05-04-2020, 10:09 AM
The CardBoard
/
Emergency
/
Covid-19
/
Lives versus jobs? Wharton model that will give ammunition to both sides.
Lives versus jobs? Wharton model that will give ammunition to both sides.
05-04-2020, 10:42 AM
They way I read it is we're either f|_|cked, or we're f|_|cked:
So on the one hand:
But on the other:
So the only wiggle room is toggling between an additional 120,000 lives vs. blunting 1.5 percentage points of additional economic loss and "blunting the impact, but not by much" of an additional ~20 million job losses.
Is it 5 p.m. yet?
So on the one hand:
Quote:Keeping stay at home orders in place would result in a growth contraction of 11.6% year over year, the data found, but opening the states would curb some of that decline somewhat, paring back the downturn to 10.1% year over year.
However, Wharton’s data found that the state lockdowns will result in a more dramatic increase in unemployment, boosting the total of unemployed to nearly 50 million. A partial reopening would partly blunt that impact, but not by much.
But on the other:
Quote:According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), reopening states will result in an additional 233,000 deaths from the virus — even if states don’t reopen at all and with social distancing rules in place. This means that if the states were to reopen, 350,000 people in total would die from coronavirus by the end of June, the study found.
So the only wiggle room is toggling between an additional 120,000 lives vs. blunting 1.5 percentage points of additional economic loss and "blunting the impact, but not by much" of an additional ~20 million job losses.
Is it 5 p.m. yet?
They way I read it is we're either f|_|cked, or we're f|_|cked:
So on the one hand:
But on the other:
So the only wiggle room is toggling between an additional 120,000 lives vs. blunting 1.5 percentage points of additional economic loss and "blunting the impact, but not by much" of an additional ~20 million job losses.
Is it 5 p.m. yet?
So on the one hand:
Quote:Keeping stay at home orders in place would result in a growth contraction of 11.6% year over year, the data found, but opening the states would curb some of that decline somewhat, paring back the downturn to 10.1% year over year.
However, Wharton’s data found that the state lockdowns will result in a more dramatic increase in unemployment, boosting the total of unemployed to nearly 50 million. A partial reopening would partly blunt that impact, but not by much.
But on the other:
Quote:According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), reopening states will result in an additional 233,000 deaths from the virus — even if states don’t reopen at all and with social distancing rules in place. This means that if the states were to reopen, 350,000 people in total would die from coronavirus by the end of June, the study found.
So the only wiggle room is toggling between an additional 120,000 lives vs. blunting 1.5 percentage points of additional economic loss and "blunting the impact, but not by much" of an additional ~20 million job losses.
Is it 5 p.m. yet?
If I read this right, reopening would generally improve GDP by 1-3% (reduce the GDP contraction by that amount) at the cost of an additional 233k lives. There would also be no net job losses from May til the end of June under this prediction. A partial re-opening would result in an additional loss of 45k lives (but the article does not state what the GDP or unemployment benefits would be).
What worries more than these numbers is the trajectory of new active cases that it would take to get to these numbers. Are we linear? (...we can deal with that) Are we exponential? (Unacceptable.)
What worries more than these numbers is the trajectory of new active cases that it would take to get to these numbers. Are we linear? (...we can deal with that) Are we exponential? (Unacceptable.)
If I read this right, reopening would generally improve GDP by 1-3% (reduce the GDP contraction by that amount) at the cost of an additional 233k lives. There would also be no net job losses from May til the end of June under this prediction. A partial re-opening would result in an additional loss of 45k lives (but the article does not state what the GDP or unemployment benefits would be).
What worries more than these numbers is the trajectory of new active cases that it would take to get to these numbers. Are we linear? (...we can deal with that) Are we exponential? (Unacceptable.)
What worries more than these numbers is the trajectory of new active cases that it would take to get to these numbers. Are we linear? (...we can deal with that) Are we exponential? (Unacceptable.)
05-04-2020, 10:58 AM
The choices are really simple.
1. Tank the economy and save lives
2. Tank the economy and lose more lives
The "economy over lives" crowd is making an error in judgement, thinking lifting all restrictions is going to get us back to normal. No, the only normal we are going to have is a new one without restrictions that they are not any more ready to handle than the one that comes with restrictions.
It seems nutty, but realistically, everyone should just buy stocks. The Fed is 100% all in on mortgaging the future to prop up equity markets that are no longer valued based on expected future earnings now. Just don't be the last one holding the bag and you'll be good.
1. Tank the economy and save lives
2. Tank the economy and lose more lives
The "economy over lives" crowd is making an error in judgement, thinking lifting all restrictions is going to get us back to normal. No, the only normal we are going to have is a new one without restrictions that they are not any more ready to handle than the one that comes with restrictions.
It seems nutty, but realistically, everyone should just buy stocks. The Fed is 100% all in on mortgaging the future to prop up equity markets that are no longer valued based on expected future earnings now. Just don't be the last one holding the bag and you'll be good.
The choices are really simple.
1. Tank the economy and save lives
2. Tank the economy and lose more lives
The "economy over lives" crowd is making an error in judgement, thinking lifting all restrictions is going to get us back to normal. No, the only normal we are going to have is a new one without restrictions that they are not any more ready to handle than the one that comes with restrictions.
It seems nutty, but realistically, everyone should just buy stocks. The Fed is 100% all in on mortgaging the future to prop up equity markets that are no longer valued based on expected future earnings now. Just don't be the last one holding the bag and you'll be good.
1. Tank the economy and save lives
2. Tank the economy and lose more lives
The "economy over lives" crowd is making an error in judgement, thinking lifting all restrictions is going to get us back to normal. No, the only normal we are going to have is a new one without restrictions that they are not any more ready to handle than the one that comes with restrictions.
It seems nutty, but realistically, everyone should just buy stocks. The Fed is 100% all in on mortgaging the future to prop up equity markets that are no longer valued based on expected future earnings now. Just don't be the last one holding the bag and you'll be good.
05-04-2020, 11:00 AM
Numbers seem to be very pessimistic or extreme?
350K by end of June. so basically 285k over 2 months. or 4.75k a day?
That's for a full re-open though right? Back to pre pandemic conditions? I guess that's certainly possible given NYC or other crowded cities aren't near immunity yet. Then again, one would assume the people in these places would not go back to anything close to normal. Not to mention the numbers wouldn't start climbing for at least 2 weeks from the current 1.5k which means (as fullmetal mentions) we'd be tragically way over 5k and probably 6k a day by the end.
117K by end of June, so basically 55k over 2 months or 2k a day?
Feels a little high, but I guess not far from the 1-1.5k a day that seems more likely.
350K by end of June. so basically 285k over 2 months. or 4.75k a day?
That's for a full re-open though right? Back to pre pandemic conditions? I guess that's certainly possible given NYC or other crowded cities aren't near immunity yet. Then again, one would assume the people in these places would not go back to anything close to normal. Not to mention the numbers wouldn't start climbing for at least 2 weeks from the current 1.5k which means (as fullmetal mentions) we'd be tragically way over 5k and probably 6k a day by the end.
117K by end of June, so basically 55k over 2 months or 2k a day?
Feels a little high, but I guess not far from the 1-1.5k a day that seems more likely.
Numbers seem to be very pessimistic or extreme?
350K by end of June. so basically 285k over 2 months. or 4.75k a day?
That's for a full re-open though right? Back to pre pandemic conditions? I guess that's certainly possible given NYC or other crowded cities aren't near immunity yet. Then again, one would assume the people in these places would not go back to anything close to normal. Not to mention the numbers wouldn't start climbing for at least 2 weeks from the current 1.5k which means (as fullmetal mentions) we'd be tragically way over 5k and probably 6k a day by the end.
117K by end of June, so basically 55k over 2 months or 2k a day?
Feels a little high, but I guess not far from the 1-1.5k a day that seems more likely.
350K by end of June. so basically 285k over 2 months. or 4.75k a day?
That's for a full re-open though right? Back to pre pandemic conditions? I guess that's certainly possible given NYC or other crowded cities aren't near immunity yet. Then again, one would assume the people in these places would not go back to anything close to normal. Not to mention the numbers wouldn't start climbing for at least 2 weeks from the current 1.5k which means (as fullmetal mentions) we'd be tragically way over 5k and probably 6k a day by the end.
117K by end of June, so basically 55k over 2 months or 2k a day?
Feels a little high, but I guess not far from the 1-1.5k a day that seems more likely.
05-04-2020, 11:40 AM
Better to guess pessimistically w.r.t. lives than to not (and then get blamed by everyone).
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »