Financial genius in 'Big Short' says shutting down the economy is crazy

joedirty wrote:

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

I’m not doing anything I used to do until there is a vaccine or effective anti-viral. It’s to dangerous of a virus. There is no telling how it will effect you. There are still to many unknowns to take any risks.

To re-open the economy without an anti-viral medicine, advanced/faster testing or vaccine is accepting that hospitals will continue to be overwhelmed and health care professionals will be at risk. As the husband of a nurse in a major metro hospital it’s terrifying everyday she goes to work.

Casually saying we need to reopen the economy means you have no idea of the human toll of this. The healthcare workers, the grocery workers and other real essential workers are putting their lives on the line for you everyday.

You seem not to care about the multiples of others who will die as a result of the shutdown from all walks of life. The argument is to quarantine the vulnerable and let the 88% who are likely to have flu like symptoms get back to work and gain immunity. The course of action you are arguing for would shut down the economy for 6-18 months and your wife would be at risk over that entire timeframe. That timeframe would kill pretty much every business in America. On the other hand, if you allow most of the healthy to be exposed and gain immunity, you shorten that duration dramatically and the vulnerable can come out of quarantine sooner because community spread has decreased because the young and healthy have antibodies and are not spreading the virus. Ironically a place like NYC or Italy that is having a sharp peak will be one of the first safe places to go.

Trollminator wrote:

joedirty wrote:

You seem not to care about the multiples of others who will die as a result of the shutdown from all walks of life. The argument is to quarantine the vulnerable and let the 88% who are likely to have flu like symptoms get back to work and gain immunity. The course of action you are arguing for would shut down the economy for 6-18 months and your wife would be at risk over that entire timeframe. That timeframe would kill pretty much every business in America. On the other hand, if you allow most of the healthy to be exposed and gain immunity, you shorten that duration dramatically and the vulnerable can come out of quarantine sooner because community spread has decreased because the young and healthy have antibodies and are not spreading the virus. Ironically a place like NYC or Italy that is having a sharp peak will be one of the first safe places to go.

So, do we have any volunteers to expose their spouses, children and other healthy family members to help save the economy?

I do not think anyone can make a convincing argument that allowing mass exposure of the low-risk population will result in less total damage in the long run. Include non-economic factors in the analysis as well and then we can have a meaningful dialogue.

Rick Rudeovic wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

So, do we have any volunteers to expose their spouses, children and other healthy family members to help save the economy?

I do not think anyone can make a convincing argument that allowing mass exposure of the low-risk population will result in less total damage in the long run. Include non-economic factors in the analysis as well and then we can have a meaningful dialogue.

Ah Trollinator - a true Troll in every sense of the word.

Let me guess - privileged, salaried - probably enjoying the time at home in between useless corporate emails and pornhub. The odd jog, trip to the golf course. If the economy is good or bag doesn't really matter to you does it?

Social media virology expert - loves having his/her voice heard telling people off for not keeping 6ft of distance or wearing a face mask. A true libertarian and person of the people - the old and fragile - what a person.

Except right now we are potentially looking at the seasonal flu being more destructive than this. Those are the facts my friend. I'm going to guess that each and every wintertime, year after year, you aren't out there, face mask adorned, lecturing everyone to stay at home as we may be "expose their (our) spouses, children and other healthy family members" to the horrors of sickness. Because if you are not you are a pathetic hypocrite.

Also let me put you straight. Of the 457'000 cases of covid 19 in the US, the hospitalization rate is around 5% (actually less but I'm rounding up) and 90% of those are our underlying condition/unhealthy candidate. The death rate is now far less than the flu so I will spare you bringing this up.

So when you talk of exposing healthy people, you are in essence talking of exposing people this will have almost no chance of affecting. So your statement is just an emotionally driven statement of pure and utter BS that is totally irrelevant.

So go back to your hole, I mean $600'000 house and keep telling yourself you are important and that people care what you have to say about this. Tosser.

Rick Rudeovic wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

So, do we have any volunteers to expose their spouses, children and other healthy family members to help save the economy?

I do not think anyone can make a convincing argument that allowing mass exposure of the low-risk population will result in less total damage in the long run. Include non-economic factors in the analysis as well and then we can have a meaningful dialogue.

Ah Trollinator - a true Troll in every sense of the word.

Let me guess - privileged, salaried - probably enjoying the time at home in between useless corporate emails and pornhub. The odd jog, trip to the golf course. If the economy is good or bag doesn't really matter to you does it?

Social media virology expert - loves having his/her voice heard telling people off for not keeping 6ft of distance or wearing a face mask. A true libertarian and person of the people - the old and fragile - what a person.

Except right now we are potentially looking at the seasonal flu being more destructive than this. Those are the facts my friend. I'm going to guess that each and every wintertime, year after year, you aren't out there, face mask adorned, lecturing everyone to stay at home as we may be "expose their (our) spouses, children and other healthy family members" to the horrors of sickness. Because if you are not you are a pathetic hypocrite.

Also let me put you straight. Of the 457'000 cases of covid 19 in the US, the hospitalization rate is around 5% (actually less but I'm rounding up) and 90% of those are our underlying condition/unhealthy candidate. The death rate is now far less than the flu so I will spare you bringing this up.

So when you talk of exposing healthy people, you are in essence talking of exposing people this will have almost no chance of affecting. So your statement is just an emotionally driven statement of pure and utter BS that is totally irrelevant.

So go back to your hole, I mean $600'000 house and keep telling yourself you are important and that people care what you have to say about this. Tosser.

Trollminator wrote:

Rick Rudeovic wrote:

Ah Trollinator - a true Troll in every sense of the word.

Let me guess - privileged, salaried - probably enjoying the time at home in between useless corporate emails and pornhub. The odd jog, trip to the golf course. If the economy is good or bag doesn't really matter to you does it?

Social media virology expert - loves having his/her voice heard telling people off for not keeping 6ft of distance or wearing a face mask. A true libertarian and person of the people - the old and fragile - what a person.

Except right now we are potentially looking at the seasonal flu being more destructive than this. Those are the facts my friend. I'm going to guess that each and every wintertime, year after year, you aren't out there, face mask adorned, lecturing everyone to stay at home as we may be "expose their (our) spouses, children and other healthy family members" to the horrors of sickness. Because if you are not you are a pathetic hypocrite.

Also let me put you straight. Of the 457'000 cases of covid 19 in the US, the hospitalization rate is around 5% (actually less but I'm rounding up) and 90% of those are our underlying condition/unhealthy candidate. The death rate is now far less than the flu so I will spare you bringing this up.

So when you talk of exposing healthy people, you are in essence talking of exposing people this will have almost no chance of affecting. So your statement is just an emotionally driven statement of pure and utter BS that is totally irrelevant.

So go back to your hole, I mean $600'000 house and keep telling yourself you are important and that people care what you have to say about this. Tosser.

Very cute and useless words - now try again by actually answering my question and addressing my points, without the anger this time. You can do it.

Rick Rudeovic wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Very cute and useless words - now try again by actually answering my question and addressing my points, without the anger this time. You can do it.

okay sl@pnuts. I'll answer your question - you only had one. Yes, we do need to expose volunteers their spouses, children and other healthy family members to help save the economy. There done, easy. Why is it so easy for me to say this? - we do it and have done so every single other year I've been on the face of this earth. There is absolutely no difference between this and any other winter flu season - the facts of this situation are starting to show this and this is also a sentiment echoed by a number of medical professionals - all who seem to get labelled as knowing absolutely nothing by again, social media, fear mongering virology "experts" like yourself.

Was that nice enough for you?

Vidiot wrote:

You didn't read the article.

The whole point is that the marginal overall detriment to the lives of people under very harsh rules (versus smarter, more nuanced rules) might well outweigh the value of the marginal lives saved by a considerable amount. This isn't about your sister or your parents or whatever. If the logic is that nobody can leave their house because it will increase risk to your sister then nobody should do anything -- especially her. I mean, what if she catches something more dangerous? She should live in a bubble. And if she's high-risk she should stay isolated for the next few months while the rest of the word builds up an immunity. This is about minimizing risks so that you minimize the number of deaths while also minimizing the very serious adverse impact of the response itself. And here's a smart guy suggesting that the healthiest people carry on and build up an immunity so that when your sister comes out of hiding she'll be much safer and what's your response? "But what if my sister dies". Moron. If your sister is so concerned let her live in a bubble for a while and let the rest of the healthy folks get on with making the world a better place.