Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#491

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #325

nkozyra wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really need to distinguish between industries at this point. It's all bad.

Is it really? I only have two direct data points, but I (government contractor) and my brother (large company) are both still fully employed with no immediate risk of unemployment, reduction in salary, etc. Just look at the numbers. 20% unemployment, while horrific in both human and economic terms, also implies 80% employment . When nearly everyone in the hospitality industry is out of a job, I have to think that som…

You may have a point with the gov't part, but just because a business is large doesn't mean they're immune (see GM for an easy example). All the money comes from somewhere, so it will depend on the business. My company is pretty big, but the businesses that are our customers are all feeling a huge amount of pain right now as their sales completely tanked. We're doing everything we can to help them stay afloat so we get something, but there's no way this revenue problem doesn't come to us sooner or later.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#492

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #66

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #44

The odd thing to me about it is that futures seem largely positive. Is it because the CAREs act or dropped labor is supposed to equal money not spent and thus meant to shield companies ( and investors )? I honestly do not get how market interprets it as good news.

They think it will require more stimulus money.

And they're confident the gov't will provide that.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#493

Post by digitaltrees » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #111

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculations on how bad is this going to get? Should I stock up on TP, on food, or on vodka and ammo?

You know those signs we memed the hell out of last decade? They're so cliched that they don't mean anything anymore, but think of those. Keep calm and carry on You should relax. We're not the first humans to see some hardship. Everything isn't going to fall apart because the economy has a downturn. Society isn't going to collapse because of this. It didn't happen in the 1600s, nor the 1700s, nor the 1800s, nor the 19…

While all of that is true, it can be very painful for most people. These types of events almost invariably lead to social unrest which compounds the problem. Ambitious and unscrupulous leaders in government and businesses will use this to undermine many of the norms we take for granted.

What is clear is that people are underestimating this crisis, no one wants to think we are in a WWII level moment, and so we don’t activate the appropriate level of response. But it is and will be a world altering period.

Once consistent pattern is that countries seem to feel like you do, it’s just a flu, then doctors see patients gasping for breath and literally drowning as their lungs fill up with fluid, and the true dread sets in. My friend is a doctor in NYC. She said this feels like war, and the nature of death experienced by people is horrific. If people were bleeding from their eyeballs like a movie maybe that would capture people’s attention but on the front lines people are terrified because this is an awful awful way to die.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#494

Post by grey-area » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

standardUser wrote: post #490

grey-area wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more pessimistic in the short term than this (particularly for the US, which still doesn't have a national lockdown), but more optimistic in the long term. Despite our best efforts, this thing is burning through entire populations, and will do so quickly (within a couple of months globally, except some places in asia who escaped the first wave but are now seeing more). Every active person leaving home is going to…

"Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order" This virus is not transmitted via magic. Even basic precautions lower the transmission rate considerable. Most places are now taking precautions that are far beyond basic.

Most places are seeing increasing rates of infection, even in spite of extreme measures. I'm not suggesting it's magic, just that it's more infectious than a common cold, which is pretty hard to avoid in winter where I live at least.

I agree that could be worded better (I'll leave it up since you've replied), but I meant it's hard to avoid if you're going shopping every few days - people are not good at infection control and many are pretty much asymptomatic for a long period. Lockdowns are controlling the rate of spread, not stopping it, despite best efforts, and will I suspect be released after a few months for that reason - because it has infected > 50% anyway and those people are allowed out after testing.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#495

Post by nyxtom » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

Is there any data on these numbers broken down by industry and profession?

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#496

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #390

agarden wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a reasonable line of thought, but incomplete. How many lives are we risking by tanking the global economy? That seems like it should be a more quantifiable risk. It becomes a trade-off between the amount of lives we can calculate will be lost via our pandemic-prevention measures (and to what degree of certainty) and the number that might be lost without them (and to what degree of certainty). The trade-off is…

Okay, but you have to look at both sides of it. How many people aren't dying in road traffic accidents that don't happen because of isolation? How many people aren't dying of diseases they won't develop because reduced economic output has also reduced the output of carcinogens and toxins produced by manufacturing that's not being done? And like that - those are just the first two examples off the top of my head; ther…

Exactly this! The WHO estimates that air pollution kills 7M people annually[0]. A really big range of estimates suggest 20-50% decrease in airborne pollutants since the start of the pandemic. Even a 10% decrease, sustained, could save 700k lives/year.

Yes, bad economies harm people. But they also reduce harm. Pointing simply at directionality due to a bad economy is disingenuous.

[0] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200326-covid-19-the-imp...

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#497

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

abfan1127 wrote: post #374

glouwbug wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is juxtaposition, a form of literary style. He is sarcastically downplaying the _flu_ in comparison to the world wars because the _flu_ is already significantly lesser than the holocaust or an atomic bomb landing in Japan.

except the Spanish Flu killed more than World War 1 and 2 combined (est. 50 million dead from Spanish Flu)...

World War II alone killed 70MM - 85MM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Also, 50MM for the Spanish flu is the top end of reasonable estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#498

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #135

lukevp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you feel is stupid about the response to this? 1% is a lot of people. The whole point of social distancing and staying at home is to not overwhelm the healthcare system and to give more time to develop proper care procedures.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, 1% would be approximately the same number of deaths we get in a typical year. Slightly more, yes, but some number of the COVID deaths are probably people that had a high likelihood of dying this year anyway, so it seems like an okay estimate. In that case we are doubling our deaths for a year. Very significant, but in the grand scheme of things it poses no real danger to the spe…

> I haven't decided if I agree with the position that collapsing the economy is worse than letting those deaths happen

Have you considered the position that a collapsed economy is inevitable due to deaths? Or that it would lead to less pollution, saving lives (although who knows what the net-net would be)?

7M people die annually from air pollution, according to the WHO. Early estimates of pollution reduction are in the 20-50% range; even a sustained 5% reduction is 350k lives saved/year.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#499

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #172

pjc50 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely stockpile TP and food, if you're in an area where the shelves haven't been stripped already. But don't overdo it and leave none for others. (UK already into "one large pack of TP per customer" territory, which is an improvement from bare shelves)

Where I live, there's a sign that says "limit 1 per customer" in front of a shelf that's been completely empty for over two weeks now.

Yeah, anecdotal reports here are that stores sell out of TP within hours of opening after a restock in spite of quantity limits.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#500

Post by standardUser » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #494

standardUser wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order" This virus is not transmitted via magic. Even basic precautions lower the transmission rate considerable. Most places are now taking precautions that are far beyond basic.

Most places are seeing increasing rates of infection, even in spite of extreme measures. I'm not suggesting it's magic, just that it's more infectious than a common cold, which is pretty hard to avoid in winter where I live at least. I agree that could be worded better (I'll leave it up since you've replied), but I meant it's hard to avoid if you're going shopping every few days - people are not good at infection con…

Unfortunately, it's really, really hard to say anything concrete about the transmission rate. Testing is different everywhere, and usually far too limited, and we know there are a lot of asymptomatic cases. But, if we accept some big caveats, it certainly looks like the transmission rates in locked down regions are dramatically reduced. People are still going to the store, ordering food delivery, going for walks and jogs, etc. A big chunk of people are actually still going to work everyday for essential services. But nonetheless, transmission appears to be way down, even in Italy, which had one of the worst starts of any country.