Show.
Me.
The.
Study.

Showmethestudy!

Say it again.

Showmethestuuuuddyyyyyyy!

Louder man.

Showmethestudy!!!!!!!!


Until just one of you does that once, you've got nothing but a bunch of opinions from a bunch of old ass former triathletes.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Your wish is my command ;-)

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

If I am following your argument properly, I see three flaws.

1) Numerator: you add in the loss of the capital markets into your costs. Markets are based on future revenues, a lot of speculation and were due for a draw down. I would only count the reduction in expected GDP.

2) Denominator: you have as the total number of deaths. Instead you should have the number of lives saved. Harder number to determine. But if we lost 10 people but saved 10 million, you should use the 10 million to determine the cost per life saved.

3) You assume little to no economic damage of letting it run its course. Without government intervention the vast majority of the population will still probably balk at large public events, leisure activity and travel. Especially as the death toll climbs into the millions. It wouldn’t be life as normal. The impact on the economy may actually be worse.

Well I just had two union masons with 30 years of experience do some work for me for a couple of days. They were happy for the work, and the quality of work/person vs what I was scratching to hire 12 months ago for similar cement jobs was night & day. People with hard skills + work ethic are going to be fine thru this....."fine" = a few body blows.


The bigger problem, IMHO is the broad-based mandated closure orders. I would gladly hire/pay (in cash or even 1099) these two guys to redo my pool deck & coping. Probably $10-15k in labor costs given their experience/skill sets. Problem is that I can't get delivery of a pump truck or the coping. And honestly I'm getting tired of lugging 80-100lb bags of concrete from HD.

Our gov'ts (both state & fed) whack-a-mole "solution" to the crisis is not working. I get shutting down businesses where social distancing is not an option, but 5-7 guys hammering nails into a new build....that risk factor is low.

I drove almost 600 miles yesterday to pick up our new puppy just outside of Cincy. There are ZERO precautions/adherence to warnings in place in Southern Ohio/IN. We were the only ones with masks/gloves at a remote gas station in IN. The crew that fed us Chick-fil-A in Dayton: 10 kids (well <25 y.o.) in a drive-thru/kitchen within 12-15' of each other in a confined space; no masks, 50% had gloves, and they were still serving "take out" (all their outdoor tables were full).

This is going to get much, much worse before it gets better. Small town America is not mentally equipped for this.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Barry, the entire restaurant industry, among others, is shut down for an indefinite amount of time right now. This is orders of magnitudes worse than 2009.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

The argument was that a waiter will DIE if he loses his job because he needs money to buy food to eat. Where is he going to get that money.

It was then followed with, "and don't say the stimulus because it will take too long to get here."



I'll cut to the chase: if the richest country in the world has to choose between letting 100s of thousands of people get killed by a virus or letting an unknown amount of waiters die of hunger (unknown because no one feels compelled to post a study to back this claim), and can't find ANY other solution, then this country needs a serious overhaul in its priorities.


I'm always amazed how easy it is to figure out a way to do something if it involves killing people, yet how hard it is when it involves saving lives.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Getting a tenant out is not quick or easy.

Was that the argument? I just skimmed his post but thought it was more a question of "what is he going to do?" Not necessarily that Hugo the waiter will die by next Friday if he loses his job this Thursday.

I think the answer is:
Many will lose homes, many will fall into debt they won't be able to climb out of, and it will, in general, cause a massive disruption in the lives of a huge amount of Americans, as this isn't just about the one waiter.

Off topic but The people claiming that a few lives are worth sacrificing to keep the economy rolling don't seem to consider that, should we throw caution to the wind and go about business as usual... Who is going to say "I know millions of Americans are dying and leaving the house puts me in extreme danger, but fuck it, let's go to red lobster tonight"?. People will be staying home in fear later, rather then in anger and against their will, now. The waiter is hooped either way.

One thing we do agree on is a need for an overhaul in priorities.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I heard the other day someone comment "I wish they had someone other than doctors and disease experts being interviewed". The fact is if the only people you listen to are people who are trained for, geared for and work toward stopping the spread and the effects of a disease the only perspective you will get is that perspective.

I'm not going to do your homework for you but if you bother to look around there are plenty of studies, articles etc etc showing correlation between, unemployment, slow economic growth, poverty and death. There are also plenty of articles, studies, even actuarial tables showing how much a life is worth.

To simply sit by and accept one side of a position that is obviously biased, not inappropriately that is their job, and ignore the other side is living with ones head in the sand.

I'm not suggesting A or B. I'm suggesting that we need to look at A AND B and find out what the best approach is. Ignoring everyones safety and allowing a run away disease could very well cause MORE damage, I.E. The dark ages. However the opposite is also clearly true, locking everything down and ignoring the economic damage can most certainly cause more damage than some lesser form of lockdown.

The CDC et el are designed and programmed on one criteria. Prevent the spread of the disease, period. They do not consider economic damage, they aren't economists. Making any decision on one perspcetive that covers and entire economy is dangerous an likely to not have the best possible outcome.

I absolutely agree that most certainly we can find other solutions. I also believe that the solution to the path with the fewest amount of deaths over the long term would include looking at lives lost from the disease vs lives lost due to economic damage.

If you're arguing that no ever dies from anything related to economic damage I would have to say either you're purposefully being obtuse or are just economically ignorant. There are a plethora of studies out there relating loss of GDP to lower health care, lower standard of living etc etc etc all which lead to earlier and often unnecessary deaths. These tend to be in the order of millions of lost lives rather than 100's of thousands when we are speaking globably.

There is also direct correlation to things like suicide, murder etc due to job loss and economic impact. Below is a table on Suicide rates alone associated with UE, Foreclosure and Poverty. From the min in 2006 to 2011 you had an increase of 2.1 per 100K. That would be approximately 7K additional deaths to suicide alone in an economic downturn. If you look at other studies based on poverty, loss of health care quality, safety etc etc those numbers are factors larger than suicide.

Your argument doesn't make sense. As a nation, we do choose to let millions die to heart disease and cancer versus shutting down the economy.

There are a lot of known and avoidable causes of heart disease like food choices and lifestyle choices, but we don't shut down those industries