[ExI] next county

[Omar Rahman]

> Spike wrote:
> 
> Ja sure would.  If the mortality rate for covid really is about half a
> percent, then covid isn't all that different from other flu epidemics.  Then
> the whole shutdown notion was a huge epic failure, with enormous cost and
> consequences.  If we decide we are going to shut down the economy for every
> flu epidemic, many businesses are not feasible and many investments are no
> longer profitable.
> 
> There's more to it.  If the covid mortality rate is similar to other strains
> of flu, we have been mass manipulated and deceived.  The level of societal
> destruction directly or indirectly responsible for the induced hysteria is
> difficult to estimate.
> 
> If the mortality rate really is about 3%, everything humanity did in
> response makes sense.  If it is half a percent, nothing this species did
> makes sense.


Spike,


Data from the CDC on flu shows a range of 12000 deaths to 61000 deaths per year in this data since 2011.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html <https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html>    (Go down to Figure 2)

Seeing as covid-19 is at 150000+ and if we do a naive projection of 300000 for the full year, we can conclude that covid-19 is roughly 5x worse than a bad flu year.

That’s as things stand however, because many epidemiologists have projected from the beginning that the ’second wave’ is going to be the worst part.


As to death rates:

ROME (AP) - Antibody testing in Italy indicates that nearly 1.5 million people, or about 2.5% of the population, have had the coronavirus. But officials said Monday that huge geographic variations in the results confirmed a nationwide lockdown was “absolutely crucial” to preventing the country’s south from getting slammed as badly as its north.

Currently, about 35k deaths and approx. 1500k infections, that works out to 2.3%.

Again, this is with the caveat that we haven’t had the ’second wave’ yet, and that the entirety of Italy was not overwhelmed at once, just the northern areas.

If a health care system gets overwhelmed and modern medical care isn’t available it seems very safe to assume that a higher percentage will perish.

Also, as the US health care system’s default position is overwhelmed (ie. it does not cover all citizens/residents), it is reasonable to expect US death rates to be higher.



As to shutting down the economy, as I’ve said before (but in other words):  money supply is only limited by your trust in that supply (This is true of all types of money: metals, paper, algorithm)

The productive parts of the economy, (farming, factories, distribution), are all functioning at ‘decent’ levels. Subsidies should be given to those employed in sectors that are likely to increase disease spread (lots of service sectors, education, etc.).

This sort of behavior will increase your trust in the system and increase the value of that money.




*DONS A TINFOIL HAT*

Of course, reducing trust in the system has reduced the value (exchange rate) of American money which makes American exports more attractive.

Also, the prospect of losing your house might force truly desperate workers to take jobs at reduced wages despite the increased risk of illness/death.

Also, the prospect of losing your health care, which is tied to your job, might force desperate workers back out into unsafe working conditions at reduced wages.

*REMOVES A TINFOIL HAT*





But now that I have my tinfoil hat off I can’t think of single person or political group that would want to enrich themselves during a pandemic. Inconceivable! It’s not as if lawmakers would just let assistance programs expire and go home for the weekend.


With best wishes (especially for your health),

	Omar Rahman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200804/f40f75e2/attachment.htm>