health How Long Can The COVID-19 Lockdown Realistically Last?

[Lucky Bolt 34,914]

I would hope by June at the latest this BS passes and we get to return to our normal lives thank you.

[TotallyNotNyx 15,563]

Soon, hopefully though I don't want it to be just yet. The selfish part of me wants it to go on for a long time, so I don't have to do my exams until September.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Princess of Hearts ❤️❤️

[Venomous 18,813]

Until enough people have stopped becoming ill & dying.

I just want to return to work 

[Will Guide 21,325]

11 minutes ago, Bakugou Is My Man ❤ said:

Until enough people have stopped becoming ill & dying.

I just want to return to work 

Me too

[Splashee 28,537]

I heard that the U.S. had the most COVID-related deaths today out of any previous days. If this is the peak, then it will slowly get better from now on. Of course, thinking positive here, COVID is still just a cold virus, right?

[Tao 6,719]

*&(*)*&&&%        *()((**&&^%    $#!$%^    %$$##^&*

(that the swearing I have done under this locket down of the dumb $%$* still  not GETTING IT!)

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

Not for an extended period of time. The less people are productive, the less wealth is being produced in the economy (which also means less money for the healthcare system). There is a point at which more people suffer as a consequence of the worsened economic conditions than from the virus itself.

[Envy 5,998]

On 4/11/2020 at 6:41 PM, Bas said:

Just because it had the highest peak so far doesn't mean we are over the hill, there could be always a new, higher peak happening.

Plus... States like mine haven't even peaked yet. In fact, for my state the projected peak is right at and around May 1st. The day that Trump wants to make the states reopen. **** off, Trump.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

55 minutes ago, Bas said:

Yeah, it is almost as if the government couldn't support the economy and workplaces financially.

Wait what.

Government itself does not produce wealth; it only takes wealth. The cost of government supporting, so-to-speak, the economy has to come from somewhere. Perhaps it must resort to increase taxes (but that is less money for everyone to spend on what they need most), or borrow money which eventually must be paid back (ultimately with tax payers' money). There is already price to pay for a short-term temporary slow down of the economy and the various benefits governments are handing out. But if, say, nothing changes until a vaccine is created... I would be very worried to say the least; hold onto your wallets.

I want to be proven wrong though. That is if my concerns are excessive and somehow the economy is able to sustain the lock down and, once lifted, will recover quickly with life returning to normal as before.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

6 minutes ago, Bas said:

You mean like taking debts when they need to be done and using an emergency fund  that would probably NOT be better spent than building an inefficient wall? I mean, that thing was totally an emergency [the fund was intended for, you might add].

In the American context, I was surprised to learn that the wall was meant literally rather than a figuratively; I did not consider a wall to be the most cost-effective way to limit immigration. Of course, government can waste as much money as it wants because they have guaranteed income.

The debt problem is a prevalent one; "we will worry about paying for it tomorrow". It is very easy for someone to say "I am for reducing debt by repealing government policies but only for government policies from which I myself do not benefit." but then nothing gets done with that mentality. Politicians seem to go no further than to pay lip service to reducing their country's debt as they prefer to appease special interests than to consider the well-being of the general population.

The following are examples of regulations that inhibited the response against the virus (some being lifted after the outbreak):

-Limiting doctors to practice within the borders of a state (thereby not allowing doctors to go where they are most needed). https://www.city-journal.org/let-doctors-practice-across-state-lines
-Limiting the number of hours truck drivers can work (limiting the number of goods that can be shipped): https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-truck-drivers-deliver-supplies-goods/
-Not allowing private companies to develop their own test kits (inhibiting further development and ensuring shortages of test kits for the general population): https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-is-the-fda-stalling-on-more-coronavirus-testing/=

 

2 hours ago, Bas said:

The government intervening with workers loosing jobs out of external factors? That must be communism.

Not Communism but certainly Interventionism. Even if we were to assume that everyone who has been financially affected received their full wages from before the lock down, that is still going to result in a deterioration of living standards as the lower supply of goods in general will make them more expensive; doubling the amount of money everyone has makes no one wealthier after all. As I have mentioned before in another Coronavirus thread, it still strikes me that selective isolation and compensation for the most vulnerable (and relatives who may be living with them) would have been a better approach than to isolate as many people as possible. To me it seems as if governments are trying to kill spiders with grenades; the spiders will be killed but with significant collateral damage that could have been avoided had other tools been used.

[Justin_Case001 4,855]

How long can it last, how long will it last, and how long should it last?  Three separate questions.  I honestly don't know how long we can go before the economy collapses.  If only we had a better way to freeze everything in place and take care of people financially, the quarantine really should last until we have a vaccine.  Really, I don't see how ending the quarantine before a vaccine is ready will result in anything but complete disaster.  It's not like the virus is going to magically go away just because we're fed up with staying home.  As soon as the country is re-opened, the virus will explode.

Economics has always seemed stupid to me in so many ways.  I feel like we should be living in a post-money Star Trek world by now.  But even with things the way they are, I don't really understand why we can't figure out better long-term solutions for something like this.  In principle, I see no reason why we can't take care of everyone.  The money still exists; it's just not moving.  People aren't going to work and getting paid, but they're also not spending on things that are closed like theme parks, movies, event tickets, traveling, etc.  So, if the money just isn't circulating... then where is it?  It's somewhere.  It still exists.  There's something of a law of conservation of pennies at play, so why can't we just redirect that money in some way to take care of everyone?  Don't bother answering that.  It's rhetorical.  I know I'm oversimplifying, but economic stuff bugs me.  Like, I often don't see why we need money at all for certain things.  For instance, we desperately need so many essential supplies, like masks and ventilators, but lack of funds presents a huge obstacle.  Well, the resources to make the supplies still exist independently of money, so why can't we just say f*ck the money and just make what we need?  All of the resources on the planet would still exist even if money didn't.  It simply comes down to what you can physically do with the matter on this planet, and what you can't.  I wish we could find a way to cooperate globally that erased the need for money.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,700]

On 4/15/2020 at 9:36 PM, Bas said:

No, certainly not! It is totally accountable for money it uses, it is YOUR money, after all. And an emergency fund is better be used for an emergency, and not for a made up emergency.

Of course not every money is spent wisely by the gov in general and is also subject to different POVs, independent of which gov, but I see it as totally being at least OK if not required that it justifies it's spendings. In my own country, there is an affair about that the department of defense did hire some consulting companies in-transparently, for instance.

Well let us take Trump's Wall as an example. Where was the financial accountability? 100% of the population must pay for what 50% of the population wanted (assuming people agreed with everything about the party for which they voted) and they cannot do anything about it; they can scream at Trump all they want but Trump is still reaching into their wallets and using their money. People talk about being worried about monopolies, but it should never be forgotten that government itself is a monopoly... a monopoly that also can legally point guns at you.

On 4/15/2020 at 9:36 PM, Bas said:

Not having checked the links yet:

On 4/15/2020 at 7:37 PM, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

-Limiting doctors to practice within the borders of a state (thereby not allowing doctors to go where they are most needed). https://www.city-journal.org/let-doctors-practice-across-state-lines

States fighting against each other again I assume.

On 4/15/2020 at 7:37 PM, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

-Limiting the number of hours truck drivers can work (limiting the number of goods that can be shipped): https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-truck-drivers-deliver-supplies-goods/

Can be both for good and for bad, actually. For the bad, less shipping, obvously. For the good, less overworking from the drivers, worker's rights and resulting chances of accidents.

On 4/15/2020 at 7:37 PM, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

-Not allowing private companies to develop their own test kits (inhibiting further development and ensuring shortages of test kits for the general population): https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-is-the-fda-stalling-on-more-coronavirus-testing/= 

Aside from the URL not striking me as an unbiased or even trustworthy source, there can be indeed good reasons. Tests outside of standards could result in more false results, for instance. I think the issue might possibly be more complicated than at the first glance.

For the last one, I missed that such a rule was eventually relaxed. https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2020/03/17/us-slashes-testing-rules-to-speedup-coronavirus-screening.html  

But the general theme here is that numerous rules that were in place made it more difficult for people to respond. Getting rid of these rules, even temporarily, has given people more flexibility on how they could act. But how many lives were lost because these rules were being followed?

On 4/15/2020 at 9:36 PM, Bas said:

And: The US DID pay a lot of money, more than in the finance crisis 2009, already for covid19. So why not give it to the things that matter, like healthcare, people becoming unemployed instead of being just pumping into the companies only?

On 4/15/2020 at 9:36 PM, Bas said:

Here's the catch: The companies and economy are crybabies, throwing a tantrum when it comes to worker's rights, minimum wage, employee insurance, health insurances, worker unions, that stuff. Do you know when they are not crying? When THEY are on the receiving end of aid and money. For them, the gov interfering is only bad when it puts them on a financial disadvantage. Yet they won't neglect any money offered by it ever.

Both business owners and employees want a piece of government power so that they benefit at the expense of others. Workers want more "rights" because they want to be paid more without being any more productive, and companies want government benefits so that they can offer worse goods and services without being affected by competition. No. Lazy workers should get fired and businesses with terrible service should go bankrupt. In short, give subsidies and special privileges to nobody; the best of the best should be the ones best rewarded.

But there is an underlying difference between us in terms of our views: the question of whether one should place more trust in companies or government. I am of the mind that companies are forced to behave the best they can, but you believe that governments can be adequately be held accountable. This may make for potentially an interesting discussion in the debate symposium in the future. I sense this may be going a bit off-topic from the virus (as it seems to be a habit of mine as economics is of great interest to me).

8 hours ago, Justin_Case001 said:

Like, I often don't see why we need money at all for certain things.  For instance, we desperately need so many essential supplies, like masks and ventilators, but lack of funds presents a huge obstacle.  Well, the resources to make the supplies still exist independently of money, so why can't we just say f*ck the money and just make what we need?  All of the resources on the planet would still exist even if money didn't.  It simply comes down to what you can physically do with the matter on this planet, and what you can't.  I wish we could find a way to cooperate globally that erased the need for money.

If you get rid of money, then say goodbye to a huge portion of the human population who will starve to death.

You are not understanding money if you think it is just some piece of paper we just decided that we liked or as something greedy people want to hoard.

Yes, resources still exist on Earth regardless of the existence of money. But money is a tool that measures the value of goods against another. And prices are signals that indicate what goods consumers want. Why is something expensive? Because there is much demand for it but not enough supply of it. Why is something cheap? Because there is a large supply of it available. This is the series of events.

-Baker A opens new bakery and offers 2 coins per loaf of bread.
-After first week, Baker A has been selling out most days. They figure they can profit more by raising the price to 4 coins.
-After second week, Baker A sells a bit less than last week but has still made more of a profit than last week.
-After third week, a competing Baker B opened up a new bakery. They saw how successful Baker A has been and learns there is money to be made in the baking business. But Baker B wants to take Baker A's customers so they sell bread for 3.5 coins and earns some profit for themselves. Now Bakers A and B are now in competition with one another, constantly lowering prices until they both sell bread for 2 coins. At this point, neither bakery is selling out anymore but get about the same number of customers each.

Who wins? The customers do because there is now more bread for everyone at an affordable price. That Bakers A and B are still in business indicate that they are satisfying the customers' demand. If either bakers began to worsen the quality of their service, then we can see this by them losing customers and them risking to go bankrupt if they really fail to hold onto their customers.

Now, if we got rid of money, there would be no way to know how much bread needed to be made. Perhaps you could say, "surely we could find out how much bread everyone eats on average", but consider just how many different types of items are being sold on the market. Without money, how can you possibly calculate how much bread is worth compared to a computer compared to a screwdriver compared to a football compared to a bottle of water compared to a car and so on? Even if we were to take a very low number of 1 000 items being bought and sold, you have make a total of 499 500 comparisons to determine how much each item is worth compared to another.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[Anneal 2,194]

On 4/16/2020 at 10:42 AM, Justin_Case001 said:

Economics has always seemed stupid to me in so many ways.  I feel like we should be living in a post-money Star Trek world by now.  But even with things the way they are, I don't really understand why we can't figure out better long-term solutions for something like this.  In principle, I see no reason why we can't take care of everyone.  The money still exists; it's just not moving.  People aren't going to work and getting paid, but they're also not spending on things that are closed like theme parks, movies, event tickets, traveling, etc.  So, if the money just isn't circulating... then where is it?  It's somewhere.  It still exists.  There's something of a law of conservation of pennies at play, so why can't we just redirect that money in some way to take care of everyone?  Don't bother answering that.  It's rhetorical.  I know I'm oversimplifying, but economic stuff bugs me.  Like, I often don't see why we need money at all for certain things.  For instance, we desperately need so many essential supplies, like masks and ventilators, but lack of funds presents a huge obstacle.  Well, the resources to make the supplies still exist independently of money, so why can't we just say f*ck the money and just make what we need?  All of the resources on the planet would still exist even if money didn't.  It simply comes down to what you can physically do with the matter on this planet, and what you can't.  I wish we could find a way to cooperate globally that erased the need for money.

Eh, a post-money world is something that is largely stuck in the realm of science fiction and fantasy, because of one simple thing: every commodity has value. Money has been here since the beginning of civilization. Yes, before that, we relied on barter economies. But many modern economists today will point out the inherent inefficiencies of barter, and at some point, humans will end up pegging goods to something in particular. Even tribes thousands of years ago ultimately ended up bartering with cowrie shells or crops, which basically became their "currency". It's a bit telling that Star Trek is relatively non-descriptive on how a post-money economy would actually work, and the portrayal of Federation credits in the show is very inconsistent at times.

Money doesn't just disappear in non-capitalist economies, either. Even if theoretically, income inequality ceases to exist and everyone lives in a classless utopia, humans still have different wants and needs, and so they will spend their money in different ways, including spending more or less of it. There's also major questions such as how society would deal with resource scarcity, and managing resource production if there is no one to direct it – not the free market of capitalism, the central planning of socialism, not even the worker collectives of anarcho-syndicalism.