaking, you are correct. When everyone is shut down, it only make sense that areas with much lower infection rates will suffer more job losses per infection. But the total picture that this article shows (although the author never connects the dots) is that things are much worse both infection wise and economically in Hillary country. A 274% higher infection rate with a 177% better job loss to infection rate still yields a 155% greater job loss rate.

[MU82]

NC entered "Phase 2" on Friday. Most businesses were allowed to reopen, with some restrictions.

Regarding worries that businesses would lose their employees due to increased unemployment benefits, here's what the owner of a just-reopened brewery said ...

+++
When the stay-at-home order was issued, Buchy took his staff of 150 employees down to only 11. With the federal government offering some furloughed employees an additional $600 in unemployment benefits, Buchy said he was a little concerned some might not opt to come back — but every one of them did.

"We were a little worried about that, but we didn't have a single staff member that we asked to come back say no," Buchy said. "Everybody came back, and everybody's super excited to be back."
+++

People want to work. Plus, the benefits are extremely short-term.

Also, practically 100% of such benefits go right back into the economy. Historically unemployment benefits have been among the best kind of stimulus for that reason.

Read more here: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/charlottefive/c5-food-drink/article242930246.html?#storylink=cpy

[Galway Eagle]

NC entered "Phase 2" on Friday. Most businesses were allowed to reopen, with some restrictions.

Regarding worries that businesses would lose their employees due to increased unemployment benefits, here's what the owner of a just-reopened brewery said ...

+++
When the stay-at-home order was issued, Buchy took his staff of 150 employees down to only 11. With the federal government offering some furloughed employees an additional $600 in unemployment benefits, Buchy said he was a little concerned some might not opt to come back — but every one of them did.

"We were a little worried about that, but we didn't have a single staff member that we asked to come back say no," Buchy said. "Everybody came back, and everybody's super excited to be back."
+++

People want to work. Plus, the benefits are extremely short-term.

Also, practically 100% of such benefits go right back into the economy. Historically unemployment benefits have been among the best kind of stimulus for that reason.

Read more here: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/charlottefive/c5-food-drink/article242930246.html?#storylink=cpy

To be fair a brewery is the sort of business that you'd expect people to come back to. The workers are generally passionate about the work. It's not exactly bagging groceries

[cheebs09]

NC entered "Phase 2" on Friday. Most businesses were allowed to reopen, with some restrictions.

Regarding worries that businesses would lose their employees due to increased unemployment benefits, here's what the owner of a just-reopened brewery said ...

+++
When the stay-at-home order was issued, Buchy took his staff of 150 employees down to only 11. With the federal government offering some furloughed employees an additional $600 in unemployment benefits, Buchy said he was a little concerned some might not opt to come back — but every one of them did.

"We were a little worried about that, but we didn't have a single staff member that we asked to come back say no," Buchy said. "Everybody came back, and everybody's super excited to be back."
+++

People want to work. Plus, the benefits are extremely short-term.

Also, practically 100% of such benefits go right back into the economy. Historically unemployment benefits have been among the best kind of stimulus for that reason.

Read more here: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/charlottefive/c5-food-drink/article242930246.html?#storylink=cpy

I wonder if some people just want to get out of the house and back to some normalcy. Which would make people not coming back very much the exception.

[The Sultan]

I think people will go back.  But using the brewery example, they go have one.  Skip the food.  And instead of going back every weekend, they'll stay at home next weekend because the wife was furloughed.

IOW, people will go out, they just won't go out the same way.

[GooooMarquette]

I think people will go back.  But using the brewery example, they go have one.  Skip the food.  And instead of going back every weekend, they'll stay at home next weekend because the wife was furloughed.

IOW, people will go out, they just won't go out the same way.

People who have been furloughed aren't the only ones who will be more conservative. Many who still have jobs have taken pay cuts, and for those who have been working with full pay there is still a great deal of concern about what happens next. The real question is whether this "not going out the same way" will be enough to sustain businesses that are already teetering on the edge.

[MU82]

The questions raised and/or points made since my post are legit.  I simply think the worry that "we're giving the 'takers' too much and they're gonna screw us all," was unfounded. (Not saying any of y'all said that, but some folks have said such dribble.) It was a 4-month stimulus. It ends soon. People want to work.

[Lennys Tap]

It was a 4-month stimulus. It ends soon. People want to work.

Didn't the House just pass a brand spanking new $3,000,000,000,000+ stimulus bill? I know this particular iteration won't get through the Senate but I wouldn't be too sure that Washington is done quite yet.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Didn't the House just pass a brand spanking new $3,000,000,000,000+ stimulus bill? I know this particular iteration won't get through the Senate but I wouldn't be too sure that Washington is done quite yet.

MM said there would be another round.  Sounds like It won't be the house version and it may be a month out.

[Spotcheck Billy]

The bizjournal has an article with a Bartolotta speculating that restaurant prices have to increase substantially. I've suspected something like that, we are often reminded that the margins are so slim, perhaps dining out was too cheap and it may never be as common in the future.

[#UnleashSean]

Point missed.

Was your point that the home care workers should be quarantining outside of work so they dont infect the clients? Because as someone who works directly in that field, the DSP's don't make nearly enough for that to ever happen.

[Pakuni]

Was your point that the home care workers should be quarantining outside of work so they dont infect the clients? Because as someone who works directly in that field, the DSP's don't make nearly enough for that to ever happen.

We were discussing the practicality and effectiveness of "protecting the vulnerable" by placing them on quarantine while the rest of us go about our daily businesses as usual.

Among the reasons some of us don't see that as a particularly strong or simple formula for success are that many of the vulnerable have to go out in the world - 20% of Americans over 65 still work, as do younger people with diabetes, asthma, immune system deficienes, etc.

And for those who can  avoid leaving home, they still need to interact with caretakers, such as home health care workers. Completely opening things up sans measures to reduce spread would heighten the likelihood those caretakers become infected and then pass along the disease to the vulnerable. Hence, quarantining the vulnerable but increasing the infection rate among the people the vulnerable interact with doesn't seem ideal.

[MU82]

Didn't the House just pass a brand spanking new $3,000,000,000,000+ stimulus bill? I know this particular iteration won't get through the Senate but I wouldn't be too sure that Washington is done quite yet.

That was kind of like Congress casting dozens of votes to eliminate Obamacare. It was symbolic, a way to make a political point. Maybe it also was a "wish list" of sorts. Pretty sure you knew all of that too, Lenny.

MM said there would be another round.  Sounds like It won't be the house version and it may be a month out.

I'll worry about what's in that when it happens.

But again, unlike tax cuts for bazillionaires -- who then give themselves raises, do stock buybacks, raise dividends for themselves because they are their companies' largest shareholders, etc -- umemployment benefits come right back into the economy. They largely are used by the opposite of bazillionaires to buy crazy stuff like food and shelter.

[jesmu84]

The bizjournal has an article with a Bartolotta speculating that restaurant prices have to increase substantially. I've suspected something like that, we are often reminded that the margins are so slim, perhaps dining out was too cheap and it may never be as common in the future.

Please please do it - if only to get rid of tipping.

[Lennys Tap]

If we get better treatments onboard, I can see the floor being around 0.4-0.5%. But 0.03-0.05 is simply an impossibility and ignores reality. Like Tower, I am also optimistic we get a good treatment regimen in, but even in that scenario I think the floor is around 0.4%. The virus is too aggressive and will still ravage vulnerable parts of the community, what the treatments will do is limit the loss of life for those under 65.

Forgetful

CDC is now estimating a .3% fatality rates. Do you think that is reasonable/likely?

[forgetful]

Forgetful

CDC is now estimating a .3% fatality rates. Do you think that is reasonable/likely?

While it is possible with better treatments, that is just unrealistic at the moment. And the CDC is claiming that is the current mortality rate, not the one moving forward with better treatments. As I mentioned, as of today the state of NY has had 0.15% of its entire population die from COVID. That is with 15% of the population infected according to antibody studies using one of the most accurate kits on the market. A 0.3% fatality rate would suggest that the same number would die if the remaining 85% of the population were to be infected.

The CDC's numbers just don't make sense. I'd like to see how they came up with that estimate. I've looked for the origin of that number, but can't find it anywhere. All the CDC says as a source is "preliminary CDC estimates".

To put it into perspective, their "estimate" would suggest that the NY antibody studies, were off by almost a factor of 4, and that the real number of infections in the state of NY is 50% of the entire population. Antibody tests are very accurate at catching infections, the risk is that they actually have false positives (as high as 20%), and actually over count the number of infections.

Someone is way off, and the state of NY showed their data, so I'm rolling with them for now.

[tower912]

For that .4% mortality rate to be accurate in Michigan, 1.25 million people must have been infected. 

55104 known cases.
5266 deaths.

[mu_hilltopper]

What a crazy set of numbers ..

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21274416/household-income-surge-april-cares-act-coronavirus-stimulus

Consumer Spending down 13.6% .. Unemployment at record highs ..

But .. Personal Income rose 10% in April. 

That is bonkers. -- This is due to the stimulus checks + unemployment checks + $600 weekly bonus.    Those numbers would indicate that at a macro level, financial pain for the labor force isn't bad at all.  Of course, that's a sugar high from federal $$ to end in a few months.

Strange data.