Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[MK14]

[]-Successful/reliable treatments, may be created. Which although the virus may still be around, if you can treat it, and the death rate, becomes very small.

The death rate is already very small, comparable to a normal flu (650k/yr), and less that half the deaths/yr in car accidents (1400k/yr).

Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year

It is not quite that simple.

If we went back to 100% life as normal, i.e. like things were in 2018.
The car death rates, would stay around the same.
The flu death rates would stay around the same.

But, the Coronavirus, death rate, would exponentially climb, until (experts seem to say), something like 70% to 80%+, of the population is infected, when so called herd immunity, will (hopefully) kick in and naturally combat the R number.
But additionally, hospitals, would likely be over-whelmed, which would be likely to lead to hospitals having to make very hard decisions, and ration, who can and can't be treated. E.g. Viable Ventilators would run out, hospital staff would get exhausted, hospital beds would run out, vital medicines would run low and run out. Etc etc.

The combination of those two factors combined, could lead to something like x20 to x80, of the current death rates. I.e. exponentially more infected, multiplied by up to 10 times worse death rate, because of the shortage of hospital facilities.

We could argue with the figures. But I hope we can agree, that they would be massively worse than they are now, especially in countries that have nicely brought the illness under control.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

We could argue with the figures. But I hope we can agree, that they would be massively worse than they are now, especially in countries that have nicely brought the illness under control.

Maybe. Maybe not. Look at Sweden. We'll see. But keep destroying normal peoples' businesses and incomes and we'll have a problem much worse yet.

And as always, don't forget to ask who wins, and follow the money, please.

[MK14]

Maybe. Maybe not. Look at Sweden. We'll see. But keep destroying normal peoples' businesses and incomes and we'll have a problem much worse yet.

And as always, don't forget to ask who wins, and follow the money, please.

The combination of working from home, social distancing, common use of face masks, improved hand hygiene. Plus all the other measures, are hopefully reducing (the R number), and keeping the virus at bay. While not as badly, economically damaging countries, compared with the early weeks of the Coronavirus outbreak.

So, to a reasonable extent, things are going back to normal, and the worst parts of the lockdown, are hopefully over now. Unless we get a second wave. Depending on where you live.

I'm not good enough at economics, to know if it is a good thing or not. That essentially, all of the world, has been hit by this virus, and the economic fallout, that is developing.

If the economic problems, had only hit certain countries, that would worry me much more (if I lived in those countries), and still bother me, if I didn't. Anyway, these days, because of globalisation, there would have still been big/huge economic fallout, if part of the world was suddenly and unexpectedly, in bad economic times.
I.e. It would have soon spread and affected, most/all of the rest of the world, with economic issues.
Although, those wouldn't be too bad.
unless some big players, were really badly struggling, in which case it probably would be very bad then, world wide.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Look, all the europeans now owe 750 billion euros more than last week, to begin with. How good is that in your opinion?

[MK14]

Look, all the europeans now owe 750 billion euros more than last week, to begin with. How good is that in your opinion?

That is a lot of money. I guess we need to hope for, and create, a much better economic future for ourselves. To minimise the impact, of such huge financial hits.

If we ignore money for the second, and look at it from a practical point of view.

In 2020 so far, because of the Coronavirus, and the various lockdowns/shutdowns, that there have been, world-wide.
A huge number of items/goods that were going to be produced in 2020, haven't been, and won't be.

So all sorts of cars, computers, kitchen equipment, etc. Haven't been made.
Similarly, all sorts of buildings, like houses and bigger. Haven't been built.

So, however nicely you dress up the situation. The numerous people who those items/goods were destined for, are not going to get them, in 2020.
At best, they will be delayed, at worst, they will be never made.

I.e. (Made up figures, as I don't have the real ones to hand). Let's say, there are going to be twenty million cars, less produced, because of the virus.
Then perhaps, 20 million people, round the world, are potentially going to be unhappy, when they attempt to get a new car.
So, somehow, there (presumably), will be huge shortages, of some things and/or they may be too expensive. to keep the demand under check.

But in practice, the possible shortages (due to recent production slowdowns, in 2020), and possible dramatic price increases (speculation), of a huge range of world wide goods. Doesn't bow well for the future.

EDIT: We don't seem to be seeing these shortages (except toilet paper    ), so maybe the big reduction in demand, also because of the shutdowns/lockdowns, and general downturn etc. Is coping with the reduction in manufacturing. I'm not sure how that will pan out, in later years.
Will it just get absorbed, or will that, also cause an impact.

[OnboardG1]

Look, all the europeans now owe 750 billion euros more than last week, to begin with. How good is that in your opinion?

Not that big a deal. Quite genuinely, people get very bent out of shape over large emergency borrowing because of the making the classic "My country is like my household error". The way to look at it is: "What happens if we don't borrow this?". The analogy would be the marshall plan in the aftermath of the Second World War. We know what happened after the First World War to nations which had been hit hard by the conflict. France, Germany, the Low Countries and the UK had serious economic trauma for two decades, only made worse by the 1929 crash. Compared to the aftermath of the Second World War where a huge package of loans was used to rebuild those economies. That huge debt slowly bled away into insignificance over the next thirty years. The UK paid the tail end of ours off in the 2000s. That huge amount of money went towards building industries, keeping people employed and stopping the flow of money from grinding to a halt, and it worked. In this case government borrowing rates are very low because of all the spooked investors out there (A company can go bust tomorrow, but short of war a G20 economy is unlikely to blow up any time soon). A 30 year gilt is at like, 0.6% right now. If the government does nothing its tax revenue collapses and it can't service its debt. If it borrows money cheaply to stimulate the economy it can support as much of that revenue stream as it can (while saving a lot of jobs and livelihoods) and the debt gets slowly abraded away by growth and inflation over the three decades it takes the bond to mature. That isn't to say there's no danger in borrowing heavily. Some secondary effect could turn up that destabilises the system anyway, but you don't fix the problem that might happen, you fix the problem in front of you right now.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The analogy would be the marshall plan in the aftermath of the Second World War. We know what happened after the First World War to nations which had been hit hard by the conflict. France, Germany, the Low Countries and the UK had serious economic trauma for two decades, only made worse by the 1929 crash. Compared to the aftermath of the Second World War where a huge package of loans was used to rebuild those economies. That huge debt slowly bled away into insignificance over the next thirty years. The UK paid the tail end of ours off in the 2000s. That huge amount of money went towards building industries, keeping people employed and stopping the flow of money from grinding to a halt, and it worked.

From "How to become the world's #1 power, chapter 1"

"First we bomb Europe, then we bill them for the bombs and the bullets, and after that we give them a loan on the condition that they buy the goods from US to rebuild everything that we have destroyed. And by the way, lest they recover too quickly, we better divide it in two halves. Let's make sure the east ends in the hands of that communist assassin."

:-)

[Zero999]

[]-Successful/reliable treatments, may be created. Which although the virus may still be around, if you can treat it, and the death rate, becomes very small.

The death rate is already very small, comparable to a normal flu (650k/yr), and less that half the deaths/yr in car accidents (1400k/yr).

Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year

650k is the upper estimate for flu and as mentioned above, COVID-19 is on top of that, with a load of mittigation slapped on top. Co-infection with flu and COVID-19 is also likely to increase the fatality rate, above the sum of the two diseases. There's also the possibility of long term health problems, due to COVID-19, even in those who have a relatively mild illness.

We could argue with the figures. But I hope we can agree, that they would be massively worse than they are now, especially in countries that have nicely brought the illness under control.

Maybe. Maybe not. Look at Sweden. We'll see. But keep destroying normal peoples' businesses and incomes and we'll have a problem much worse yet.

And as always, don't forget to ask who wins, and follow the money, please.

Contrary to popular belief, Sweden have introduced mandatory social distancing measures to control their epedemic such as cancelling large events and banning gatherings of more than 50. They've just been a lot lighter, than other European countries, who are now moving towards similar measures as Sweden. You could be right: it's possible the extensive lockdowns were unnecessary and lighter measures would've worked, abeit taken much longer to take effect and resulted in more deaths.  It's also possible the lockdowns in Europe just moved deaths into the future. On the other hand, the economic effects of this might also be more short term, than many fear and countries with strick lockdowns might end up with fewer deaths. It's too early to say whether Sweden got it right or wrong.

[SilverSolder]

Look, all the europeans now owe 750 billion euros more than last week, to begin with. How good is that in your opinion?

Not that big a deal. Quite genuinely, people get very bent out of shape over large emergency borrowing because of the making the classic "My country is like my household error". The way to look at it is: "What happens if we don't borrow this?". The analogy would be the marshall plan in the aftermath of the Second World War. We know what happened after the First World War to nations which had been hit hard by the conflict. France, Germany, the Low Countries and the UK had serious economic trauma for two decades, only made worse by the 1929 crash. Compared to the aftermath of the Second World War where a huge package of loans was used to rebuild those economies. That huge debt slowly bled away into insignificance over the next thirty years. The UK paid the tail end of ours off in the 2000s. That huge amount of money went towards building industries, keeping people employed and stopping the flow of money from grinding to a halt, and it worked. In this case government borrowing rates are very low because of all the spooked investors out there (A company can go bust tomorrow, but short of war a G20 economy is unlikely to blow up any time soon). A 30 year gilt is at like, 0.6% right now. If the government does nothing its tax revenue collapses and it can't service its debt. If it borrows money cheaply to stimulate the economy it can support as much of that revenue stream as it can (while saving a lot of jobs and livelihoods) and the debt gets slowly abraded away by growth and inflation over the three decades it takes the bond to mature. That isn't to say there's no danger in borrowing heavily. Some secondary effect could turn up that destabilises the system anyway, but you don't fix the problem that might happen, you fix the problem in front of you right now.

This all makes total sense but there must be a point where the amount of debt becomes so large that it is totally unsustainable - for example, as happened to Greece.  It seems the "unsustainable" level is somewhere between 130% and 180% of GDP.  I know you can't directly compare with family economics, but it is roughly equivalent to having maxed out your credit card.

[coppice]

This all makes total sense but there must be a point where the amount of debt becomes so large that it is totally unsustainable - for example, as happened to Greece.  It seems the "unsustainable" level is somewhere between 130% and 180% of GDP.  I know you can't directly compare with family economics, but it is roughly equivalent to having maxed out your credit card.

The issue is not really the size of the new debt. Its the interval between problems. This current problem has happened before most countries were able to work through the aftermath of the last big problem, and clear that debt.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Another problem of public debt is that out of 100 euros, 95 sublimate on their way to the intended purpose.

[paulca]

The whole concept of public debt is nonsense made up by bankers to en-debt the public too them and the politicians who pocketed by supporting the same.

[SilverSolder]

The whole concept of public debt is nonsense made up by bankers to en-debt the public too them and the politicians who pocketed by supporting the same.

Those who get to print and distribute money are obviously in a cushy position, no matter what! 

[coppice]

The whole concept of public debt is nonsense made up by bankers to en-debt the public too them and the politicians who pocketed by supporting the same.

Those who get to print and distribute money are obviously in a cushy position, no matter what! 

Those who get to print and distribute the world's reserve current are obviously in a cushy position, unless cracks start to form. The rest are in a much less cushy position, on a steeply sliding scale.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Is it true that Bill Gates wants to "alter our DNA"?

[paulca]

Is it true that Bill Gates wants to "alter our DNA"?

No.

Another one on the ignore list.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Is it true that Bill Gates wants to "alter our DNA"?

No.

Another one on the ignore list.

You sure?

https://thedailycoin.org/2020/05/17/bill-gates-explains-that-the-covid-vaccine-will-use-experimental-technology-and-permanently-alter-your-dna/

A new generation of vaccines is emerging as we speak. At present there are no DNA and RNA vaccines approved for human use, but as Gates says in the following post from his personal blog, the time for trying these out on everyone has come. In the following comment he explains the difference between traditional vaccines and DNA/RNA vaccines, which, again, have never been approved for human use

[paulca]

Is it true that Bill Gates wants to "alter our DNA"?

No.

Another one on the ignore list.

You sure?

https://thedailycoin.org/2020/05/17/bill-gates-explains-that-the-covid-vaccine-will-use-experimental-technology-and-permanently-alter-your-dna/

A new generation of vaccines is emerging as we speak. At present there are no DNA and RNA vaccines approved for human use, but as Gates says in the following post from his personal blog, the time for trying these out on everyone has come. In the following comment he explains the difference between traditional vaccines and DNA/RNA vaccines, which, again, have never been approved for human use

Yes and when you follow the link in that article to the FULL article you find an apology because they were full of shit and got called out.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I don't know, it's the first hit I got in google, here's another one:

Europe was already planning for a Vaccine ID Passport from the 3rd quarter of 2019. The real question is what is a vaccine. Gates has been funding a vaccine that is totally different. Instead of introducing a sample of a disease, he has been funding a vaccine that is in part nanobots that target to change and alter your DNA to prevent disease. This is already being met with approval and is highly questionable as to what are the long-term effects of changing someone’s DNA

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/vaccines-that-change-your-dna-gates-italian-experiment/

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Yes and when you follow the link in that article to the FULL article you find an apology because they were full of shit and got called out.

Why do you lie? That's not what it says when you follow the link! Look:

"It does appear that there is some contention over the potential that DNA vaccines may permanently change a person’s DNA, as highlighted in this white paper from biotech company Moderna, a leading developer of RNA vaccine technology:

(Figure 5) The key challenge associated with DNA vaccines is that they must penetrate the cell nucleus (crossing two membranes; the cytoplasm and the nucleus). The DNA must then be transcribed in the nucleus into mRNA before moving to the cytoplasm to stimulate antigen production. This core complex pathway often requires both larger doses and special, often painful delivery devices using electric shocks or gold microspheres into person’s skin to deliver the DNA vaccine. Once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA. "

Moderna is the company that's developing Gates' vaccine.

Also:

"Two new technologies are in the COVID testing pipeline as we speak: DNA and RNA vaccines. They have never been released for public use. DNA technology is actually gene therapy. Genes are injected into the body, and they permanently alter the genetic makeup of the recipient in unknown ways. RNA vaccines would carry the danger of triggering autoimmune reactions, meaning the body basically goes to war against itself.

The vaccine that is being tapped by the US government… under its National Institutes of Health…through drug company Moderna…HAS NEVER BEEN USED ON THE PUBLIC BEFORE. IT IS NOT LICENSED FOR PUBLIC USE.

RNA VACCINES AND THE TECHNOLOGY THEY USE ARE ENTIRELY EXPERIMENTAL.

AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF VACCINE BEING RUSHED INTO EXISTENCE IN 90 DAYS.

What in the world could possibly go wrong?

One way to find out is to unleash it on millions of people, stand back, and see.” ~Jon Rappoport

Are you ready for your family and your children to be used as guinea pigs in the largest global health experiment ever conducted?"

[PlainName]

it's the first hit I got in google

Google hits mean nothing. Not even the first one, or the first page. Anyone citing a google search as meaningful (particularly as in "1,000,000,000,000 hits - must be true then", but other contexts apply) has lost the plot.

[MK14]

it's the first hit I got in google

Google hits mean nothing. Not even the first one, or the first page. Anyone citing a google search as meaningful (particularly as in "1,000,000,000,000 hits - must be true then", but other contexts apply) has lost the plot.

You can even get a crazy (confirmation bias), situation.

E.g. (Not necessarily tried this, but trying to show a concept).

Google search "Absolute 100% proof, the Earth Really, really is flat. 100% definitely right. Definitive Scientific Proof ONLY".
The first 10/20 results, may indeed be crazy/crackpot/nonsense, not entirely 100% accurate/right, websites, which claim it really is true.

I.e. Google thinks you want websites that claim the Earth is flat, because of your search terms. Even though, those websites might be junk.

[paulca]

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/05/15/bill-gates-explains-that-the-covid-vaccine-will-use-experimental-technology-and-permanently-alter-your-dna/

CORRECTION: This article was recently reviewed by Politifact, and out of respect for their efforts to stop the spread of misinformation on Facebook, we have decided to issue this correction. Their comments can be read, here. At issue specifically were two claims that we made.

Firstly, that Gates said for certain the new vaccine will use RNA or DNA technology. We should have stated that Gates implied that there is a very good chance that this technology will be used, but that they don’t yet know for certain.

Secondly, our claim that an RNA or DNA vaccine will permanently alter your DNA is disputed on the grounds that some research into these vaccines shows that vaccines degrade naturally and do not alter DNA.

A quote from Politifact:

Gates never said that the first licensed COVID-19 vaccine would use experimental technology or permanently alter DNA; he said specifically that “we don’t know yet what the COVID-19 vaccine will look like.” The most recent research also shows that RNA vaccines, which are being tested for COVID-19 right now, do degrade naturally and don’t alter DNA permanently.

It does appear that there is some contention over the potential that DNA vaccines may permanently change a person’s DNA, as highlighted in this white paper from biotech company Moderna, a leading developer of RNA vaccine technology:

“DNA vaccine work began thirty years ago, but as yet there are no licensed DNA vaccines and most remain in Phase 1 testing.

(Figure 5) The key challenge associated with DNA vaccines is that they must penetrate the cell nucleus (crossing two membranes; the cytoplasm and the nucleus). The DNA must then be transcribed in the nucleus into mRNA before moving to the cytoplasm to stimulate antigen production. This core complex pathway often requires both larger doses and special, often painful delivery devices using electric shocks or gold microspheres into person’s skin to deliver the DNA vaccine. Once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA. ” [Source]

Given the current state of world affairs, we felt that providing this correction and explanation was the best way to bring clarity and another perspective to this important issue. For any comments or questions, please contact editor@wakingtimes.com.

[SilverSolder]

it's the first hit I got in google

Google hits mean nothing. Not even the first one, or the first page. Anyone citing a google search as meaningful (particularly as in "1,000,000,000,000 hits - must be true then", but other contexts apply) has lost the plot.

You can even get a crazy (confirmation bias), situation.

E.g. (Not necessarily tried this, but trying to show a concept).

Google search "Absolute 100% proof, the Earth Really, really is flat. 100% definitely right. Definitive Scientific Proof ONLY".
The first 10/20 results, may indeed be crazy/crackpot/nonsense, not entirely 100% accurate/right, websites, which claim it really is true.

I.e. Google thinks you want websites that claim the Earth is flat, because of your search terms. Even though, those websites might be junk.

The only problem with googling for "The earth is flat" is that for the next 6 months, you will be trailed by ads trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge at a 30% discount! 

[MK14]

The only problem with googling for "The earth is flat" is that for the next 6 months, you will be trailed by ads trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge at a 30% discount! 

Yes, there are some complete fools, you need to look out for them.

30% off, that actually is rather tempting. I might get back to you, about it.