![]() |
Originally Posted by captive apple
(Post 3006757)
MIT pandemic guy saying immediate 5 week lock down required.
If we want the economy back we have to end the virus first. Pull that bandaid off. TRUMP CHECK!! But honestly we have destroyed everything to save a bunch of people that the flu probably would have killed anyway. High fives all around. |
Originally Posted by threeighteen
(Post 3006844)
If we want the economy back... oh wait it's too late.
But honestly we have destroyed everything to save a bunch of people that the flu probably would have killed anyway. High fives all around. |
Originally Posted by Melit
(Post 3006872)
Are you really that stupid? Serious question..
|
Originally Posted by Melit
(Post 3006872)
Are you really that stupid? Serious question..
You can check the stats on the virus here... overall there isn't much to be worrying about especially when you understand that the US is going to be hit nowhere near as hard as Italy due to a significantly lower median population age and significantly fewer smokers. https://www.worldometers.info/corona...us-death-rate/ But whatever... you live your lives in fear and I'll keep shorting the market. We'll compare notes in a few years and see how everyone's doing.
Originally Posted by TFAYD
(Post 3006915)
He won’t be able to answer as he is on spring break in FL - totally wasted.
|
Originally Posted by Melit
(Post 3006872)
Are you really that stupid? Serious question..
Put another way: if these containment methods cause a full-blown Great Depression (which, if you read Goldman Sachs' Friday projection of Q2 US GDP falling by 25 percent, an absolutely unheard of number, is absolutely plausible) -- well, think of all the deaths caused by utter despair. Suicides, murders, domestic violence, and an increase in deaths unrelated to the virus, among those who can't afford care...all of these things, in a for-real Depression, may well result in far, far more deaths than even the most dire predictions for this coronavirus. Of course, the psychological cost of seeing potentially 3.6 million Americans die (1 pct of our population, assuming a 50 pct infection rate and a 2 pct death rate among that 50 -- a rate which tracks to South Korea's actual results) -- well, that would be horrible. And no policymaker, ever, could come out and basically say 'We're gonna have to let Grandma fight this on her own." So yeah. We're kinda screwed either way. |
Originally Posted by TFAYD
(Post 3006915)
He won’t be able to answer as he is on spring break in FL - totally wasted.
Duuu—-uuude! Par-TAY!! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Melit
(Post 3006706)
Unfortunately this will not be gone sooner. It hasn’t even begun
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 3006993)
There are a number of people with very advanced degrees asking the same question, although not quite so indelicately. Just read an opinion piece from a Stanford epidemiologist whose essential argument was that, in this case, our 'cure' for this virus (shut the economy down) may be worse than the disease itself.
Put another way: if these containment methods cause a full-blown Great Depression (which, if you read Goldman Sachs' Friday projection of Q2 US GDP falling by 25 percent, an absolutely unheard of number, is absolutely plausible) -- well, think of all the deaths caused by utter despair. Suicides, murders, domestic violence, and an increase in deaths unrelated to the virus, among those who can't afford care...all of these things, in a for-real Depression, may well result in far, far more deaths than even the most dire predictions for this coronavirus. Of course, the psychological cost of seeing potentially 3.6 million Americans die (1 pct of our population, assuming a 50 pct infection rate and a 2 pct death rate among that 50 -- a rate which tracks to South Korea's actual results) -- well, that would be horrible. And no policymaker, ever, could come out and basically say 'We're gonna have to let Grandma fight this on her own." So yeah. We're kinda screwed either way. |
Originally Posted by threeighteen
(Post 3006977)
I prefer the term pragmatic... The death rate for anyone that is in good health and not of significant old age is something like 0.9% if they even contract the disease, and the epidemiologists are estimating only 40-70% of the population will contract the disease. The majority of elderly people and those who are not in good health have similar odds of dying from the flu.
I don't believe the CFR isn't that high for those under 50-60 though. |
Originally Posted by threeighteen
(Post 3006977)
and the epidemiologists are estimating only 40-70% of the population will contract the disease.
stick to the back country, and let the reasonable people sort this one out. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:45 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands