Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm

Tyler wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:41 pm
You also can't say no lives are lost because of the shutdown. From critical screenings and procedures not performed to the long-term detrimental health effects of poverty, willingly shutting down the world has consequences. It's not black and white.

I see the current conflict more about the competing interests of different socioeconomic groups. The very wealthy (who get government bailouts left and right and have enough money to not care) and minimum wage workers (who now make more in temporary government assistance than they did in their real jobs) are more than happy to sit things out. But the middle class (who depend primarily on their jobs to pay the bills) is rightfully freaking out and starting to get impatient with the other two groups continuing to shift the goalposts for their own benefit.
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint. And you are right there are some social rifts here which were there long before the virus, as the very wealthy have been favored to the detriment of everyone else for years now and the other people are rightfully upset. Why is it ok to give money to the rich but not ok to give money to poor? There's a lot of deep rooted issues like this that have been festering for a long time. Personally, I'm in the upper middle class so I get shafted either way. I make enough that I get hit with an incredibly large tax bill, get no "stimulus" checks, but I also don't yet have enough wealth to fully benefit from the wealth gap inflation like the very wealthy do. It sucks. I have reason to gripe here with both sides. But at the end of the day I do believe that peoples lives are more important than my monetary gripes. This is a humanitarian crisis, and it needs a humanitarian plan of action.

I'm ok with states taking a data driven approach to reopening... like the one Ducey originally had planned. His original plan was to open barbershops and dine in this week with heavy safety restrictions in place. Then waiting 2 weeks to see what happens with the data. If the data looks good, extend the opening to another set of businesses. If 2 weeks after that the data still is looking reasonable, then you do the full open. That would have us full open in a month if the data went well. This is a reasonable and data driven plan to me. Just punting the data and doing a full open less than a week from announcing that phased data driven plan just really does not sit with me well. This seems like a political move, not a logical move based on data and research.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tyler » Wed May 13, 2020 4:20 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint.
Maybe you missed my first point. ;) Shutdowns also kill people. Here's one example:

Economic shutdown could kill more than coronavirus, experts warn

If you believe a data-driven approach is important, then IMO we should honestly account for the human cost on both sides of the decision and not simply frame it as life vs. money.
Mechanical engineer, history buff, treasure manager... totally not Ben Gates
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:26 pm

Tyler wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:20 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint.
Maybe you missed my first point. ;) Shutdowns also cost lives. Here's one example:

Economic shutdown could kill more than coronavirus, experts warn

If you believe a data-driven approach is important, then IMO we should honestly account for the human cost on both sides of the decision and not simply frame it as life vs. money.
That article is a bit exaggerated and extreme. A 4 week data driven phased opening is not going to create that kind of a scenario.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Smith1776 » Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm

I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
PP: 20% KILO.B | 5% SBT.B | 60% VCIP | 15% VVL/VMO/VVO/VLQ
VP: 100% XGD
Liquidity: 90 Days of Expenses Bank Cash
Physical Bullion: 5% of Net Worth Gold & Silver
Knucklehead (noun): Someone who knows the expense ratio of everything but the value of nothing.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:31 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm
I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
Agreed.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tyler » Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm
I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
Well said. I totally agree.

Striking the right balance is hard, but recognizing the need for balance is the important first step.
Mechanical engineer, history buff, treasure manager... totally not Ben Gates
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 4:40 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
LOL! Yes, I see you've changed your position.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3540
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Wed May 13, 2020 4:41 pm

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect. Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future • it will not prevent them.
From the well respected medical journal Lancet
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:42 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:40 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
LOL! Yes, I see you've changed your position.
No my position has not changed at all. It's just that other people in the thread have come to me with discussion, whereas you just came to me as an arrogant asshole throwing insults at me from the onset with no attempt to even open up any form of dialogue.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Wed May 13, 2020 4:43 pm

I've read (somewhere) that the drop in food production will primarily affect exports to third-world countries, where the lack of available food could by itself kill as many as the virus.
Post Reply