How are you guys doing in light of the Corona Virus?

[amram]

Between 250 000 - 500 000 die of the regular flu every year.
I’m pretty far away from the panic button.

No one should be panicking, it is always better to remain rational, rational minds will always prevail in comparison.

Nor should one so casually dismiss an illness that is proving to be greater than 40 times as deadly and nearly three times as infectious as that common flu.

The common flu, with 250,000 - 500,000, over its 0.1% lethality implies an infected population of 250 to 500 million.  On such a base covid doesn't kill just half a million, it kills 9.8 to 19.6 million, using the current 183k cases and 7174 deaths which yields a rate of 3.92%.  Of course more will be infected with no symptoms and survive just fine, which drives the rate down, while also driving the cases upwards, and we stay right where we are with ~10 to ~20 million on the same base the common flu obtains.

Italy shows us a 7.3% rate for what happens when its not taken seriously enough and swamps a healthcare system, upper end of 36.5 million at that rate.  Its the combination of rate of infection, and mortality that make it so much more dangerous, swamping medical centers because people brush it off like the common flu, don't take it seriously, get infected, infect others, and make it all worse.

So no, don't panic, but only a fool would dismiss it as being of no concern and not take reasonable precaution.

[MJOne]

Then I choose to be the fool. 

[Tree]

Then I choose to be the fool. 

https://i.imgur.com/Icgt1bb.mp4
The first newspaper was during peak flu season.
It's not just a flu.

[vorpal+5]

The issue is that people don't think ahead enough. No disrespect intended MJOne, but you just can't say you should act as normal until the death toll is equivalent to the seasonal flu. Read serious papers and see how this one is different.

[superstrijder15]

The issue is that people don't think ahead enough. No disrespect intended MJOne, but you just can't say you should act as normal until the death toll is equivalent to the seasonal flu. Read serious papers and see how this one is different.

I second this: Earlier action has enormous effects and is needed (although by now in a lot of countries it is already too late for that). For example here is an article about it: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

[Profugo Barbatus]

Never liked the arguments around "But X kills more, so why bother trying to prevent Y". I really don't see how there is much good to be gained in just letting Corona potentially kill millions as it is threatening to do, just because the flu also kills a lot of people. Saving lives does not have to be an all or nothing thing, We already do what we can to reduce flu deaths (Yearly flu shots help a fair bit) and we really should be doing what we can for Corona.

If skipping a bar run on saint paddy's day has a reasonable chance to save lives, I'm sure I'll find a way to live with missing out. If it means I'm eating from cans and rice for a while, I'll just eagerly look forward to some return to normalcy.

[sloanjh]

My concern isn't primarily the virus, but the potential economic consequences. If schools are closed for example, then parents have to stay home. Those parents will be law enforcement personnel, doctors and nurses, truck drivers, power plant and water treatment workers, etc.. Normally the grandparents would step in to look after children, except they are being told to self-isolate, which takes that option off the table.

As transport and hospitality companies shut down due to a lack of business, their workers become unemployed. Now the total spending power of the population falls, so other companies not directly affected see falling sales and they too let workers go. If we are not careful, that turns into a cascade effect. High unemployment can lead to social unrest, etc. and to more extreme forms of government in the longer term.

There are a lot of dominoes that could fall if the virus causes these type of knock-on effects. That is another reason we are stocked up, rather than simply ensuring we can isolate from the virus.

Agreed.  I wrote my two senators and representative (in the US) yesterday advocating a plan where the Small Business Administration makes available to small business zero-interest 30 year loans that are automatically approved for up to 3 months' cash flow (can be obtained from tax records).  These could be funded by selling 30 year treasury bonds, which in turn could be bought by the Fed.  This would impact the impact of the economy stoppage over 30 years, which would amount to a 1-day hit per month of shut down, which is in the range of typical unforeseen events (e.g. snow days).

Even if a sizeable fraction of the businesses default on the loans, it would be spread out over several years, rather than having a sharp wave of bankruptcies all at once.

Essentially, this is printing money, but in this special circumstance it would not be inflationary since we've had so much wealth contraction already.  In essence the government would be stepping in and replacing the spending on the (non-durable) consumer sector to keep businesses afloat so that once people come out of isolation the economy is still there and functioning as much as is possible.

My goal was simply to plant the seed with the political class; my hope is that they're already thinking about how to fend off small business bankruptcies, and once they are then real economists will come up with something along these lines or better - they're smart people after all.  That's also why I'm posting here - I'm hoping to get the meme (in the original sense of the word) out into the wild so it's more likely to gain traction with the political class

John

[Frick]

Working as usual, so far. The vast majority of our customers are grocery shops, and they are killing it right now. Things can rapidly change so we are a bit wary, but it seems we'll end the year (we have july-june) in the black, which would be extremely fine under the circumstances. But again, things rapidly change...

[ExChairman]

Mmm, depending of much suffering this virus will do to humanity, there might come something good out of it. There should be a notable drop in harmfull emissions and in the shorter run less deaths due to this.

[Garfunkel]

Yeah X amount die from the virus, Y fewer deaths from air pollution - which is better? That's for historians to solve.

The UK will certainly be hit hard. NHS is already straining after a decade of austerity and the country is going to lockdown mode too late.

[Steve Walmsley]

I also read that the virus seems to thrive within a fairly narrow temperature range; about 5C to 11C.

Not sure how reliable that is, but if true we might be saved by global warming

[Bremen]

Never liked the arguments around "But X kills more, so why bother trying to prevent Y". I really don't see how there is much good to be gained in just letting Corona potentially kill millions as it is threatening to do, just because the flu also kills a lot of people. Saving lives does not have to be an all or nothing thing, We already do what we can to reduce flu deaths (Yearly flu shots help a fair bit) and we really should be doing what we can for Corona.

If skipping a bar run on saint paddy's day has a reasonable chance to save lives, I'm sure I'll find a way to live with missing out. If it means I'm eating from cans and rice for a while, I'll just eagerly look forward to some return to normalcy.

It's also worth noting that the Flu was a huge deal until we developed a vaccine. Covid-19 appears to not only be at least an order of magnitude deadlier, but there's no vaccine for it so it can spread much quicker and hit the most vulnerable populations harder.

I think we've all just seen so many doomsday movies/books/predictions where super ebola wipes out 99% of the human race that seeing a virus with predictions of "this might kill 1% of exposed populations" doesn't sound so scary. But 1% of much of the human race is still a huge number.

[Steve Walmsley]

I think we've all just seen so many doomsday movies/books/predictions where super ebola wipes out 99% of the human race that seeing a virus with predictions of "this might kill 1% of exposed populations" doesn't sound so scary. But 1% of much of the human race is still a huge number.

Also, while thousands or even millions of dead would be terrible, that isn't the main problem from a logistics standpoint. There will be 10x the number of dead that are seriously ill and require hospitalisation, which will probably completely overwhelm hospitals in most countries. If this does get bad, then looking after the sick, or simply isolating with them, is going to massively change society and potentially wreck the economy.

Governments are moving to draconian measures to limit the spread, but unless the virus somehow vanishes completely they are probably just delaying the inevitable. Once the lock-downs end, the spread may start again or return in the autumn with the colder weather. During the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918/9, the second wave was far more deadly. It's a very difficult situation.

[Tree]

Mmm, depending of much suffering this virus will do to humanity, there might come something good out of it. There should be a notable drop in harmfull emissions and in the shorter run less deaths due to this.

I doubt that small a population drop would help.
But apparently companies and governments are already willing to work differently because of this crisis, there's no reason they can't also work differently to tackle the global warming crisis too.

And like the corona virus, it's something we should start on as early as possible (even now, we could still do a lot to avoid the worst). Sadly, no matter how big, problems aren't dealt with unless we're neck deep in old white people bodies and it also starts affecting world leaders and their governments.

[Erik L]

My concern isn't primarily the virus, but the potential economic consequences. If schools are closed for example, then parents have to stay home. Those parents will be law enforcement personnel, doctors and nurses, truck drivers, power plant and water treatment workers, etc.. Normally the grandparents would step in to look after children, except they are being told to self-isolate, which takes that option off the table.

As transport and hospitality companies shut down due to a lack of business, their workers become unemployed. Now the total spending power of the population falls, so other companies not directly affected see falling sales and they too let workers go. If we are not careful, that turns into a cascade effect. High unemployment can lead to social unrest, etc. and to more extreme forms of government in the longer term.

There are a lot of dominoes that could fall if the virus causes these type of knock-on effects. That is another reason we are stocked up, rather than simply ensuring we can isolate from the virus.

Agreed.  I wrote my two senators and representative (in the US) yesterday advocating a plan where the Small Business Administration makes available to small business zero-interest 30 year loans that are automatically approved for up to 3 months' cash flow (can be obtained from tax records).  These could be funded by selling 30 year treasury bonds, which in turn could be bought by the Fed.  This would impact the impact of the economy stoppage over 30 years, which would amount to a 1-day hit per month of shut down, which is in the range of typical unforeseen events (e.g. snow days).

Even if a sizeable fraction of the businesses default on the loans, it would be spread out over several years, rather than having a sharp wave of bankruptcies all at once.

Essentially, this is printing money, but in this special circumstance it would not be inflationary since we've had so much wealth contraction already.  In essence the government would be stepping in and replacing the spending on the (non-durable) consumer sector to keep businesses afloat so that once people come out of isolation the economy is still there and functioning as much as is possible.

My goal was simply to plant the seed with the political class; my hope is that they're already thinking about how to fend off small business bankruptcies, and once they are then real economists will come up with something along these lines or better - they're smart people after all.  That's also why I'm posting here - I'm hoping to get the meme (in the original sense of the word) out into the wild so it's more likely to gain traction with the political class

John

Illinois has enough money in their rainy day slush fund for about 15 minutes of operation.