We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say • Hacker News Board

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#191

Post by thu2111 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:23 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #182

jamie_ca wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden's got 10m people, and 87k cases as of mid-Aug. That's less than 1%, so claiming "herd immunity" is BS. They also have almost 6k deaths. Analysis from a month ago projects Sweden's GDP falling 4.8% in 2020, and eyes a 3.6% growth in 2021 - overall down 1.4% across both years. Denmark's got a little over half the population, 1/5 the cases, 1/9 the deaths. Projected GDP is down 5.1% this year, up 4.0% next year,…

We don't know the real herd immunity threshold. It had been previously estimated at about 70%. However daily average deaths in Sweden are now down near zero even though there are minimal pandemic control measures, and seroprevalence studies have indicated an exposure rate probably below 20%. So what accounts for the current situation? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Seroprevalence only measures anti-body resistance, but SARS-CoV-2 is quite similar to common cold viruses and it appears many people have pre-existing immunity to it for that reason. Or so goes the theory.

The 20% antibody threshold seems to be fairly common across many countries however, at least outside non-China Asia/Pacific countries that were not badly affected at all. The body learns how to fight viruses and can do so quite quickly.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#192

Post by thu2111 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:26 AM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #158

chrisco255 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Sweden never wore masks and never shut down schools and yet they achieved comparable results to draconian lockdowns. They already have herd immunity. It's likely we would get 2 economists from the year 2100 both giving opposite reasons for the next 80 years of events.

They don’t have yet herd immunity and their results are worse with respect to all comparable countries that had a lockdown. What you say is categorically false.

No, their results by any metric aren't worse than all comparable countries that had a lockdown. They're in the middle of the pack and only because they had a lot of deaths in care homes, which lockdowns don't protect anyway. There are other regions that prove this like Belarus, South Dakota and others, but Sweden is proof positive that lockdowns aren't necessary and were never necessary.

As for herd immunity, Google "sweden covid cases" and look at that graph. Then change it to deaths. Sweden is practically done with the epidemic. Cases will never drop to absolute zero due to high testing levels and false positives, but it's now down to tiny levels and deaths have hit zero with no "second wave" in sight. At least based on current data it appears Sweden is over and done with it.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#193

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:38 AM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #139

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the insanity of both the stock and bond markets started becoming really apparent around then. Still hasn't gotten any more sane, unfortunately.

Or maybe it is perfectly sane, and you just don't understand mechanisms at play?

In so far as the stock market is supposed to reflect the real economy, it's entirely insane.

Bonds are being sold that pay less money back than their sticker price. The equivalent is the bank charging you 400k for a 500k mortgage. That's pretty insane.

Stocks are apparently worth 30 years of their current profits, even for those stocks without a history of consistent profit (i.e. Tesla, Netflix etc).

I understand that lots of this is happening because of incredibly low interest rates, but pointing out that this is crazy is a public service in these ridiculous times.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#194

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #189

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? thisisliff said what the per-capita numbers said; do you dispute them?

According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ per-1M total cases in US: 18k; in Spain (highest of EU large countries): 9k. About 2x difference not in US favor.

OK. You're looking at total cases; thisisliff is looking at mortality. So Spain had more people die, but the US had more people get it. So, 1) the US has a healthier population, 2) the US has a better healthcare system, 3) the US did a better job of detecting the disease among those with less severe cases.

1 or 2 support your position; 3 doesn't (because we don't have accurate data to tell whether it spread more in Spain). And we don't have enough data (that I have seen) to tell the difference between 1, 2, and 3.

So I don't know where we are. But you did in fact have data to support your position, and (since the question was the spread of the virus, not the mortality) you were citing the correct column in the reports.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#195

Post by makomk » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #189

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? thisisliff said what the per-capita numbers said; do you dispute them?

According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ per-1M total cases in US: 18k; in Spain (highest of EU large countries): 9k. About 2x difference not in US favor.

All-time total case numbers from EU countries aren't that meaningful because pretty much all the countries that experienced massive, hospital-overwhelming outbreaks also massively undertested during them compared to the US during its outbreak. I know that in particular Italy and the UK were more or less only testing people who were hospitalized for Covid during the bulk of it. It looks like Spain may have done a little better, which might explain why they reported so many cases compared to others.

Partly this is because of the timing of the outbreaks, and partly it's because the US ramped up testing to an extent that hasn't really been replicated elsewhere. So you'd likely run into similar issues comparing New York case numbers with anywhere else in the country due to their big outbreak being earlier, or with comparing the current surge in cases in Europe with the first one.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#196

Post by TwoNineFive » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

TheCowboy wrote: post #92

The grandstanding against economists is disappointing. Let's say you were driving at night with someone in the country, and because they either knew the road or could see farther ahead they said, "There's a boulder in a road ahead, we're likely going to hit it if you don't slow down and turn to avoid it." And you do slow down and it allows you to turn to avoid a crash. How do you respond? Mock them for always being w…

The "economists" you see on TV have been calling boulders in the road for the last decade and we are in the middle of Kansas. They have no credibility.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#197

Post by luckydata » Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 4:03 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #169

luckydata wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have yet herd immunity and their results are worse with respect to all comparable countries that had a lockdown. What you say is categorically false.

There are definitely countries in Europe that locked down and yet have a higher per-capita death rate than Sweden.

Comparable aka Finland and Norway, which have similar climates, healthcare systems and culture. Check the numbers and tell me if Sweden is doing better.

Re: We'll be stuck in this recession for years, economists say

#198

Post by iso1631 » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #153

iso1631 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think WFH is endemic to SF, for example Certainly not. I don't think it's bad either, but some people (owners of expensive offices) do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53925917 -- Warnings of 'ghost towns' if staff do not return to the office As to shareholders of chain coffee/lunch stores -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53939526

> I don't think it's bad either, Of course, but it has a significant, fundamental impact on huge aspects of "the economy" as we know it. Large segments of commerce - particularly in the U.S. - pivot heavily on people spending time and money commuting, spending time in an office, eating and drinking at nearby establishments, etc. The effects will take some time to shake out.

Big losers in UK would be

Overpriced coffee shops (not Central Perk style ones in neighbourhoods - takeaway chain ones)

Daily Mail (the metro readership will vanish)

The trains will be interesting - especially in London. UK rail infrastructure is built to cope with large numbers of peak time commuters travelling with large discounts. That infrastructure won't vanish, but the income will (a £3k a year discount for a season ticket still means you're paying £4k a year - if that goes, times a million, it's a lot of operating revenue with little drop in costs)