US economy

[madteaparty]

49 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I am not an economist, but isn’t deficit spending indicated in wartime? This seems to be similar.

I have no thoughts as to what the current stimulus will do. but the deficit was already big owing to the ridiculous tax cuts handed out to people who don’t need tax cuts. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

I am not an economist, but isn’t deficit spending indicated in wartime? This seems to be similar.

Not necessarily during wartime.  The idea of deficit spending during war comes from the need for the government to purchase war materials, not from a need to protect or stimulate the economy  In fact, the deficit spending during a war time can hurt consumers.  The government spending drives up prices of the goods the consumers are going to buy but doesn't provide any additional goods.  

The idea of deficit spending to counteract a recession  must be counteracted with a budget surplus during expansionary times (which hasn't been done in recent years).  It would have to be countered with a budget surplus in the future, which will slow the economy.

One of the problems of why a budget deficit want protect the economy now is that the reason that the deficit works in a recession is that it keeps the economy working, it keeps production going, it keeps the factories operating.  (That production then forms the tax base for the future surplus).  It isn't deficit spending of giving money to people so that they don't go (or can't go to work);  then you simply have more money in the economy with goods not being produced which results in inflation.  

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Giving people money results in them spending it, which results in keeping the economy going, no? 

I think this is a complicated and not obvious question. Also, what choice do we have? 

But the reason the economy is not going on is that there are rules in place to prevent it from going on.  This isn't that people need to be encourage to spend.  This is a situation in which there is a lack of production.  Americans cannot purchase something that is not being produced.  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I get it :-(. I just don't see that there are any options. 

Unfortunately, we do not have options to protect us from economic downturns.  The government doesn't have a magic wand to cure the economy, just as it does not have a magic wand to cure COVID-19.  But what the government does do will have consequences.  We must not ignore those consequences and do something that sounds politically favorable but leads to damage.

It is somewhat like having an area that floods and deciding to build a dam to prevent the flooding.  The water still has to go somewhere; if you ignore the potential damage you may be doing to another area when you build the dam, you may end up doing more overall damage because you were trying to prevent one area from flooding.  

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Are factories generally closed?

In my state, if you are not producing an essential product then your factory is closed.

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Are factories generally closed?

I don't know how broadly factory closings are at this point in the US, but the auto manufacturers have broadly announced ceasing production.  But, the same reasoning applies to service provisions as well as manufactured goods.  I can't spend money on salon services that aren't being produced, or music lessons that are not being given, or at gyms that are not open.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Thanks. What counts as essential?

There's a whole list - I have not read it - but I assume food, toilet paper, and medical supplies are on that list.  I would assume sports equipment, house paint, and giftware are not.

Employees can file a complaint if they don't agree that their business is essential and want to stay home.

The reality is that many people are closing even if they are "essential," because they are afraid of getting sued.  My office would pass as "essential" (because I heard lawyers and accountants are considered "essential"), but we are closed because we don't want anyone to feel obligated to come in - and that means nobody who wants to come has the option either.  We are going to loan some money to our two single mom contractors, but not every business can or will do that.

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

The economy will have massive setbacks due to the virus whatever the government does. It sucks, I agree. But it’s just true.

What do you propose instead of the rules in place?

I am not sure what your question is referring to, but I think we need to think carefully about the benefits, costs, and consequences of the decisions being made.  We can't just look at one side or the other.  We can't just blissfully think that damage to the economy doesn't matter because government stimulus can take care of that if it is not the case.  Extreme thing like "No economic activity is worth the loss of life" (said by one of my local officials) is not rational or consistent with other things we do.  We may not want to admit it but we engage in economic activity every day that puts lives at risk.  We wouldn't have wheat if a farmer didn't risk getting hurt on a tractor and dying.  We wouldn't have gasoline if someone didn't risk falling off of an oil rig and dying.  We wouldn't have the goods in our stores if a truck driver didn't risk getting killed in an accident.  We make a judgement in those situations if the benefit is worth the risk; we make adjustments when we need to.  But, we can't make those judgements if we don't talk about the risks and just say that no risk is worth it.  

[Bootsie]

11 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I'm not saying "no loss of life is worth it." I know politicians say it, and it's not true. 

But it's a lot easier to say what you don't want as opposed to what you do want. What do you propose instead of what's in place right now, given our current capacities? 

I would like to see a lot more thought cross-disciplinary discussions.  The focus of the health care professionals is to warn about potential problems with health care.  But, those should not be the only concerns, broader health concern, emotional health, spiritual health, economic impact, societal impact, and so forth should also be part of the discussions.

From the statistics I have seen, I am not convinced that having large portions of the population sheltering in place is productive.  I think some of the things like curtailing international travel on short notice could have done more damage than good.  There are a lot of people who may have chosen to stay in place, but instead panicked and crowded airports, in a few days.  I am not convinced it made sense to send students from my university back to their home (some to NY) rather than just keeping them where they were.  I think some real thought needs to go into the "flatten the curve" models before decisions are made based upon the concept.    

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, this was an uncoordinated response. I agree that some of the measures were counterproductive. I just don't see that we can do anything better than shelter in place at this particular point in time. Hopefully, there will soon be widespread testing and our range of options will be less limited. 

At this point, what would be the benefit of widespread testing?  I have talked to some in the medical industry who think that is taking resources away from the more important point of taking care of those who we know are ill, especially when the vast majority of tests (perhaps 90%) come back negative.  Having the data of widespread testing may help long-term research but is not really helping the health problem at the moment, which is critical.  Especially given that someone may test negative one day, but be exposed after that, without repeated testing of the same population, broad testing may not help.  

[TechWife]

49 minutes ago, square_25 said:

The service parts of the economy are going to be extremely hard-hit due to the pandemic no matter what the government does. That is because people are going to be scared as soon as there's trouble in a given area. Life isn't going to go on as usual when the ICUs are full. There's just no way. 

The US is a service based economy at this point in time. Proportionally, very little product manufacturing occurs here. Our economic growth has been tied to services for many years now.

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

You could do much more targeted responses instead of just locking things down. And you’d have a better idea of the CFR.

An antibody test would also be great.

Would the responses target particular people, like those who are known to be positive and their contacts?  Or would it be used to target certain areas of the country?  That only after a certain number of people are positive that local area goes under lockdown?  

[TechWife]

I don't think our economy has been operating in an ideal capacity for a little while now. High national debt & increasing consumer debt all pointed towards a looming recession. I think it's possible that our economy will look very different in the future. We need to adjust some things and rethink some priorities. Worth thinking about:

Health care is a huge part of our economy - How can we change things so that it, first of all, provides quality care and second of all, is accessible to everyone (accessibility in health care means that the right care is available in the right place at the right time for the right price). How do we structure the economics of healthcare so that medical bankruptcy becomes a thing of the past and so that we can still contribute to advancements in medical care?

Growth mindset  - Is is wise to have the mindset that our economy must always be "growing" or "expanding?" When is enough, enough?

Economic disparity - The income gap (disappearing middle class) needs to be examined. There needs to be some real soul searching done in this regard. Is this ok? If so, why? If not, why not and then what do we do to change it?

Although not just related to economics, but to our overall culture, the individualism/independence that is built into the US culture could very well be it's downfall. It is that mindset that has contributed to many of the economic problems and societal problems we face. Without a shift there, we will have continued difficulties setting priorities in all areas.

 

 

 

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Would the responses target particular people, like those who are known to be positive and their contacts?  Or would it be used to target certain areas of the country?  That only after a certain number of people are positive that local area goes under lockdown?  

 

Yes to all. Ideally, areas would be under some type of stay at home restriction before they had an enormous number of positive test results. That's what prevents community spread.

[TechWife]

13 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Exactly. So we’re dead in the water whatever our government does.

No, we are not.

I think many people don't realize is that change means things are different. Different can be really bad at first and can seem worse than it is, but sometimes different is just different.

My husband works in a service industry. He is working entirely at home - hasn't missed a day of work and is working long hours.  His service is providing his knowledge and physical interaction isn't required to do that. Some services are dependent upon the ability to interact personally with others in order to deliver a physical good or product (food service being the most obvious). Those industries are hurting. Other industries require goods in order to deliver their services and may require some physical interaction with other people (such as automotive repair). Those industries are going to have mixed results based upon availability of imported products and the health of their populations.

[mom2scouts]

People in my community have been trying to help small restaurant businesses by ordering takeout. Today's newspaper has a story about a local restaurant that has become a "hotspot" of illness. If people start worrying about getting the virus from restaurant food or the pick up area, they're going to stop supporting restaurants and that will make things worse.

[chiguirre]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I don't know how broadly factory closings are at this point in the US, but the auto manufacturers have broadly announced ceasing production.  But, the same reasoning applies to service provisions as well as manufactured goods.  I can't spend money on salon services that aren't being produced, or music lessons that are not being given, or at gyms that are not open.

But would you be willing to go to a gym or a salon now anyway? They can open, but they can't force people to come in. My local music school has gone to Zoom lessons. I suspect that even when they open, my dd will continue with the Zoom lessons because they're so convenient and she hasn't had any problem working with her teacher productively.

2 hours ago, SKL said:

The reality is that many people are closing even if they are "essential," because they are afraid of getting sued.  My office would pass as "essential" (because I heard lawyers and accountants are considered "essential"), but we are closed because we don't want anyone to feel obligated to come in - and that means nobody who wants to come has the option either.  We are going to loan some money to our two single mom contractors, but not every business can or will do that.

Can't you work from home? My dh is a management consultant. He's been working longer hours during our social distancing measures than normal. All he needs is his laptop, cell phone and, preferably, wifi and he's good to go.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

Can't you work from home? My dh is a management consultant. He's been working longer hours during our social distancing measures than normal. All he needs is his laptop, cell phone and, preferably, wifi and he's good to go.

I always work at home.  However, not everyone in our company has a job that can be done at home.  Also, a single mom home with her kids all the time doesn't have the same level of focus as she would have at work.

[Bootsie]

27 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

But would you be willing to go to a gym or a salon now anyway? They can open, but they can't force people to come in. My local music school has gone to Zoom lessons. I suspect that even when they open, my dd will continue with the Zoom lessons because they're so convenient and she hasn't had any problem working with her teacher productively.

 

My comment was not regarding whether these businesses should or should not be open.  My comment was about the economic impact and if government spending would counteract it.  My point was that the government giving people money does not get the economy going when the things people spent money on are not being produced.  The spending in the economy cannot be any larger than the production of the economy. 

[saraha]

cross posted

Ohio's nonessential business shut down is a joke. The only thing it changed in our community is that the only clothing store in our county closed. My dh and those of all my neighbor's are still working, as the businesses are allowed to self determine their essentialness. Yesterday in his address the governor responded to questions about employees who feel like their place of business should not be open with the statement to take it up with your employer. I have been with him up to this point and think that on all of his other actions he has been a front runner in this, till we got to here.

My husband works in a factory that we feel is nonessential. Workers who can work from home (engineers, hr, some secretaries and buyers) were asked to last week. The shop floor is still working with no changes. The office workers left are able to social distance, but the shop is out of luck. There are is no recourse for employees except to take vacation days. But when those run out... so my dh is working, as well as my neighbors son, another neighbors husband etc. We are social distancing from each other, but our workers see each other all day

[saraha]

If they closed his factory or furloughed workers, we could apply for unemployment.

If he gets sick, we can take vacation days, but he doesn't have that many, plus we would have huge doctor bills if has to be hospitalized. If he is hospitalized it will be in the nearest big city, an hour away, as our county does not even have a hospital. We would take unemployment over this any day. I get that not everyone can live on unemployment, but why not give the ones who could the chance to be furloughed so that the ones who can't can work with less contact? I think voluntary furlough would be so helpful in so many cases.

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think some real thought needs to go into the "flatten the curve" models before decisions are made based upon the concept.    

Are you saying that real thought hasn't gone into those models? Multiple different places, in different countries, are coming up with basically the same message. People with the background to knwo what they are talking about. And politicians are definitely NOT ignoring the economy when making decisions, they can't afford to if they want to keep their job. 

But the best minds so far all are saying that if we don't do this, we will have a catastrophe of epic proportions. And STILL have a broken economy. 

26 minutes ago, saraha said:

If they closed his factory or furloughed workers, we could apply for unemployment.

If he gets sick, we can take vacation days, but he doesn't have that many, plus we would have huge doctor bills if has to be hospitalized. If he is hospitalized it will be in the nearest big city, an hour away, as our county does not even have a hospital. We would take unemployment over this any day. I get that not everyone can live on unemployment, but why not give the ones who could the chance to be furloughed so that the ones who can't can work with less contact? I think voluntary furlough would be so helpful in so many cases.

This is very true. 

I mean, having huge chunks of our population in the hospital, racking up medical bills, isn't going to do our economy any favors either. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

My comment was not regarding whether these businesses should or should not be open.  My comment was about the economic impact and if government spending would counteract it.  My point was that the government giving people money does not get the economy going when the things people spent money on are not being produced.  The spending in the economy cannot be any larger than the production of the economy. 

 

No one is spending a bunch of non-discretionary money during a pandemic. Demand will be pent up much like it has been during EVERY war we've ever been part of...hence that whole post-war baby boom with washing machines, electric refrigerators, and Levittown homes. Delay does not mean death. You'd seriously think we'd never had to redirect the national energy/focus (for YEARS) before.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

No one is spending a bunch of non-discretionary money during a pandemic. Demand will be pent up much like it has been during EVERY war we've ever been part of...hence that whole post-war baby boom with washing machines, electric refrigerators, and Levittown homes. Delay does not mean death. You'd seriously think we'd never had to redirect the national energy/focus (for YEARS) before.

I was responding to whether or not deficit spending NOW will protect the economy.  Government stimulus was not needed to encourage demand after WWII.  It wasn't deficit spending that saved the economy then.  The economic theory of deficit spending being able to steer us out of a recession is dependent upon the spending AND the production, not simply giving people money to spend.  

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I was responding to whether or not deficit spending NOW will protect the economy.  Government stimulus was not needed to encourage demand after WWII.  It wasn't deficit spending that saved the economy then.  The economic theory of deficit spending being able to steer us out of a recession is dependent upon the spending AND the production, not simply giving people money to spend.  

 

Deficit spending now will PRESERVE the economy, meet some immediate medical needs, and keep people fed and housed. I know you aren't seriously suggesting that deficits aren't what funded and preserved an economy with almost no working age men during WW1/2, right? https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/deficit-spending. This isn't and won't be the only bill. Additional deficit spending in 6 months will RESTART the economy. These things aren't mutually exclusive. I know that I have no plans to spend this 'stimulus' payment now. I don't need to. I WILL spend it later.

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Are you saying that real thought hasn't gone into those models? Multiple different places, in different countries, are coming up with basically the same message. People with the background to knwo what they are talking about. And politicians are definitely NOT ignoring the economy when making decisions, they can't afford to if they want to keep their job. 

But the best minds so far all are saying that if we don't do this, we will have a catastrophe of epic proportions. And STILL have a broken economy. 

This is very true. 

I mean, having huge chunks of our population in the hospital, racking up medical bills, isn't going to do our economy any favors either. 

Some, like Dr. Jeremy Faust, MD, who is an instructor at Harvard Medical School has said that we need to THINK about these things more.   
I have not been able to find one model that does look at a holistic picture.  If there is one, please point me to it.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Deficit spending now will PRESERVE the economy, meet some immediate medical needs, and keep people fed and housed. I know you aren't seriously suggesting that deficits aren't what funded and preserved an economy with almost no working age men during WW1/2, right? https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/deficit-spending. This isn't and won't be the only bill. Additional deficit spending in 6 months will RESTART the economy. These things aren't mutually exclusive. I know that I have no plans to spend this 'stimulus' payment now. I don't need to. I WILL spend it later.

The deficit spending during WWII was not fiscal policy intended to stimulate the economy.  It was spending to finance a war.  While there were few working age men in factories in WWII you did have many women working in the factories.  The government could not spend money on planes that were not being built.  This also led to post WWII problems when the Federal Reserve was no longer keeping interest rates low--which led to the Treasury-Fed Accord.  So, even that deficit spending was not without problems  

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

The deficit spending during WWII was not fiscal policy intended to stimulate the economy.  It was spending to finance a war.  While there were few working age men in factories in WWII you did have many women working in the factories.  The government could not spend money on planes that were not being built.  This also led to post WWII problems when the Federal Reserve was no longer keeping interest rates low--which led to the Treasury-Fed Accord.  So, even that deficit spending was not without problems  

 

This *is* a war and the state, federal, and municipal governments are financing it, probably less than they should be. The government's product purchases may be different but there is justifiable criticism about the unwillingness to use the models we have, and that we know work, to fight this disease the way we'd requisition bullets, planes, or uniforms for a conventional war. The idea that this event is so unprecedented and will damage the economy for years to come is simply not born out by history. The spending PRESERVED the economy and financed the war effort. Oh yeah, and civilians not on the front lines SACRIFICED in many ways that are shocking by today's standards. The money GIs couldn't spend while fighting WAS spent upon their return. The technology that was developed during the war spread years of tech growth and product development that was only seen POST-war. There is precedent for this.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Harvard or no Harvard, he's not an epidemiologist and is talking about things he doesn't understand very well. 

Last I checked, he was telling people to calm down, because the death rate on the Diamond Princess wasn't that high: 

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html

It was a totally irresponsible article, since there were lots of unresolved cases. As of this time, the CFR from the ship has almost doubled (the deaths have gone from 6 to 10), which means it's now at least 1.4%. 

I wouldn't call him an authority in any sense of the word. 

He is not an epidemiologist, but it is my opinion that we need a broader discussion of what is happening so that we look at the picture more holistically.  The epidemiologists look at things from one perspective.  They are other factors of human life that I have not found in their models.  

Also, I have not been able to find a good model done by an epidemiologist that really provides data.  I have been looking, so if anyone knows of one, please let me know.

[Bootsie]

 

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Data for what? 

All of the models of what the peak will be, when it will occur, how much lock-downs will change any of that, what the capacity of the medical system is, how long we will be extending illnesses when we flatten the curve.   These models should be built upon some data and some assumptions.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

We don't know. I know that NY is running its model using the current data during the lockdown, and is adjusting it every day. That means that it's not even a very sophisticated model -- just a projection using the current curve. That's probably the best we can do, because this is incredibly hard to model. The mathematics isn't infallible. 

Anyway, NY is projecting a peak about 2-3 weeks away. If you want all of the nitty-gritty details, you can listen to Cuomo's daily briefings -- he talked about the projected needs for beds, ICU beds, etc. He's also talking about the steps they are taking. And he's also talked about the need to restart the economy. You might find his stuff informative. 

I don't know what the NY model is.  I haven't been able to find anything, anywhere that shows what the model is.  So, it is hard to give a perspective on what may be missing or ways the model may be improved if you don't know these things.  Hearing a projection of needed beds is an outcome of the model; it gives me no idea of what that projection is based upon.  I am suggesting that if these models were more transparent more minds could really think about these problems.

[Bootsie]

11 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

That's because we're having a hard enough time with what we're trying to predict right now as is!! This is an incredibly chaotic system. It's difficult to study. People are having enough trouble figuring out what effect shutting things down will even have on the death rate, never mind on a whole host of intangibles. 

At some point, models only do so much. You said you want to look at this holistically -- that sounds great. But you haven't proposed a single thing we could actually be doing now. I'm happy to discuss that, if you have suggestion. But just saying that things won't work and not suggesting anything seems like a more pessimistic conversation than is currently useful to have. I'm feeling pessimistic enough as is. 

I think right now, we're firmly in the "one thing at a time" phase. There exists a world in which we did things quickly in January in February, and this world would allow more sophisticated approaches. We aren't living in that world right now. We need to talk about what to do this week today. We don't have enough information to plan much further in advance. 

I think a starting point would be for those who are making decisions to make the models upon which they are making these decisions transparent.  More minds could be thinking about this.  A model may be predicting the need for X number of beds.  But, is that prediction within a 90% confidence interval or a 10% confidence interval--things like that make a big difference in understanding the numbers.  

[ktgrok]

35 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Some, like Dr. Jeremy Faust, MD, who is an instructor at Harvard Medical School has said that we need to THINK about these things more.   
I have not been able to find one model that does look at a holistic picture.  If there is one, please point me to it.

There are models that show the number of projected cases, and number of projected deaths and number of hospital beds needed, etc. No, there are not models that also include mental health and people's wages or foreclosures, that all isn't going to go into one model. Our leaders need to look at the various things, separately, weigh them, and make decisions. 

22 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

If there are no cases in the community, then the protection is each person being personally responsible -- cover when coughing, wash hands, monitor oneself and don't come to work if symptoms of COVID19 are present. 

We have no way of knowing if there are cases in the community without widespread testing, which we can't do at the present moment. Here we do have a drive up testing site but they will only test people ages 65 and older with the right symptoms. 

And as far as being personally responsible - we know that isn't nearly enough. Cover when coughing? What about when someone rubs their eyes? Yawns and covers their mouth in a meeting? Then touches the chair arms, the desk, pens, and a door knob before they are at a sink they can wash at? Then after washing they again rub their eyes on the way to the elevator to push a button? Or wash hands, then check their phone when it rings, that they earlier touched during the meeting? 

Stay home when sick is great - but we know a large number of people with this virus are NOT sick. They have no symptoms, and some studies show they have a HIGHER viral load than people with symptoms. So just having people who are stick stay home is not much reassurance that you won't have people walking around the office spreading the virus. With the incubation period, by the time even the ones who get sick are sick they have already been spreading it to who knows how many people. 

So tell me, how, exactly, we put "precautions" in place that will actually prevent the spread?

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

There are models that show the number of projected cases, and number of projected deaths and number of hospital beds needed, etc. No, there are not models that also include mental health and people's wages or foreclosures, that all isn't going to go into one model. Our leaders need to look at the various things, separately, weigh them, and make decisions. 

Can you point to one model that is well done even for only projecting cases, deaths, and beds?  I have not been able to find one.  

There is no reason why other items cannot go into a model also.  There is no reason they have to be looked at separately.  But, yes, the must be weighed.  But, it isn't clear to me at this point what is being weighed.

[ElizabethB]

On 3/24/2020 at 10:16 AM, ScoutTN said:

Many businesses now shut down and classed non-essential could be up and running (as they were a couple weeks ago here) with sensible precautions in place. 

Our dry cleaners is drive through already. Many retail establishments besides restaurants could do this.

Lawn service and landscaping.

I am sure there are others.

For some unknown reason, landscaping was deemed an essential business in Idaho.  Laundromats and dry cleaners were also considered essential, that one does make more sense.  (But landscaping, even in not truly essential, is low risk of infection, there is little interaction.)

https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2020/03/IdahoEssentialServices_updated.pdf

Edited March 26, 2020 by ElizabethB

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

What confidence interval, lol? How are you going to even come up with a confidence interval for these models? Even to do so, you're going to have to make tons of assumptions, most of which won't be supported. 

But it is extremely problematic when we start acting on these models (and panicking) as if they are extremely accurate if then we say the assumptions can't be supported.  

[Bootsie]

 

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I'm sure it's a really basic model based on exponential curves! There's nothing better to use right now. That's what I'm saying. 

(This is just my opinion, of course. They might have more sophisticated models. But the more sophisticated a model is, the more parameters it has, and I do not think we have the kind of information that would enable us to tune a fancy model right now.) 

An exponential curve is the outcome of a model.  It is not a model.   

[SereneHome]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

There's a whole list - I have not read it - but I assume food, toilet paper, and medical supplies are on that list.  I would assume sports equipment, house paint, and giftware are not.

Employees can file a complaint if they don't agree that their business is essential and want to stay home.

The reality is that many people are closing even if they are "essential," because they are afraid of getting sued.  My office would pass as "essential" (because I heard lawyers and accountants are considered "essential"), but we are closed because we don't want anyone to feel obligated to come in - and that means nobody who wants to come has the option either.  We are going to loan some money to our two single mom contractors, but not every business can or will do that.

Not in the state where I work. My boss officially closed the office, she is just allowing us to work from home

[ScoutTN]

13 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

For some unknown reason, landscaping was deemed an essential business in Idaho.  Laundromats and dry cleaners were also considered essential, that one does make more sense.

https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2020/03/IdahoEssentialServices_updated.pdf

IDK, but it is work that can be done with all the safety protocols in place more easily than many things, as long as the workers don't ride in trucks together. 

Laundromats make sense to me. Clean clothes and linens are necessary and not everyone has machines at home.

[Arcadia]

15 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

For some unknown reason, landscaping was deemed an essential business in Idaho.  

Landscaping in general might not be essential but the crew that is pruning branches here are kind of essential because down tree branches means power outage. 

[ktgrok]

Yup, landscaping/lawn services are considered essential here too, as well as dry cleaners, etc. We have a stay at home order starting tonight. 

[Bootsie]

59 minutes ago, square_25 said:

OK, but a very basic model, in which each person infects a certain number of people!! After that, it's the model itself, and all you adjust is the number being exponentiated, which is affected by just about everything: density, lockdowns, people's compliance, etc. So your best bet is to match it to the observed data. 

Are you very familiar with running models for these things? 

Yes, I am very familiar with running these types of models.  

If we are going to make decisions based upon these models, we should know what the certain number of people, and other assumptions that are being made in the model.  When I try to run backwards from some of the projects, the assumptions that they seem to imply do not seem to meet with a lot of the data. 

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

OK, so what model would you prefer? Most places seem to follow an exponential curve for quite a while. We are currently basically just trying to estimate the value of a such that we're following y = c*a^x for the near future, as far as I can tell. Would you like us to assume a different kind of growth? If so, what evidence do you have that we're not following an exponential curve for the next few weeks, at least? 

Even with exponential growth, the growth rate is a crucial variable. if you start with 100 and grow at 1% per day, you have exponential growth.  If you start with 100 and grow at 25% per day, you have exponential growth.  And, exponential growth can only occur for a limited amount of time in a situation like this, or you begin assuming that more than 100% of the population is infected. 

[Paige]

This site discusses how the models are made if you are interested. I have no idea how representative the assumptions are. https://www.tibco.com/blog/2020/03/18/covid-19-a-visual-data-science-analysis-and-review/

The number of cases is based on the R0 of the virus as best we know. They calculate the number of interactions a person would be expected to have based on different degrees of social distancing to make the different curves. One huge flaw I see is that they are assuming no more infections after hospitalization, which I think is a bad assumption. We are already seeing healthcare workers being infected and dying around the world. 

I think you'd have to wade deep into epidemiology research to figure out how they usually run their models but my assumption is that the line for hospital capacity would be based on actual numbers of ICU beds and ventilators we have and the percent that are free on average in a country. 

[Bootsie]

20 minutes ago, Paige said:

• This site discusses how the models are made if you are interested. I have no idea how representative the assumptions are. https://www.tibco.com/blog/2020/03/18/covid-19-a-visual-data-science-analysis-and-review/

The number of cases is based on the R0 of the virus as best we know. They calculate the number of interactions a person would be expected to have based on different degrees of social distancing to make the different curves. One huge flaw I see is that they are assuming no more infections after hospitalization, which I think is a bad assumption. We are already seeing healthcare workers being infected and dying around the world. 

I think you'd have to wade deep into epidemiology research to figure out how they usually run their models but my assumption is that the line for hospital capacity would be based on actual numbers of ICU beds and ventilators we have and the percent that are free on average in a country. 

If you look at the conclusions of this you find

"Reading Adam Kucharski and other experienced epidemiologists, this virus is clearly highly contagious and deadly. However, from a statistical perspective, with exponential growth parameters there are similarly exponential errors on predictions, and many different scenarios could eventuate. "

This points to exponential errors in prediction.  And then the conclusion is:

"At one level we can think of communities and populations, where deaths in the thousands are certain, the economy is in turmoil and our life savings are under attack. 

At the other end of the spectrum there is us and our individual friends and families. If I/we assume a 10% risk of infection and a 0.1% mortality rate, my/our personal death rate is 1 in 10,000. Or perhaps better said my/our chance of being just fine is 9,999/10,000. 

I guess what I’m saying is from a personal perspective it’s fine to be afraid and take every measure to protect myself. But I’m not going to take these highly uncertain outcomes as events that are likely to happen. "

 

 

[Bootsie]

25 minutes ago, square_25 said:

As I said, you're estimating the a in a^x, which is precisely whether it's a 1% daily increase or a 20% daily increase or what. It's also obviously a short-term model, since it doesn't work after a while. I'm not a statistician, but I do have a math Ph.D and I focused on probability, so I'm not a total ignoramus. 

Current estimates are doubling in about 3 days, so a is about 1.2 -- a 20% increase every day. That's what is being seen in lots of places. Do you have evidence that this value of a is incorrect? 

I think I'm at this point repeating myself like a parrot, so I'm going to bow out of the conversation unless you do have a practical suggestion or a model or something that shows something better to do. 

But there is a big difference in calculating what the past a has been and building a model to predict what the future a will be.  When you use a small sample with exponential growth (and probably poor data) to try to build a model to predict the future, you can have exponential errors.  I don't hear any admitting of the possibility of huge errors when this is being discussed.   

[ktgrok]

19 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But there is a big difference in calculating what the past a has been and building a model to predict what the future a will be.  When you use a small sample with exponential growth (and probably poor data) to try to build a model to predict the future, you can have exponential errors.  I don't hear any admitting of the possibility of huge errors when this is being discussed.   

and if we wait until we have lots of data it may be too late. 

[ElizabethB]

We have had relatives in the extended family commit suicide and die from drug and alcohol overdoses related to underemployment/unemployment.  Obviously you don't want to open up LA and NY right now, but there are trade offs, here are numbers in an article from The Hill with how deaths increase with increasing unemployment:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/489566-shutdown-is-killing-the-economy-and-is-also-no-good-for-our-health

We have a friend that travels extensively to China and Japan for business, he thinks we should all wear masks like them and that it helps and would keep everyone safer regardless of when people decide is the right time to loosen things up at least in certain areas that are not hot spots.  

Edited March 26, 2020 by ElizabethB

[Shoeless]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Landscaping in general might not be essential but the crew that is pruning branches here are kind of essential because down tree branches means power outage. 

 

Real Estate agents around here are saying they are "essential" and call to schedule a showing today!  Just....no. 

[Bootsie]

The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, James Bullard, estimates that the unemployment rate in the US could reach 30% in the second quarter 😞