From an economic perspective - how do you think this plays out?

[Casey]

 

Not the flu

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Not the flu

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

 

And this graph is despite unprecedented mass school closures, social distancing, masks becoming normalized, lockdowns, and travel bans. But I guess some will continue to think we are "overreacting".

[Kaegi2011]

Probably much more contagious.

 

we dont now that.  you may be right though.  during flu season, many people obtain a vaccine predictive for the viral strains to be expected, and US still has 10,000-50,000 deaths attributed to flu each year.  without any vaccine protection, we are not yet at 9,000 with corona in US.  and I believe that number would have been MUCH lower if we had focused all of our resources on elderly etc as opposed to our precious selves.  if I were to speculate, I would say that this virus has a higher rate of asympomatic infection than other flu viruses, perhaps because there is some basic commonality to other corona viruses we have all had.  that will become apparent perhaps in the vaccine development project

 

Key phrase is we don't know. 

 

You're comparing 9k death (which we know will go up, likely 10x based on current projections), in a very short period of time, with a practically locked down country, vs. a flu *season* where something like 30% of the people get a vaccine.  Not apples to apples.  So we can quibble about whether maybe there is a better way next time, simply stating that this is a gross over reaction does not make sense. 

[Gregmal]

Amusing logic here.

 

The flu has a vaccine and still kills the number of people it does. Covid19 has no vaccine and no shortage of folks bitching and screaming about how badly mismanaged and how late our government was dealing with it, and yet the numbers...

 

 

[hyten1]

flu kills 10k  to 50k people per year, so on the low end flu kills less than 1k per month and at the high end it kills 4k per month (this is with vaccine). so most likely without vaccine it would be more, how much more?

 

covid19 has kill so far 11k people across US for almost a month worth of time. you can argue it could be more due to the timing and as well the effect of stay a home (flu has no stay at home). so covid19 is 10x to 2x worst than the flu (given flu has vaccine and covid19 has stay at home)

[Gregmal]

Which is true, but the flu is not the same every year either. Sometimes it’s a really bad strain, sometimes it isn’t. How many times have we heard “make sure you get your flu shot, it’s supposed to be pretty nasty this year” or some variation of that? Sure covid19 is a significantly nastier virus, but holy fuck is this now a far cry and a major walk back from all the folks who manufactured and spread stories and narratives scripted for a Hollywood movie.

[cubsfan]

In 2017, the flu killed more than 60,000 - opioids - 70,000, I think last year.

 

Perhaps by just protecting the elderly, immune compromised, etc - we could end up there - without all the economic devastation we are seeing.

 

When we see if there is greater herd immunity - maybe we will know? On the other side of the ledger, of course, are ruined lives, suicide & depression

and destroyed economy that need to be tallied in the real cost of over reaction. Let's hope faulty data does not lead us over the cliff.

[Gregmal]

In 2017, the flu killed more than 60,000 - opioids - 70,000, I think last year.

 

Perhaps by just protecting the elderly, immune compromised, etc - we could end up there - without all the economic devastation we are seeing.

 

When we see if there is greater herd immunity - maybe we will know? On the other side of the ledger, of course, are ruined lives, suicide & depression

and destroyed economy that need to be tallied in the real cost of over reaction. Let's hope faulty data does not lead us over the cliff.

 

Bingo. The line from Ben Rickett in big short comes to mind. “For every 1% uptick in unemployment, 40,000 people die”. Or something to that effect when the kids are cheering the market crash. Let’s hope that isnt the case because this major overreaction could have been massively more costly than this super-flu with a social media following.

[Casey]

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

 

Exhibits A and B for my point.

[bizaro86]

In 2017, the flu killed more than 60,000 - opioids - 70,000, I think last year.

 

Perhaps by just protecting the elderly, immune compromised, etc - we could end up there - without all the economic devastation we are seeing.

 

When we see if there is greater herd immunity - maybe we will know? On the other side of the ledger, of course, are ruined lives, suicide & depression

and destroyed economy that need to be tallied in the real cost of over reaction. Let's hope faulty data does not lead us over the cliff.

 

Bingo. The line from Ben Rickett in big short comes to mind. “For every 1% uptick in unemployment, 40,000 people die”. Or something to that effect when the kids are cheering the market crash. Let’s hope that isnt the case because this major overreaction could have been massively more costly than this super-flu with a social media following.

 

There are all sorts of second order effects. One example:

 

We shut down tourism, so all the rental cars get returned. There isnt enough space for them to all be returned at once, so they get parked in overflow. In Florida, that might be a field. But its dry, and the field lights on fire, burning the field, thousands of rental cars, and the adjacent lands. Respiratory damage to nearby residents and firefighters not quantified.

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

 

Exhibits A and B for my point.

 

 

Not to worry too much about the fools of randomness as the key concern for those who take this seriously was that policy makers would be among these people. Thankfully, we have seen the vast majority--even those that dragged their feet--take it seriously when reality became impossible to ignore. Even the guy calling it a "hoax" just a month ago now claims he was on board the serious person train the whole time!

 

As policy makers have largely understood seriousness (though some variation depending on where you live), the systemic threat is reduced. Those who continue to minimize the threat confine a large part of the consequences of their views (ignorance) to themselves which is the appropriate outcome.

 

TL;DR: don't waste time on the fools of randomness--I certainly will not. 

[Kaegi2011]

Amusing logic here.

 

The flu has a vaccine and still kills the number of people it does. Covid19 has no vaccine and no shortage of folks bitching and screaming about how badly mismanaged and how late our government was dealing with it, and yet the numbers...

 

Let's assume, for argument sake, that "flu" is just as deadly / contagious / etc. with CV19 absent vaccine, but why is that a better logical comparison, since vaccine does exist? 

[Viking]

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

 

Exhibits A and B for my point.

 

 

Not to worry too much about the fools of randomness as the key concern for those who take this seriously was that policy makers would be among these people. Thankfully, we have seen the vast majority--even those that dragged their feet--take it seriously when reality became impossible to ignore. Even the guy calling it a "hoax" just a month ago now claims he was on board the serious person train the whole time!

 

As policy makers have largely understood seriousness (though some variation depending on where you live), the systemic threat is reduced. Those who continue to minimize the threat confine a large part of the consequences of their views (ignorance) to themselves which is the appropriate outcome.

 

TL;DR: don't waste time on the fools of randomness--I certainly will not.

 

i watched a 45 minute documentary of what actually happened in Wuhan, China. It was a health and economic disaster. And then the disaster played out again in Iran and Italy. This was not a Hollywood movie. Not fake news. Yes, people it really happened :-)

 

-

[Guest cherzeca]

@casey/aways drawing

 

why does the graph show 3 weeks of covid while it has been in US over 12 weeks?  why does the weekly rate when added over the 3 week periods shown indicate well over actual 9,000 deaths?  which of you put together this crappy graph, as you haven't suppled a source for this POS that you seem so proud of...

 

edit:  based on this POS graph, every flu season has >150,000 deaths...

[Guest cherzeca]

flu kills 10k  to 50k people per year, so on the low end flu kills less than 1k per month and at the high end it kills 4k per month (this is with vaccine). so most likely without vaccine it would be more, how much more?

 

covid19 has kill so far 11k people across US for almost a month worth of time. you can argue it could be more due to the timing and as well the effect of stay a home (flu has no stay at home). so covid19 is 10x to 2x worst than the flu (given flu has vaccine and covid19 has stay at home)

 

flu season is generally 18-24 weeks in length, fall to spring.

[Casey]

@casey/aways drawing

 

why does the graph show 3 weeks of covid while it has been in US over 12 weeks?  why does the weekly rate when added over the 3 week periods shown indicate well over actual 9,000 deaths?  which of you put together this crappy graph, as you haven't suppled a source for this POS that you seem so proud of...

 

edit:  based on this POS graph, every flu season has >150,000 deaths...

 

Hey Cherzeca, seems like a valid critique chart to me. sources are listed on the bottom right hand side, but I couldn't find the underlying data that it's based it on, and with Flu deaths 3k per week all year maybe it's just a baseless chart unless my understanding of flu dynamics is way off. I admit I didn't look that critically at these numbers before posting so thanks for checking me.

[alwaysdrawing]

@casey/aways drawing

 

why does the graph show 3 weeks of covid while it has been in US over 12 weeks?  why does the weekly rate when added over the 3 week periods shown indicate well over actual 9,000 deaths?  which of you put together this crappy graph, as you haven't suppled a source for this POS that you seem so proud of...

 

edit:  based on this POS graph, every flu season has >150,000 deaths...

 

This chart is from Reddit User Barnst, and this was his description of the sources:

 

 

This is an update to last week’s post comparing COVID deaths to seasonal flu deaths. To normalize the COVID data against the CDC flu data, the chart starts with week 40 of the calendar year—the beginning of flu season—and counts deaths for each week running Sunday through Saturday. Week 14 of 2020 ended yesterday, 4 April.

 

Most sobering, deaths from COVID alone were 40% higher in New York last week than the total number of deaths from all causes in an average week in late March from 2015 to 2019.

 

At a national level, COVID deaths are exceeding season flu deaths. The bulk of those deaths are in New York, but the rest of the country is quickly approaching weekly flu deaths even if you subtract New York.

 

COVID deaths have also greatly exceeded peak seasonal flu deaths in New Jersey, Louisiana, and Michigan. Georgia and other states will almost certainly experience the same this week.

 

Notes on Sources:

 

Data on weekly flu-associated deaths and total deaths is from CDC's Fluview, which itself uses data from the National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System.

 

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

 

COVID-19 data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

 

As many noticed last week, CDC stats on “flu-associated deaths” includes both confirmed flu cases and other pneumonia deaths attributable to viral infections that are probably, but not necessarily, the flu. Some COVID deaths are probably going to be included in this season’s flu numbers, and some deaths that would have been attributed to the flu in most years are going to be attributed to COVID. Such is the nature of our mortality statistics.

[Guest cherzeca]

graph is a POS.  I wont hold it against you guys though

[Spekulatius]

 

Agreed that it is obviously not the flu. Re: the title question of this thread, it does seem like there will be plenty of "just a flu" folks who are basically impervious to looking at data or applying some common sense napkin math.

 

They're going to be confident in booking travel, going to mall, book cruises, etc as the economy reopens. So forecast accordingly.

 

Exhibits A and B for my point.

 

 

Not to worry too much about the fools of randomness as the key concern for those who take this seriously was that policy makers would be among these people. Thankfully, we have seen the vast majority--even those that dragged their feet--take it seriously when reality became impossible to ignore. Even the guy calling it a "hoax" just a month ago now claims he was on board the serious person train the whole time!

 

As policy makers have largely understood seriousness (though some variation depending on where you live), the systemic threat is reduced. Those who continue to minimize the threat confine a large part of the consequences of their views (ignorance) to themselves which is the appropriate outcome.

 

TL;DR: don't waste time on the fools of randomness--I certainly will not.

 

i watched a 45 minute documentary of what actually happened in Wuhan, China. It was a health and economic disaster. And then the disaster played out again in Iran and Italy. This was not a Hollywood movie. Not fake news. Yes, people it really happened :-)

 

-

 

Thanks for posting. Very interesting documentary and well worth watching. It quite demonstrates the drastic measures that China used after they botched the early containment.