Started By
Message

re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

Posted on 5/2/20 at 10:07 pm to
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
21139 posts
Posted on 5/2/20 at 10:07 pm to
There was extreme deflation during the Great Depression. When everyone is poorer, then people can't afford to spend as much money for things and so prices come down.

Inflation is extremely unlikely right now.
Posted by JohnnyKilroy
Cajun Navy Vice Admiral
Member since Oct 2012
41711 posts
Posted on 5/2/20 at 10:10 pm to
I agree.

There will definitely be negative economic consequences as a result of this virus, but it ain't gonna be inflation.

ETA: I've seen a few articles lately that say we've actually been in a deflationary period for sometime now.

Runaway deflation would obviously be terrible for large swaths of the population.
This post was edited on 5/2/20 at 10:11 pm
Posted by Walt OReilly
Poplarville, MS
Member since Oct 2005
124694 posts
Posted on 5/2/20 at 11:15 pm to
This thread No longer needs to be stickied.

The biggest government overreach in our nations history and the majority of people just did what the government told us to do. Like the sheep they are. I am deeply sorry for the posters who lost grandparents and weren’t able to say their goodbyes. To me that’s the worst part of all this is people basically dying alone. With that said let’s get this country moving again before we do anymore damage to it.

I’ll be curious to see how many suicides, addictions, etc. come from this.

John bel Edwards will have blood on his hands.
This post was edited on 5/2/20 at 11:16 pm
Posted by Ronaldo Burgundiaz
NWA
Member since Jan 2012
6795 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:34 am to
You are correct , inflation didnt explode in the last decade. Inflation didn't rise during the QE rounds because the money was purely between the banks and the government, and is actually being repaid to the Fed slowly due to interest on the debts the Fed purchased from the banks with QE. It never went into circulation in the greater economy.

One-time $1,200 stimulus checks won't cause much inflation by themselves, but if it becomes more common it sets the stage for the government printing money to be put into circulation.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 7:36 am
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
77869 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:05 am to
Protesters in at least 10 states demand end to coronavirus lockdown

quote:

Demonstrators in at least 10 states across the country gathered on Friday to protest against stay-at-home orders and other emergency measures meant to blunt the coronavirus's spread.

The protests underscored how antsy some are getting to return to a sense of normalcy after the coronavirus, which has infected nearly 1.1 million people in America, shuttered businesses across an array of industries and pushed more than 30 million Americans into unemployment.
quote:

Though some demonstrations were lightly attended, demonstrations occurred in state capitols and cities in California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee and Washington.
quote:

Several protesters told local media that shutdown orders were imposing too great an economic burden after pushing many small businesses to shutter.

"Businesses are suffering, unemployment checks are not being sent, landlords are not getting rent. We feel like these directives are causing more suffering than is necessary," New Jersey protester Ayla Wolf told NJ.com.

Protesters were seen waving signs accusing their governors of trying to "ruin" their states and warning of "tyranny."

We are now seeing that lockdowns, stay at home orders, and the like, are now having opposite effects.

An example is when Newsom recently shutdown beaches to prevent gatherings.

What happened?

Thousands gathered to protest him shutting down beaches.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 9:08 am
Posted by Ronaldo Burgundiaz
NWA
Member since Jan 2012
6795 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:37 am to
CNN had Dr. Ioannidis on yesterday. The media has started to come around and have stopped ignoring him. Nice to see the media acknowledge what he has been saying all along.

Twitter Vid

This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 9:39 am
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
14204 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:07 am to
Thanks for posting. This has been obvious for a long time to anyone paying attention. We need a total reboot of our approach to this.
Posted by rds dc
Member since Jun 2008
21626 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:29 am to
quote:

The newest antibody test is showing 20 percent of NYC has antibodies.

That would mean if the sample size is stretched out to the entire population, 1.7 million people have gotten the coronavirus in NYC.

The IFR would then be I n the 1 percent range based on the increase in deaths year over year and the number of deaths measured in the city so far.

Now I’m not positive when the antibody tests were taken, and it’s likely the percentage with antibodies is now even higher. However I’m surprised more people aren’t alarmed by these death rates.


This is the update from the Cuomo press conference yesterday:

quote:

NYC overall: 19.9% positive for antibodies.

Bronx: 27.6%
Brooklyn: 19.2%
Manhattan: 17.3%
Queens: 18.4%
Staten Island: 19.2%

(Results are weighted.)


Using the NYC antibody data we can rough sketch a few things.

Mortality is approximately 157 per 100,000 for NYC. We can calculate this using the current population and the current death count for NYC.

Mortality for the flu, depending on what data set you use, runs b/w 3 - 15 per 100,000.

nCFR for NYC is 7.52%, that is the theoretical high point and we know that it will go down at some point in the future as more cases are confirmed.

Using the antibody data we get an IFR of 0.76%.

There are a number of known biases when dealing with this kind of data. For a long time, we only had confirmed cases and deaths. Using those numbers produces serious issues and that is why it is called the "Naive" CFR. With the antibody data, we are starting to address the bias of not knowing the true number of infections. We will get better and more widespread antibody data over time and that will allow for more accurate calculations. We are still faced with the bias of not knowing how many people infected now may eventually die but that should become less of an issue as the data set gets larger.
Posted by cable
Member since Oct 2018
9735 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:52 am to
It really makes you wonder why the general lockdown approach hasn’t been completely rethought.
Posted by Ronaldo Burgundiaz
NWA
Member since Jan 2012
6795 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

It really makes you wonder why the general lockdown approach hasn’t been completely rethought.
Dr. Ioannidis and Dr. Robert Silva put out a piece yesterday calling for an end to the lockdowns (not sure if this will be readable for desktop users but mobile users should be good) :


In response, Dr. Reddit has tried to discredit Ioannidis, but that is simply not possible. He is literally one of the top ten most cited scientists in the world and the most cited physician in the world. He also destroyed Theranos when the rest of the scientific community was blowing them and exposed the peer review system for the sham that it is/was.

If there is anyone worth listening to it is him.
Posted by wdhalgren
Member since May 2013
5641 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 3:26 pm to
quote:

You are correct , inflation didnt explode in the last decade.


Nah, there's been an absurd amount of inflation since QE started. Inflation in the prices of tens (maybe hundreds) of trillions of dollars equivalent of debt instruments for starters, which is where the central banks aimed their flood of new money. Bond prices are so inflated that many of them have zero or even negative yields.

The problem is that they have to continually print more new money to keep the prices of all that debt (plus new debt) inflating, since it essentially never gets paid down. Otherwise regular investors/lenders drift away, the bond prices begin to drop and interest rates start to rise and..., we need another crisis. Eventually they have to monetize all of it now; no regular investor will willingly hold a financial instrument that literally guarantees to not compensate for risk and the time value of money.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 4:43 pm
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
85710 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:35 pm to
Does anyone have a summary of data from all of this? Off the top of my head, some of the things that have stood out.

80% of all deaths are 60+yrs of age
20% of all deaths are in nursing homes
98% of all deaths have pre-existing conditions
3277/4693 prisoners who were tested, tested positive in Ark/Ohio/NC/Virginia jails (96% asymptomatic)
30+ million Americans have lost jobs in the last 6 weeks

Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
64537 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:39 pm to
Do you have sources to back those stats up? I hope so cause I think this is a bunch of bullshite with the lockdowns at this point but some of them, especially the 98% of deaths being ppl with preexisting conditions, seem to good to be true
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
85710 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:51 pm to
Looking for the 98% number, believe that was a few weeks ago, here’s what I can find close to it... This is US Today

quote:

Though people of all ages are affected by coronavirus, many of those who develop severe complications after contracting it have preexisting medical conditions. According to a CDC report, nearly 90% of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US had one or more underlying diseases.


That’s just hospitalizations

As for the prison one, that is easy to google, along with the age, and the unemployed.
Posted by Ronaldo Burgundiaz
NWA
Member since Jan 2012
6795 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 8:13 pm to
Worldometers info page says only .9% of deaths did not have underlying conditions.

LINK

99.1% of deaths had underlying conditions.
Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
64537 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:25 pm to
Posted by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
79488 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:33 pm to
quote:

99.1% of deaths had underlying conditions.


When you consider hypertension is an underlying condition it doesn't really mean much.
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
21139 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:34 pm to
quote:

When you consider hypertension is an underlying condition it doesn't really mean much.



Obesity.
Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
64537 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:04 pm to
After reading the link more I detail it looks like it only says that amongst ppl without underlying conditions the death rate was .9%


If you go off the numbers, patients confirmed to not having underlying conditions that died were only 2% of the deaths But there seems to be a significant number of “unknowns” and if you combine deaths where it was unknown with those that confirmed didnt have a condition it is 24% of the deaths

It’s also important to point out these numbers are only through mid April and only for NY
Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
64537 posts
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:05 pm to
Are you saying hypertension shouldn’t be considered an underlying condition? How do you justify that??
first pageprev pagePage 1093 of 1190Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram