Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

dol.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 563 posts

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

#531

Post by jart »

adrianN wrote: post #30
buzzkillington wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

It kills 1% if ICU care is available. It kills a lot more if the healthcare system is overwhelmed. Look at Spain or Italy. Case fatality rate is around 10%. Letting it run its course it needs to infect 60-70% of the population before herd immunity kicks in. 1% of 60% of the population of the US is 2 million people. World-wide you're looking at 45 million people for a very optimistic scenario. The numbers could easily…

That was a prediction CDC made in early Feb for broader China. More recent CDC reports for United States (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6912e2-H.pdf) say mortality is somewhere between 1% (lower bound) and ~30% (depending on age) based on calculations they did w/ cases having "known outcomes". The CDC says they only have 44 such samples at this time, and that ICU status data is missing or unknown for the several thousand or so other cases. So we really just don't know the facts yet.

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

#532

Post by Retric »

tmountain wrote: post #517
Retric wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s incredibly simplified. Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome. Nobody wants millions of Americans to die or for another outbreak to happen in 6+ months. Unfortunately, avoiding both without shutting everything down until a vaccine is developed is tricky.

I'm pointing at the fact that it keeps getting presented like a binary decision in the media over and over again, and that's not an appropriate characterization.

If that’s what your thinking don’t say: There are really two options here.

Frankly, the US with effective leadership could have less than 1/10th your quoted 200,000 deaths, just look at South Korea. Any time someone says their are two options on a complex issue it’s a straw man argument which is what I objected to.

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

#533

Post by generalpass »

kazen44 wrote: post #453
generalpass wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember that 100 years ago, and then again 80 years ago, large percentages of men in Europe were removed from their own countries and sent somewhere else; ships transporting food and supplies were actively sunk, houses and factories were bombed to smithereens. In spite of the massive economic damage that caused, civilization did not descend into anarchy, and very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death.…

> After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities…

> > After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country

> the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.

> Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.

> The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.

> Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.

Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

The Marshall Plan was passed in 1948.

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

#534

Post by samstave »

grey-area wrote: post #464
wayoutthere wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of info usually circulates in the corporate world for a week before it hits the wider media zeitgeist. My company has been holding weekly analyst briefings on what to expect. Right now, the sources I have say to expect to be WFH and "socially distanced" until July or August at the earliest. Restaurants will probably start slowly opening back up around then, but conferences or sporting events are going to be…

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…

Im even way more pessimistic than this...

>such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.

NO, they require they compliance of a population when faced with the military and martial law -- Which was already intimated directly as not being needed "just yet" by Trump.

Massive rumors of troop deployments and getting ready - videos of trains with tons of equipment being moved around the country.

Videos of the suposed "testing centers" setup at various places were the military setup huge tents - and they are completely empty, as well as fema delivering refridgerated trailers to these places...

They are planning on mass death coming very soon.

Media claiming that the hospitals are a "war zone" and guys went to these hospitals and they were empty.

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

#535

Post by samstave »

generalpass wrote: post #533
kazen44 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities…

> > After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country > the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and ci…

>Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.

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

#536

Post by samstave »

Retric wrote: post #489
tmountain wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thinking negates the economic impact that a bunch of people dying is going to have on the economy. There are really two options here. 1) A huge impact on the economy and fewer people die. 2) A huge impact on the economy and lots of people die. Nobody has the capability to predict the real outcome of one scenario over the other from an economic perspective. If the US does everything perfectly, we'll probably lose…

That’s incredibly simplified. Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome. Nobody wants millions of Americans to die or for another outbreak to happen in 6+ months. Unfortunately, avoiding both without shutting everything down until a vaccine is developed is tricky.

>Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome

BS: Donald Trump was specifically asked yesterday how he feels about the poor and especially illegal immigrants who will have zero access to help, both financial and medical.

He litaerally tilted his head and said "what are you gunna do?" knowing what that outcome is going to result in.

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

#537

Post by samstave »

techdevangelist wrote: post #61
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?

The three A’s of the apocalypse; ammo, alcohol and antibiotics..

Four A's: AU

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

#538

Post by buzzkillington »

throwanem wrote: post #518
buzzkillington wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now do a calculation that includes a world war with nuclear weapons, because that's what happens when you hit 30% unemployment.

How on Earth do you figure that ?

A natural outcome when you have 30% unemployment in the worlds largest economies. Who knows, maybe we will get lucky and it will only be civil wars in China and India with only hundreds of millions dead.

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

#539

Post by buzzkillington »

throwanem wrote: post #399
rootusrootus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm in the fashion industry right now, I get the layoff worries. But, okay, worst case, I get laid off and then I get a less cushy job in an industry that's less affected. Maybe I draw down my savings for a couple of months before I find one. It's not the end of the world. That's a major benefit of having a skillset as portable as ours. I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the…

>I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that?

A hugely positive one because the deaths are for people who no longer work and generally are net drains on the economy, with either multiple diseases, old age or some other disability.

The effect of wealth transfer between generations alone would be amazing, with 20-40 year olds inheriting housing for the first time since the 90s in large numbers.

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

#540

Post by generalpass »

samstave wrote: post #535
generalpass wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country > the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and ci…

> Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners. These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.

> >Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

> These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.

Well, taken out of context of the discussion, you can say lots of things.

Post reply on HN