COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[OriAr]

2 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Of course not forever, but as long as necessary and more importantly more stictly. The better people are locked down and follow the orders the shorter it will be, but with people resisting all over the place it may well have to be longer than necessary.

 

There is no possible comparison with something 100 years ago where massive amounts were being "wasted" for military purposes and basically everything in life was completely different. With today's technology a vast portion of people can work remotely, in isolated settings etc.

While things are massively different from back then, some metrics are just downright scary economically. In Israel the unemployment rate has been 25% (!) since the lockdown started, do you think this is sustainable for more than a few weeks? Sure, the government can keep spending and mitigate the impact for a while, but eventually even the governments can run out of money, and once that happens things get very ugly very fast.

 

And if a world wide 2nd great depression hits, a global war is certainly a possible consequence of it, and that would kill way more people then COVID-19 might.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Reaction to the whole “homeless cold and starving” thing.  
this makes massive massive assumptions and treats them like they’re already events.   Some for example might say that homeless cold and starving grandkids were what the extreme right have been aiming for to start with and a worst case scenario would merely leave things the same.

Anyone who says that id say is an idiot.

 

Its not an assumption either. We know what happens during a recession. We know who will be effected most. Its not hard to see what happens with tens of million of people are without work and welfare programs are clogged up and under funded. And this will be much worse then any in the past.

 

Unemployment funds are not infinite. And the funding for that alone will take a huge hit when a shit load of businesses close and not paying payroll taxes. Funds of hospitals, housing, medicaid, etc will all take a hit and the demand for it is at an all time high.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, OriAr said:

So, what do you propose? Staying in a lockdown forever? Because you do that you will get a huge economic depression which will take decades to recover from and essentially will kill more people in the long run than COVID-19. Not to mention that the social unrest that will follow will have people more and more desperate and essentially turning to crime and lawlessness.

 

The last great depression had a death toll of more than 60 million people and took almost 2 decades to recover from, a similarly sized depression now could be just as lethal eventually.

We are not in the same situation as the Spanish Flu (less deaths, evolution of science, better hygiene and medical knowledge, social advancement too).

Economically, we are not in the same situation as in the Great Depression event.

 

The economy will change, countries are already re-routing their commercial routes. Each country is different, but one thing is clear: the countries are already helping their businesses with economical plans.

It's only for some time. As far as I'm concerned what they would have needed to do was a drastic "Push the Pause button" on every economic.

A Real "State of Emergency" to be activated, but that needs some courage and some guts.

Pause on the rents, pause on the salaries, pause on everything.

You are so much in a family you have the credit for so much : you don't need to pay rent, bills, anything. You don't need to buy food.

Businesses and companies don't need to worry for loans, salaries and all until it's the end of the sate of emergency.

 

It's not "business as usual" as it can't be "business as usual".

BUT those who need to stay at home, do that. Those who can go out and help, do that.

 

And don't tell me that nobody would do it, as I see it happening where I live.

The city and the State suspended all their rents. Many landlords did it too.

The State asked for help from the citizens to organize and help some emergency field hospitals and they received a massive response, with more people than those who needed.

Farmers called and proposed their produce and a website has been up and running within 4 days with fixed prices for those in need and with very little money.

 

And NO, I don't live in a Communist country, quite the contrary, in fact.

BUT the message the Liberal Government sent through our Prime Minister was very clear from day one: We can rebuild our economy, we can not rebuild our citizens! The citizens come first. It's going to be hard, it's going to cost! A lot! But People come first!

 

Everything is not perfect, far from it. But people here did accept the rules from the very beginning. And we don't live under a drastick lockdown, yes, we can go out to buy some groceries, and take a walk if we need it.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Anyone who says that id say is an idiot.

 

Its not an assumption either. We know what happens during a recession. We know who will be effected most. Its not hard to see what happens with tens of million of people are without work and welfare programs are clogged up and under funded. And this will be much worse then any in the past.

 

Unemployment funds are not infinite. And the funding for that alone will take a huge hit when a shit load of businesses close and not paying payroll taxes. Funds of hospitals, housing, medicaid, etc will all take a hit and the demand for it is at an all time high.

 

 

 

 

I was attempting to quote what you already did say.  You do seem to then defend it though.  
 

there seems to be three options:

1 you deny having said it even though it’s up there.

2. You think it was an idiotic thing to say even though you then attempt to defend it.

3. You attempt both at the same time.

[Kilrah]

9 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

It's only for some time. As far as I'm concerned what they would have needed to do was a drastic "Push the Pause button" on every economic.

A Real "State of Emergency" to be activated, but that needs some courage and some guts.

Pause on the rents, pause on the salaries, pause on everything.

Totally agreed. 

Almost all of our money flows are just going round and round in the grand scheme of things and mostly coming back to the start point, slightly magnified in normal times. There are only problems when there's an interruption in one place but not in others, like you not getting your salary but having to pay for rent, or your landlord not getting your rent while still having to repay his loan.

 

But if everything is paused then there's no problem. You don't pay rent, landlord doesn't pay loan, bank doesn't pay interest, companies with no income have no outgoing costs either... only essential services and supplies run and all you have to pay for is your food, which you should be able to afford for a couple of months.

 

95% of what we do as a society is useless anyway and there is no hurt in pausing it. 

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I was attempting to quote what you already did say.  You do seem to then defend it though.  
 

there seems to be three options:

1 you deny having said it even though it’s up there.

2. You think it was an idiotic thing to say even though you then attempt to defend it.

3. You attempt both at the same time.

Wait when did i say that it was the goal to have starving kids? Im positive i never said i wanted to see my kids starve.

 

In fact everything i said was in favor of avoiding that very situation.

[PhantomJaguarr]

9 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

The economy will change, countries are already re-routing their commercial routes. Each country is different, but one thing is clear: the countries are already helping their businesses with economical plans.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/japan-to-pay-companies-to-move-production-out-of-china/
 

Quote

Japan will devote more than $2.2 billion of its coronavirus economic stimulus package to incentivize its manufacturers to move their production out of China as relations fray between the neighboring countries in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The record stimulus plan provides $2 billion for manufacturers to transfer production to Japan and over $216 million to help companies move production to other countries. Imports from China, Japan’s biggest trading partner, were down by nearly 50 percent in February as facilities in China closed while the coronavirus ripped through the country.

[OriAr]

3 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

We are not in the same situation as the Spanish Flu (less deaths, evolution of science, better hygiene and medical knowledge, social advancement too).

Economically, we are not in the same situation as in the Great Depression event.

 

The economy will change, countries are already re-routing their commercial routes. Each country is different, but one thing is clear: the countries are already helping their businesses with economical plans.

It's only for some time. As far as I'm concerned what they would have needed to do was a drastic "Push the Pause button" on every economic.

A Real "State of Emergency" to be activated, but that needs some courage and some guts.

Pause on the rents, pause on the salaries, pause on everything.

You are so much in a family you have the credit for so much : you don't need to pay rent, bills, anything. You don't need to buy food.

Businesses and companies don't need to worry for loans, salaries and all until it's the end of the sate of emergency.

 

It's not "business as usual" as it can't be "business as usual".

BUT those who need to stay at home, do that. Those who can go out and help, do that.

 

And don't tell me that nobody would do it, as I see it happening where I live.

The city and the State suspended all their rents. Many landlords did it too.

The State asked for help from the citizens to organize and help some emergency field hospitals and they received a massive response, with more people than those who needed.

Farmers called and proposed their produce and a website has been up and running within 4 days with fixed prices for those in need and with very little money.

 

And NO, I don't live in a Communist country, quite the contrary, in fact.

BUT the message the Liberal Government sent through our Prime Minister was very clear from day one: We can rebuild our economy, we can not rebuild our citizens! The citizens come first. It's going to be hard, it's going to cost! A lot! But People come first!

 

Everything is not perfect, far from it. But people here did accept the rules from the very beginning. And we don't live under a drastick lockdown, yes, we can go out to buy some groceries, and take a walk if we need it.

 

 

It is very easy (And naïve) to claim that we can rebuild the economy just like that. If we don't pay salaries, how will we buy groceries? How will we pay those who DO work during these times? Even governments eventually will run out of money, especially if taxes are not paid (And remember, no salaries = no taxes)

 

Now, of course payments and bills will be deferred for a few months if possible, but even that is a stopgap. It is quite simply impossible to hit the pause button and freeze everything like nothing happens, because the reality is that someone will have to get paid along the way, Are you seriously expecting people to not get salaries for 3 months and pretend everything is fine? Are you seriously expecting farmers to sell their crops for all this time for free? And basically deprive them from their livelihood? The social-economic consequences of stuff like this will be so severe, so bad that in the long run it will be worse than the virus itself.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, OriAr said:

It is very easy (And naïve) to claim that we can rebuild the economy just like that. If we don't pay salaries, how will we buy groceries? How will we pay those who DO work during these times? Even governments eventually will run out of money, especially if taxes are not paid (And remember, no salaries = no taxes)

 

Now, of course payments and bills will be deferred for a few months if possible, but even that is a stopgap. It is quite simply impossible to hit the pause button and freeze everything like nothing happens, because the reality is that someone will have to get paid along the way, Are you seriously expecting people to not get salaries for 3 months and pretend everything is fine? Are you seriously expecting farmers to sell their crops for all this time for free? And basically deprive them from their livelihood? The social-economic consequences of stuff like this will be so severe, so bad that in the long run it will be worse than the virus itself.

Please, read again what I wrote! I think from your answer that you missed several points.

 

There is nothing "naïve" in me

 

edit to add:

If you "sell" something, then, by definition it's not "free", or am I wrong?

Edited April 11, 2020 by Guest

[RonnieOP]

8 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Totally agreed. 

Almost all of our money flows are just going round and round in the grand scheme of things and mostly coming back to the start point, slightly magnified in normal times. There are only problems when there's an interruption in one place but not in others, like you not getting your salary but having to pay for rent, or your landlord not getting your rent while still having to repay his loan.

 

But if everything is paused then there's no problem. You don't pay rent, landlord doesn't pay loan, bank doesn't pay interest, companies with no income have no outgoing costs either... only essential services and supplies run and all you have to pay for is your food, which you should be able to afford for a couple of months.

 

95% of what we do as a society is useless anyway and there is no hurt in pausing it. 

Issue is that just freezing all mortgage payments isnt sustainable either.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/490290-coronavirus-poses-new-threat-to-mortgage-industry

 

Now that all depends on the nation and how their loans are financed.

 

Every area will have to look at whats happening to see how long they can stay on lockdown and how the effect them. But the outcomes with be different depending on the nation.

[Commodus]

15 minutes ago, OriAr said:

So, what do you propose? Staying in a lockdown forever? Because you do that you will get a huge economic depression which will take decades to recover from and essentially will kill more people in the long run than COVID-19. Not to mention that the social unrest that will follow will have people more and more desperate and essentially turning to crime and lawlessness.

 

The last great depression had a death toll of more than 60 million people and took almost 2 decades to recover from, a similarly sized depression now could be just as lethal eventually.

You stay in a lockdown for as long as experts deem it necessary.  There's not much point to opening things up if you have to promptly clamp down again because of a resurgence.  And remember, insisting on business as usual during that resurgence could have calamitous effects beyond a greater number of infections.  Imagine having to watch a parent die from an unrelated illness because the hospital won't have room for them for months, even though the condition is serious.  Hell, there are people dying of COVID-19 right now because of hospitals reaching their limits... we don't need to throw in people with heart conditions or cancer, too.

 

I know there's a concern about a depression, but I really wish we'd get away from this fatalist urge to kill tens of thousands of people (and that may well happen) just so that you can go to the shopping mall.  Economic setbacks are temporary; having to tell your kids that you knowingly sacrificed lives for money is something you'll never shake.  Waiting a few extra weeks is better than having blood on your hands.

[Zodiark1593]

21 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Please, read again what I wrote! I think from your answer that you missed several points.

 

There is nothing "naïve" in me

 

edit to add:

If you "sell" something, then, by definition it's not "free", or am I wrong?

Not sure how the political and cultural climate there works, but here in the States (at least my general vicinity), most people and businesses expect to get paid for their work, and are generally far more reluctant to perform work for little or no compensation, even for something as vital as building ventilators. Many individuals do expect pay raises for working in the current pandemic. 
 

There are a few, more charitable people and organizations that are able and willing to do so, but overall, the government needs to expend a lot of money to get even the essentials going as they’re still just a customer at the end of the day, and are negotiated with as such. Companies are free to decline government contracts if the terms aren’t favorable to then. 

[RonnieOP]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You stay in a lockdown for as long as experts deem it necessary.  There's not much point to opening things up if you have to promptly clamp down again because of a resurgence.  And remember, insisting on business as usual during that resurgence could have calamitous effects beyond a greater number of infections.  Imagine having to watch a parent die from an unrelated illness because the hospital won't have room for them for months, even though the condition is serious.  Hell, there are people dying of COVID-19 right now because of hospitals reaching their limits... we don't need to throw in people with heart conditions or cancer, too.

 

I know there's a concern about a depression, but I really wish we'd get away from this fatalist urge to kill tens of thousands of people (and that may well happen) just so that you can go to the shopping mall.  Economic setbacks are temporary; having to tell your kids that you knowingly sacrificed lives for money is something you'll never shake.  Waiting a few extra weeks is better than having blood on your hands.

You downplay the lives lost due to a depression though.

 

Sure it will eventually rebound. But itll take years and years and in that time people will be dying left and right.

 

There is going to be deaths no matter what we do. Theres no avoiding that. And if it just takes a couple more weeks of lockdown thats one thing. But we are talking about if it takes longer then that? 

 

Nobody talking about opening back up is talking about doing it tomorrow. And i dont think anyone means opening back up to like it was before hand. We are going to have some restrictions and high risk people are going to have to stay locked down for the most part. 

 

 

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Not sure how the political and cultural climate there works, but here in the States (at least my general vicinity), most people and businesses expect to get paid for their work, and are generally far more reluctant to perform work for little or no compensation, even for something as vital as building ventilators. Many individuals do expect pay raises for working in the current pandemic. 
 

There are a few, more charitable people and organizations that are able and willing to do so, but overall, the government needs to expend a lot of money to get even the essentials going. 

Our government just spent 2.2 trillion to help us out and thats going to get used up fast. They cant keep doing that over and over. They cant just print money. We would turn into Venezuela. 

 

Things are not as simple as people make it out to be. I dont know why some are acting like we are being irrational for talking about the same things that all leaders are talking about. Experts know that this isnt sustainable.

 

I have yet to see any expert come out and say that a prolonged lockdown wouldnt be a disaster. People are not wanting to reopen the economy because they want to shoot the shit at a shopping mall.

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Our government just spent 2.2 trillion to help us out and thats going to get used up fast. They cant keep doing that over and over. They cant just print money. We would turn into Venezuela. 

 

Things are not as simple as people make it out to be. I dont know why some are acting like we are being irrational for talking about the same things that all leaders are talking about. Experts know that this isnt sustainable.

 

I have yet to see any expert come out and say that a prolonged lockdown wouldnt be a disaster. People are not wanting to reopen the economy because they want to shoot the shit at a shopping mall.

States and countries where civilians and businesses can either be forced or are willing to work for little compensation (beyond bare necessities) can expect to face less expenditures in resources, is the point I’m trying to get across. Not that government resources won’t run out in time, but political and cultural factors that may hasten or dampen expenditure of government resources. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Not sure how the political climate there works, but here in the States (at least my general vicinity), most people and businesses expect to get paid for their work, and are generally far more reluctant to perform work for little or no compensation, even for something as vital as building ventilators. Many individuals do expect pay raises for working in the current pandemic. 
 

There are a few, more charitable people and organizations that are able and willing to do so, but overall, the government needs to expend a lot of money to get even the essentials going. 

But of course it's the same here.

 

The question was "What do you think should be done?" And I did answer that!

 

Where I live (in Europe) is a Social Democrat country currently under a tripartite Government with the main head being Liberal (with the Socialists and the Ecologists).

The Government has opened its money box, doesn't ask for the rent on their properties for the time being and many cities did the same, to not burden the businesses. Some private landlords did the same, not all of them.

Government also put in place a business relief plan to help the businesses. But the businesses at the moment are forbidden to fire their employees.

As much as possible the employees work from home (and my internet connection really suffers at the moment :-S ). So for many companies, their employees are still paid. Many companies, where they can enforce physical distancing, they do that. They are overly cautious and disinfect everything all the time. The business who can't ensure physical distancing at work their employees are at home and they are under "technical unemployment", which is paid by the government. So those employees receive their salary but not as much, and it's not a burden for the business.

The Government also said that all the coming paid holidays are cancelled (people are at home anyway...).

 

As I said, they were very clear: Citizens come first! But it will cost!

 

I think that many people forget the psychological impact of that simple statement! And the fact that they act upon it!

As a Government you do that then you have citizens who are ready to do a LOT of sacrifices for their country!

 

But don't underestimate the power of State of Emergency and what it can mean in terms of power of requisition and paying the "real price" of products (which didn't happen where I live. It's not the "Push the Pause Button").

 

Of course it is only for so long. And once it's over, life starts as usual (for some things) and some structural changes will happen too... But then you also have gained the support of your citizens!

As for companies who made the effort to play along, imagine what it could mean in term of customers who trust you, in term of business offers, of contracts.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Guest
changes are in green

[Commodus]

34 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You downplay the lives lost due to a depression though.

 

Sure it will eventually rebound. But itll take years and years and in that time people will be dying left and right.

 

There is going to be deaths no matter what we do. Theres no avoiding that. And if it just takes a couple more weeks of lockdown thats one thing. But we are talking about if it takes longer then that? 

 

Nobody talking about opening back up is talking about doing it tomorrow. And i dont think anyone means opening back up to like it was before hand. We are going to have some restrictions and high risk people are going to have to stay locked down for the most part. 

 

 

I'm absolutely not downplaying it.

 

The problem is that the depression itself, let alone the death tally that would stem from it, is theoretical.  The deaths that would ensue from prematurely loosening restrictions are virtually certain.  And what's worse for the economy: one rather long lockdown, or multiple lockdowns that ultimately strain the economy for longer?

 

I know you don't want to remove restrictions tomorrow, and it's good that you'd want a gradual lifting.  But the end of April, as some are talking about?  No, absolutely not, at least not based on current data.  There needs to be a clear sign that infections are decreasing rapidly, and that means playing things by ear as well as preparing measures that will let shops stay open, like widespread testing, contact tracing and immunity passports.  Simply saying "come hell or high water, we're loosening restrictions on day X" is not how you go about this unless you want a massacre.

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm absolutely not downplaying it.

 

The problem is that the depression itself, let alone the death tally that would stem from it, is theoretical.  The deaths that would ensue from prematurely loosening restrictions are virtually certain.  And what's worse for the economy: one rather long lockdown, or multiple lockdowns that ultimately strain the economy for longer?

 

I know you don't want to remove restrictions tomorrow, and it's good that you'd want a gradual lifting.  But the end of April, as some are talking about?  No, absolutely not, at least not based on current data.  There needs to be a clear sign that infections are decreasing rapidly, and that means playing things by ear as well as preparing measures that will let shops stay open, like widespread testing, contact tracing and immunity passports.  Simply saying "come hell or high water, we're loosening restrictions on day X" is not how you go about this unless you want a massacre.

How is one outcome theoretical but the other not?

 

The effects of both options are based off data and past experiences. They are both educated guesses.

 

Again even if we open up we would take precautions to save as many high risk people as we can. 

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

How is one outcome theoretical but the other not?

 

The effects of both options are based off data and past experiences. They are both educated guesses.

 

Again even if we open up we would take precautions to save as many high risk people as we can. 

Because it's much harder to predict how economic crises will play out than pandemics.  When the 2008 recession hit, people were concerned that it would last a long time, but it didn't.  And the depression that started in 1929 is not a good indicator for how one would start now due to many, many factors that have changed between then and now.

 

Remember, the whole reason we're in lockdowns now is because we have hard data that will tell us how the new coronavirus behaves.  We know the R0 rate; we know the typical case fatality rate; we generally understand how the virus spreads and why.  For that matter, there's talk of a vaccine being ready as early as September.  Viruses may be things we don't directly control, but science provides a reliable way of understanding their behavior that you don't get with economies.

[atxcyclist]

59 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm absolutely not downplaying it.

 

The problem is that the depression itself, let alone the death tally that would stem from it, is theoretical.  The deaths that would ensue from prematurely loosening restrictions are virtually certain.  And what's worse for the economy: one rather long lockdown, or multiple lockdowns that ultimately strain the economy for longer?

 

I know you don't want to remove restrictions tomorrow, and it's good that you'd want a gradual lifting.  But the end of April, as some are talking about?  No, absolutely not, at least not based on current data.  There needs to be a clear sign that infections are decreasing rapidly, and that means playing things by ear as well as preparing measures that will let shops stay open, like widespread testing, contact tracing and immunity passports.  Simply saying "come hell or high water, we're loosening restrictions on day X" is not how you go about this unless you want a massacre.

 

In this scenario, only the unlucky and the stupid (like the spring-breakers that refused to socially-distance) that were exposed get to go back to work, People that actually listened and stayed home, socially-distanced, and etc., end up being stuck in their houses indefinitely until a vaccination is created. I'm not staying home another year, not just because I couldn't afford to, but that falls under 'cruel and unusual' punishment, specifically because people like me have not committed any crime.

 

I'm with efforts to reduce infections and have so far done everything asked of me, but I won't stay in my house another year.

 

EDIT: The numbers may be debatable, but a depression would be guaranteed. You cannot shut everything down except convenience and grocery stores for that long, and expect society to continue functioning.

[Bartholomew]

Not sure if this was shared already (note: text is in dutch) https://www.radboudumc.nl/nieuws/2020/onderzoekers-radboudumc-publiceren-nieuwe-inzichten-covid19

 

In short, a new mechanism in how the sickness develops is identyfied. In simple terms it *may* mean that better treatment could be possible soon. This plays around the stage between hospitalisation and need to move to the ICU/ventilatir due to cascading issues.

 

From what i get from it the new treatment could significantly reduce the generation of fluids by damaged vessels causing the lungs to fill up. The research is still fresh but has been shared internationally and trails have begun, of which first results seem "promising".

 

This wouldnt be a "cure" but could improve survivability significantly and very importantly reduce the number of cases needing ICU/ventilators.

 

Lets hope this turns out to be something usable, and thumbs up to the scientists involved.

[RonnieOP]

30 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Because it's much harder to predict how economic crises will play out than pandemics.  When the 2008 recession hit, people were concerned that it would last a long time, but it didn't.  And the depression that started in 1929 is not a good indicator for how one would start now due to many, many factors that have changed between then and now.

 

Remember, the whole reason we're in lockdowns now is because we have hard data that will tell us how the new coronavirus behaves.  We know the R0 rate; we know the typical case fatality rate; we generally understand how the virus spreads and why.  For that matter, there's talk of a vaccine being ready as early as September.  Viruses may be things we don't directly control, but science provides a reliable way of understanding their behavior that you don't get with economies.

Data has shown us what we can expect from the virus...it also shows us what we can expect from a depression. And we know that a nationwide lockdown of this magnitude will be much worse then what happened in 2008ish. Experts are already chiming in on what will happen if tens of millions of americans lose their job. What will happen if everyone will default on their mortgages. We can see what happens right now what happens when government programs are over exposed due to 100x the demand they normally get. Unemployment right now is at the highest its ever been and thats just after a few weeks of this. Thats with alot of businesses still fighting to stay open. A lot of those businesses can not keep this up for much longer. Meaning the rate is just going to keep going up.

 

We know what happens when the housing market crashes. We know what happens when banks go under and nobody can get loans after they were all defaulted on. We know we cant just print money and hand it out.

 

We know what happens when people get desperate and scared (looks at the rise in crime rates in NYC for example...and it has only been a few weeks)

 

You are trying to claim these two things are different but they are not. 

 

We are making educated guesses on what will happen if we do x or if we do y. It wasnt that long ago experts were saying that if we went into lockdown it would still result in many many more deaths nationwide then it actually has. And we dont even have reliable accurate data on how many people have died from the virus because depending on the area they may report it as a corona death or not (since people die everyday. And just because someone died with the virus in their system doesnt mean they died from the virus). 

 

Everything decided right now is based on educated guesses.

 

(And to be clear. Im only speaking of US economy)

 

 

[RonnieOP]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/locked-down-europe-asks-how-long-can-we-afford-this-144401

 

Its not just some of us talking and asking about this.

 

Leaders around the world know that a huge economic recession could be worse then the virus.

[Kilrah]

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Experts are already chiming in on what will happen if tens of millions of americans lose their job. What will happen if everyone will default on their mortgages.

Companies will go bankrupt, people don't stay there doing nothing so they'll create new ones. As usual.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

Companies will go bankrupt, people don't stay there doing nothing so they'll create new ones. As usual.

How many people have the funds to just open a new business? Thats not chump change.

 

And when banks dont have the funds to give out loans how are these businesses going to open?

 

Wheres all this money going to come from?