psuhoffman

Everything you said is accurate. But you leave out what the cost of that will be. Herd immunity will require roughly 80-85% to get infected. Even if we accept your best case scenario that the IFR is .02 that means roughly 550,000-600,000 deaths. And what if you are wrong and it’s .05? Now we are talking well over a million. Got forbid the real IFR is .75... and that’s all factoring in that it’s way lower than the 4% inflated by missing cases. Additionally the IFR will increase with your plan because the healthcare system will crash. And what about the side effects of that. The people that won’t get medical care for other conditions because 80% of the population gets sick within a few months. You are free to have your own opinion. I personally find a plan that sacrifices half a million people or more and crashes our healthcare system totally unacceptable.

As soon as I get the accumulated storage fees. We can work out a payment plan.

Yea that is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not something that impacts each person individually, your decisions will impact the risk to everyone around you. But I am not shocked that some people don't want to give up any autonomy over their decisions regardless of how they affect others around them.

I don't necessarily disagree that the IFR is much lower than the numbers currently estimated by the WHO and CDC. There is very good evidence using deductive reasoning of such. But that kind of thing is also baked into the numbers of many viruses. Yes we have a slightly better idea with the flu but it mutates significantly year to year and so we never do fully know the exact IFR each year and millions of cases go undiagnosed yearly so it is VERY likely the number is lower than the .01-.02 annually for the flu. But there is another factor you are completely neglecting when you assume that if the IFR is similar to the flu we are obviously over reacting. We have a degree of herd immunity built in to the flu. We have a vaccine and some people have some natural ability to combat it due to previous exposures to similar strains. Year to year the entire population isn't vulnerable. The flu isn't going to infect the whole population in a short period of time. This is not a comp situation. A flu that infects 10% of the population with a .02 IFR is going to have a radically different effect on society than a virus that infects 80% with a .02 IFR. That is the difference between 64,000 deaths (a bad flu season) and 512,000 deaths...(a major societal catastrophe). And that doesn't even include the impacts of likely crashing the healthcare system in every major urban area and the ancillary effects of that. Again...your Hubris shows when you assume people disagree with you because of ignorance. Perhaps they disagree because they are including MORE information not less in their impact calculus.

A sample size of 4 lacks any statistical significance. A longer look at data in mid atlantic stations that have over 100 years of records shows the odds of above/below normal snowfall each season is not affected much by the previous seasons results. We can have several above normal seasons in a row (2014-2016) and there have been runs of more than 5 crap years in a row also.

Yes but only because the odds of any one winter being as bad as last year is relatively low. It’s not any lower because we just had a crappy one and it’s nowhere near the “nearly 0” stormy asserted. It’s probably closer to about 5%. But the odds of getting an only slightly better but still really crappy snowfall result next year is significantly higher (about 50%) maybe higher given the likelyness of a Nina. Those odds improve some for places west of the fall line where really awful snowless winters are more rare but still not as low as stormy seems to think.

Your assertion the CFR is inflated by undiagnosed cases is logical. But beyond that everything else you assert is speculative. You have no way to accurately predict what the true exact IFR is. And when comparing this to other infections you fail to acknowledge that same effect. Millions of people get infected with the flu and never go to the doctors. They never show up in the data. This isn’t unique to covid. What is unique is the extreme strain on society it produces in places it spreads that are unprepared. Your assertion that the entire global medical community in conjunction with every policy maker and government leader are all overreacting based on pure speculation despite the fact they have access to way more pertinent information is one of extreme hubris. It must be such a burden being so much smarter than all the mouth breathing morons that obviously surround you!

But he stayed at a holiday inn once!

I don’t have an assumption. A statistical analysis shows we have roughly the same chance at a particular result every year regardless of the previous year. When people say things like “we’ve never had that sequence before” it’s almost always just the result of the lack of two relatively rare events happening too many times consecutively in a small sample size. But a closer look at longer recorded periods shows that once you get on anomalous season the odds of another the following year are the same. Yea it is unlikely to get an anomalous result multiple times but once you get on anomaly the odds of it happening again next year are no different than it was going into this year and eventually 2 of those years will happen back to back. For example the odds of flipping 5 heads in a row is 3%. But each flip is 50/50. Once you have rolled 4 heads the odds of the 5th is no longer 3%. It’s now still 50/50 you get a heads next flip and complete the 5/5. The odds of each flip are not impacted by the other flips.

Lol at you thinking you have a 0% chance of a crappy year next year.

I didn’t say inflation isn’t real or that infusing too much currency into a market is always a good idea. In general it’s a bad idea. But not all infusions imbalance the economy equally. And there are ways to deal with the imbalance without drastic cuts. When the economy grows you can offset some of the imbalance simply by keeping expenditures level. There are also monetary tools to mitigate without fiscal measures. We could reduce the excess currency in circulation by selling securities. We can control inflation by raising the discount rate or reserve requirement. Ideally we want to avoid creating a currency excess but at times it can be managed and the lesser evil.

Printing money can’t solve a supply shortage. We don’t have a supply shortage. Not all economic situations are the same.

See my post to Yeoman. We can offset the imbalance later. During this crises you won’t see rapid inflation because of offsetting negative economic pressures. Supply shortages could become a bigger issue but most essential products will continue to be produced and the supply chain is operating for now. A disruption in that would be devastating but that’s a different issue. Other products won’t run out because there is a drop in demand with everyone on lockdown. The “print money = inflation” analogy is 100 level Econ. I’m talking advanced “real” policy here.

I teach economics. And the good old more money means more inflation example is true on a general level and I use that in my basic Econ classes but it’s not really that simple. We don’t spend money from tax revenues. We print it. Then the following year we remove the excess needed to prevent unhealthy inflation either fiscally by taxing or monetarily through open market operations or tinkering with interest rates. The deficit is just an estimate of the imbalance between spending and estimated taxes at current levels. But the economic imbalance caused by an infusion of currency isn’t equal in all circumstances. The negative destabilizing effects will be offset by the downward pressures on wages and consumer spending right now. We can spend much more recklessly in this situation without the negative consequences. And ultimately if everything were shut down and we HAD no choice inflation is much preferable to no money at all. Bottom line is my point that the government cannot run out of money to assist in an emergency is valid. The details are debatable if you really want to argue economics.

You’re points have some validity but you don’t convince anyone by always saying it in the most abrasive obnoxious way possible. You’re worried the gov ability to assist is invalid though since they literally print the money. They can never run out of it.

Yea but that just meant you’re due to have back to back awful years!

It’s not just die...as people with this publicize how nasty it can be even if you recover I think that has an impact. Look at Cuomo. No one sees that and thinks “yea I want that”.

Thanks for your efforts

One last thing... wrt to the "phased" opening of the economy. All I have heard lately are the same very shallow hollow talking points from every interview on this. There are some VERY important details that no one is even mentioning. So....if we return the less vulnerable to work and order the people at higher risk to stay in quarantine.... possibly for a year or more, how does that even work. First of all do people realize how many that is. High risk isnt just people over 60 its also anyone with diabetes, asthma and other lung diseases, heart conditions, cancer, anyone who had chemo, various immune system deficiencies, anyone who smokes....we are talking about a LOT of people. How do businesses function missing that many people? Some key contributors will be gone. And most importantly...what about those groups? That is tens of millions of people. Who pays their bills? Do businesses have to retain them and pay their salaries even when they aren't working for a year? If not...what happens when they run out of money? Do we give them all unemployment? What about the people who live in a high cost of living area and unemployment won't cover their cost of living? They have to then "move" during a pandemic and suffer that loss because they are forced to isolate for a year? And even if we take the "conservative" approach of "well that is their problem" no it isnt..because if that 30% of the economy suddenly is destitute you really think that wont trigger a depression? Then what was the point of opening back up anyways? And if you force that group to choose between their health or losing their homes many will take the chance and go to work and get sick...and then we crash the medical system and we end up with the result the "plan" is trying to avoid and we might as well have just done nothing. Maybe there is some brilliant plan that no one is talking about to deal with all the issues that kind of policy would entail...but forgive me for being skeptical on that. Yea a scalpel type policy towards this would be better...in a vacuum...but we suck at that kind of societal level details collective actions. We would likely not even be able to agree on what kind of assistance the high risk in isolation should get. I don't have the answers either...just pointing out the "plan" I keep hearing about is more of a vague un-fleshed out idea than a plan.

Even if yesterdays spike was partially due to the observed "Tuesday bump" each week...it is apparent we have not made much progress down the curve yet. We may be slightly past the peak but still very early in the decline and that decline is likely to be slow not sharp. That said (and I do not want to get into a political argument with anyone, I have mostly been avoiding that but this is my personal take and yes its biased because EVERYONE is biased by their own experiences in life) I find it ridiculous that we are suddenly talking about a quick opening and relaxation of our societal covid preventative measures when we are just now very close to or only slightly past the peak of the pandemic. IMO the discussion is being driven by some people's impatience and frustration and economic concerns. I have not heard one shred of evidence from a virologist that inclines me to think opening everything back up soon is a good idea medically. And I am suspect that an early opening which could lead to another spike in cases would have any economic benefit. We are over a month into this now...and we are going to just throw all that way and go in a different direction? Then we might end up back at square one and have wasted all this time and be starting all over again. Plus if a significant number are sick the economy won't be "fine" no matter what the policy is. This just seems crazy to me. And I am NOT coming at this from a place of not wanting to work. I am working. All my classes are online. I have collaborate sessions with my students everyday, I am posting and grading work daily. I am contacting students by phone and email daily. My work load is pretty similar to what it was before. My concern is 2 fold.... this sucks and I do NOT want to have wasted all this time and have to start all over in 2 months...and if the economy is going to suffer anyways we might as well save lives.

I would take yesterday's numbers with a grain of salt wrt to declaring it a "SIGNIFICANT" jump up because for several weeks there has been a repetative pattern of lower reported deaths over the weekend and then a significant spike on Tuesday. The only logical explanation is that changes in how they are reported and issues with contacting family before they are made public wrt the weekends causes a backlog that then hits the reports as "new deaths" on Tuesdays. That makes more sense that the virus cares what day of the week it is and suddenly becomes more lethal every Tuesday. We will have to see what the numbers look like today before drawing any larger conclusions about the trend. That said the numbers do suggest (even taking into account the Tuesday bump effect) that while we may have flattened the curve that flattening happened at a fairly high level and we have not yet seen a significant move down the backside of the curve.

It was snowing when I went to bed. No accumulation though.

We could have. But so much has to go right this late. Need a rare cold airmass. Then need rates. And likely need it to be at night. We got 2/3. Oh well

Problem is that initial slug comes before the low level cold filters in. That was always rain on guidance. Our windows was late night early morning with the frontal wave. That now looks to stay southeast. That trend had been apparent for a while. We could mix with heavy enough rates this evening but the potential for accumulation is pretty low.

We will be cold enough but latest trends keep why heavy precip south of us.