Unanticipated COVID consequences (companies, money, cost, unemployment)

[roodd279]

While your odds of dying increase as you get older - your odds of showing symptoms are pretty much 50%, regardless of age. Might be lower. Let's use 50. Lots of folks are about to get infected - can't debate that. (Assuming no vaccine.)



When you show symptoms - you, your spouse, and your adult children at home - will not be permitted to work until you test negative. This time, though, no unemployment, no stimulus.



In theory - if the "right" 25% of the country gets infected in June or July, about half the work force will be sent home simultaneously. There is no data or science that prevents this and to discard the possibility off-hand is naive.



Now - IF that happens - what will we "feel" in our economy?


(I am not suggesting there's a solution - I am asking about preparation. There is no doubt that a large number of folks will go without work for a few weeks this year. Will it be 2%? 10%? 50%? All good questions - but I am confident saying it will not be zero %.)

Taken to the extreme - if 100 million workers are out of work - forced to stay home - for 20 days this summer - how will that compare to 20 million being unemployed for six weeks?

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by roodd279

While your odds of dying increase as you get older - your odds of showing symptoms are pretty much 50%, regardless of age. Might be lower. Let's use 50. Lots of folks are about to get infected - can't debate that. (Assuming no vaccine.)



When you show symptoms - you, your spouse, and your adult children at home - will not be permitted to work until you test negative. This time, though, no unemployment, no stimulus.



In theory - if the "right" 25% of the country gets infected in June or July, about half the work force will be sent home simultaneously. There is no data or science that prevents this and to discard the possibility off-hand is naive.



Now - IF that happens - what will we "feel" in our economy?


(I am not suggesting there's a solution - I am asking about preparation. There is no doubt that a large number of folks will go without work for a few weeks this year. Will it be 2%? 10%? 50%? All good questions - but I am confident saying it will not be zero %.)

Taken to the extreme - if 100 million workers are out of work - forced to stay home - for 20 days this summer - how will that compare to 20 million being unemployed for six weeks?

No big deal, the government just prints more money.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by roodd279

Lots of folks are about to get infected - can't debate that. (Assuming no vaccine.)

"No vaccine" is not an assumption; it's a reality.

After 55 years, there's no vaccine for any of the 2 dozen strains of corona virus.

Not only is there no vaccine, there's no such thing as a "corona shot."

Sure, screaming "Vaccine!" makes people feel all warm and tingly and doubleplusgood inside, and it certainly pumps up the stock prices of bio-tech companies and pharmaceutical companies, but it's not rooted in science.

There are about 80-odd virologists who are coronavirologists. They have studied corona virus to the exclusion of all other virus their entire professional careers beginning as doctoral candidates writing dissertations on the morphology, function, chemical or genome sequence of corona virus.

That's all they do. If we just take the year 2002, these coronavirologists every working-day of their lives have been in the lab studying COVID-2 and they don't have a vaccine or a "shot."

So, these Johnny-come-lately's who are just now seeing any strain of corona virus for the very first time in their lives under a scanning electron microscope are going to know?

How's that work exactly? You know, the knowing part. I'm guessing it has something to do with Unicorns or Leprechauns.

Originally Posted by roodd279

When you show symptoms - you, your spouse, and your adult children at home - will not be permitted to work until you test negative. This time, though, no unemployment, no stimulus.

That's a little unrealistic. You don't have the time, money, test kits or labor for that.

You don't even know how long immunity to COVID-19 lasts.

All existing strains of corona virus have immunity of 4-12 weeks, although I should point out that 4 weeks is only for two of the four strains that cause the common cold.

The other two strains that cause the common cold, the strain that causes chronic bronchitis, the strain that causes adult asthma and the strains that cause Influenza-like Illnesses or severe acute respiratory syndromes are 6-12 weeks.

That suggests -- but doesn't prove -- COVID-19 will only last about 12 weeks at the most.

They said they were first quarantined in March following a positive COVID-19 test result, and there was another positive test result recently with the baby on the way.

"We've always been surprised at the fact that I actually had COVID," Jamie Rausch said.
She and her family are stuck in a COVID-19 cycle, after doctors ordered more tests ahead of her baby girl's birth.

Those revealed she was still positive after she thought it was over.

"One (doctor) has said that they highly doubt this is a reoccurrence. That I've probably had it lingering for six to seven weeks now in my system," Rausch said.

She and her husband, Jonathan Rausch, were surprised when she received a positive COVID-19 test in March and her doctor found she had pneumonia.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/pregnan...tine/32357905#

A few things of note. She recovered from leukemia some years ago. She is astutely aware of her health condition. When news of COVID-19 came out, her and her husband took it very seriously, especially since she was pregnant.

I'm not sure which possibility is more disturbing, the fact that she tested positive again, or the claim by her doctor that the virus was lingering for 6-7 weeks in her system.

If the virus is lingering for 6-7 weeks after infection, that doesn't bode well.

Originally Posted by roodd279

In theory - if the "right" 25% of the country gets infected in June or July, about half the work force will be sent home simultaneously. There is no data or science that prevents this and to discard the possibility off-hand is naive.

The numbers are not encouraging.

The numbers thus far suggest the lock-down only stopped the rapid wide-scale spread of the virus.

The virus is still spreading, albeit at a slower rate, because neither the number of cases nor the number of deaths have declined. If the lock-down were actually stopping the spread of the virus, then you should see a slow decline in the number of cases, and then a steep decline, but that's not happening.

Originally Posted by roodd279

Now - IF that happens - what will we "feel" in our economy?

Same thing you're feeling now.

If the virus starts spreading rapidly again, you'll be right back where you started.

Deaf, dumb and blind people are inordinately obsessed with the number of deaths.

The number of deaths is not the issue.

For every death, there's 5x the number of people in ICU, 20x the number of people in hospital and 40x the number of people at home sick and can't work.

The deaf, dumb and blind people also don't realize you don't have to be infected to be affected.

What parent is going to leave their COVID-19-ridden child at home, alone, while they go to work?

Well, I'm sure a few might actually do that, but the point is a sick child takes a parent out of the work-force just as though it was the parent actually infected.

Originally Posted by roodd279

(I am not suggesting there's a solution - I am asking about preparation.

Well, here's where you have yet another massive government failure.

The US Census Bureau identifies 384 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).

The smart thing to do is put the names in a hat, draw one out, ask them if they agree to re-open, and if so, let them re-open and watch what happens.

If the work-force is decimated 6 weeks later, you have your answer.

Originally Posted by roodd279

Taken to the extreme - if 100 million workers are out of work - forced to stay home - for 20 days this summer - how will that compare to 20 million being unemployed for six weeks?

It doesn't have to be 100 Million workers.

Negative 50 Million works plus Negative 50 Million patrons is pretty much the same thing.

The deaf, dumb and blind can't see that if left unchecked, the work-force would have been decimated and everyone else is either sick or afraid to leave their home, so the end result is actually worse.

Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand.

[augiedogie]

There are holes in your post. In the first place large numbers of people have mild or no symptoms from exposure to the virus. The few surilogical studies done so far have shown exposure rates 50 times more than the numbers of those with a positive test.
Second, children apparently are not sickened by this virus. There are few if any deaths in children. The schools should have never been shut.

Third. The vast majority of the people sickened and killed were those above retirement age. It would have been better for the work force to have continued to work, but the isolate the the most vulnerable, the elderly with significant comorbidities. This was not always done. Some nursing homes in NY were forced to take Covid patients, which killed many more of the nursing home patients.

[roodd279]

Augie - I considered those things. The "large number" is something like half. I'm talking about the other half. 50% or more do not show symptoms. If you're trying to say that only 2% (50x the positive) show symptoms - that's just factually incorrect. While the exact number of sick people is not known - and therefore, the proportion of asymptomatic people is not known - latest estimates show about half will eventually develop symptoms. It might be less. It won't be a lot less.



The vast majority SICKENED were not above retirement age. That's a fallacy. There is no "vast majority" sickened. All people are sickened equally. I am not referring to being hospitalized. I am referring to showing up at work with a fever. Median age of folks turned away at the hospital in NY, but tested POSITIVE? 43. Yep. So half were less than 43.


You show up at work - with a fever - you gotta go home. You get a test. You're positive. You never develop any other symptoms and it clears itself up in a few weeks. During that time - you and your spouse are not working.



The schools did not close to protect the children. Like gieco, everybody knows that. They were closed to protect the parents and grandparents. Children are still carriers, even if they NEVER show symptoms.

[augiedogie]

Rodd. There were a few results from surilogial studies I saw that had showed that there were from 10x to 50x more people that tested positive for the antibodies. Yes, maybe 1/2 did show some symptoms but supposedly they were mild.

I'm not sure everyone does know children have been kept home to stop the spread. Personally I have huge objections to how the govt has handled most of this. Putting CV19 patients in nursing homes is beyond stupid. Closing down the economy in the long term will do more harm than good, suicides, bankrupcies, divorces, child abuse, lost jobs and businesses. They started the Great Depression 2, and its going to get really ugly as time passes.

Finally, from what I have seen as far as deaths go, the vast majority who died were very elderly people who were already seriously ill.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Mircea

"No vaccine" is not an assumption; it's a reality.

After 55 years, there's no vaccine for any of the 2 dozen strains of corona virus.

Not only is there no vaccine, there's no such thing as a "corona shot."

There's no vaccine for norovirus, either.. But, the reason isn't the overall difficulty of development but the cost effectiveness.

The money it takes to research, develop and bring to market a vaccine is significant.. And to do so for a 'puke and poop' virus.. The math just doesn't work out. Who would get that vaccine? Who do you market it to? Cruise ships and nursing homes for the most part. You invest a billion dollars into developing and marketing it.. You've got to make that money back in.. what is it? 10 years that you have exclusivity? To a small market of people? Now you're charging $500 a dose, which means even less people get it.

SARS and MERS didn't spread.. If they had.. More work would have been done on developing a vaccine for them.. But.. What was the point? They didn't spread.


Your example of other coronavirii.. They didn't really kill anyone (Short of MERS and SARS). They weren't 'puke and poop' but you could compare them to that. Mild symptoms. Where's the money in a vaccine for that? So, that's also a reason that research was.. Not totally, but somewhat starting from the ground up. Now, some research had been done back during the SARS and MERS outbreaks, but not a ton.


Point being, there's many reasons why a vaccine may not be available for something.

[Therblig]

Originally Posted by Mircea

After 55 years, there's no vaccine for any of the 2 dozen strains of corona virus.

Gosh, I guess the ones my dogs get on a regular basis must be tap water with a homeopathic spell on it.

The corona family is well understood by virologists. It's simply not common enough in humans to have warranted any special attention or a vaccine effort... until now.

Our ecosystem, kind of like the internet and, come to think of it, C-D, have all kinds of viruses against which many of us wish for an effective vaccine.

[vision33r]

A vaccine isn't the cure for everyone, people still die of the flu even if they've been vaccinated. It all boils down to the health of your immune system. With 40% of the US population being overweight, a vaccine could only be 60% effective.

When a vaccine is available, people who still die because it's not an antiviral medicine. It's training wheels for your immune system.

[TechGromit]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

Second, children apparently are not sickened by this virus. There are few if any deaths in children. The schools should have never been shut.

While it's true child are largely affected by the virus, it doesn't mean they can't get it, and carry it home to Mom and Dad. In effect possibly killing there parents at worse, and making there parents carriers to infect others at best. I'm sure if the school were left open, the infections rate, hospitalizations and death rate would be ten times what it is now.