Solve for the equilibrium

What might be some alternate (if possibly slightly unfair) titles?  How about

“A Swede by Any Other Name” or “America > Sweden”?

“Refuting Friedman-Savage, convexity all over”

“Their capitalist bosses made them turn out”

“They all supported lockdown in the poll”

What else?



VTEKL, that is. Maybe this time someone in the comments will have an explanation.

fuck you im play facebook game

Critic National: obțineți cele mai recente știri, fotografii din showbiz și celebrități, știri și zvonuri sportive, videoclipuri virale și povești de top.

Kevin Lewis is no longer excellent, or even mentioned. Hope he didn't disagree with the party line about using troops to dominate the American urban battlespace.

My guess is that VTEKL means "via the excellent Kevin Lewis", i.e. he's so excellent he now has his own acronym.

P.S. I haven't watched the video, but Tyler had a link for a still photo showing hundreds of people in the streets of Vegas and I did peruse the photo. Two people wearing masks, that I could see, out of ... 100? distinguishable faces in the photo.

P.P.S. No link, although it's easy to find articles saying this: face shields have advantages over masks: more comfortable, more breathable, and we can see each others faces instead of looking like train robbers.

But what is the supply situation? One article says they're going for $15-$35 on Amazon at the moment. May be a good time to invest in whatever companies make face shields.

Thanks. The idea of Kevin Lewis being purged was disturbing.

Maybe somebody should add an excellent Urban Dictionary entry, after appropriate memetic confirmation.


( Congratulations on Solving the Acronym)

Maybe : "The lockdown was a mistake."
How about : "The lockdown was the largest policy mistake of all time."
Or maybe even : "COVID panic was a media/twitter hoax. Federal investigation to start."

All sound pretty decent.

1. The lockdown worked in that it arrested exponential spread.
2. It's fine to try reopening things now - it probably has been in a lot of places for a couple weeks.
3. We are reopening largely "in the blind" - we think we know some things about high vs. low risk activities, but we are really just guessing (and those guesses often align with our personally preferred risk levels).
4. The big test will be when schools go back in session in the fall.

No data at this point backs up 1. Show me anywhere that it didn't fit the Gompertz curve lockdown or not? There was never exponential spread at any point at any place on the planet. Again, show me where if you have data. 2. Things where I am have been open for weeks now. Where is the spike? Case #'s are still directly proportional to testing amount. Deaths are going down steadily if messily 3/4. We should have never shut down nor closed schools. There will be no negative effect for reopening schools in the Fall unless they do not open due to fear. This will not be a test, this is already known and has been for months.

We have been under 1000 deaths/day in the USA since the 28th of May when will it get sub-500? June 20th? Then what?

Again fake news. Spread has been exponential everywhere around the world. Just go to worldometer and look at any coronavirus daily case number chart.

It's inane to suggest that social distancing didn't work. It's logically impossible if you believe the germ theory of disease and not that diseases are spread by miasma or evil demons.

Deaths are regularly over 1,000 in the U.S. during the week. Deaths have stopped declining or at best are now declining very slowly.

Over 110,000 confirmed deaths already! Likely 2x that or more if you use the same methods used to estimate flu deaths (only ~10k confirmed flu deaths each year).

"Deaths have stopped declining or at best are now declining very slowly."

Fake news!

U.S. Covid-19 deaths:

May 2 to May 8.........1,600
May 9 to May 15.......1,400
May 16 to May 22.....1,300
May 23 to May 29.....950
May 30 to Jun 3.........820

(Average deaths per day.)

Wrong. Check my link. 7-day moving average deaths per day in the U.S. has been steady at 1,000 since May 26.

But that's a highly misleading way to state it since there has been a dramatic fall in deaths from the third week in May, 1350 a day on average, to 950 a day in the fourth week. Why wouldn't you want people to know the continuous drop week over week?

My numbers are from confirmed deaths at the Wikipedia U.S. coronavirus pandemic page but similar numbers are at Worldometer which includes probable deaths.

"Deaths have stopped declining or at best are now declining very slowly."

How is that fake news when deaths have been steady for 14 days? The 3-day moving average was 1029 on May 18, yesterday it was 982 (higher today)

You must know that there is a pattern where reported deaths are low on Sunday and Monday and higher the next five days. How can you say that there are the same number of deaths a day from week 3 in May (1,350) to week 4 in May (950)? That was a huge drop. In three days, I'll put up the current week which after five days in 820 deaths a day. My guess is that it will overall average to 850 a day, but we'll know in three days.

Yes, that is why the 7-day moving average is best (not "1st week", "2nd week"). By the way, 3-day moving average back up to 1083 today.

May 17: 865
May 18: 1003
May 19: 1552
May 20: 1403
May 21: 1411
May 22: 1298
May 23: 1033
May 24: 615
May 25: 505
May 26: 774
May 27: 1535
May 28: 1223
May 29: 1212
May 30: 1015
May 31: 638
June 1: 730
June 2: 1134
June 3: 1083
June 4: 1031

7-day averages
May 17: 1456
May 18: 1448
May 19: 1402
May 20: 1342
May 21: 1294
May 22: 1250
May 23: 1223
May 24: 1188
May 25: 1117
May 26: 1005
May 27: 1025
May 28: 997
May 29: 986
May 30: 982
May 31: 986
June 1: 1018
June 2: 1070
June 3: 1005
June 4: 978

It was steadily dropping and then it stopped dropping.

No, a seven day moving average is not best. Why would it be? Just report the average deaths per day over a week. No sensible person will say that average deaths a day in the fouth week of May at 950 is not significantly better than the third week of May at 1,300. Deaths at 820 a day after five days shows that at least the trend will very likely be downward by 100 deaths a day by Sunday.

Why not take a 14 day average? How informative would that be?

Pretty obvious why the 7-day moving average is best, because it eliminates the weekly cycle and allows you to observe trends at the daily level, without waiting multiple weeks for the trend to become apparent.

Deaths are not at 820 a days after 5 days, that's just wrong. They are at 920 over the last 5 days.

Just look at a chart. It's perfectly obvious deaths haven't budged over the last 10 days. That's consistent with what I have above. Substantial downtrend followed by 10 days of stasis- that after an entire month of constant decrease.

You're still talking about the third week of may which is now more than two weeks ago. Because you are comparing 14-21 days ago with 7-14 days ago, you're missing the flat trend over the last 10 days.

Just concede that my statement was 100% correct and factual: "Deaths have stopped declining or at best are now declining very slowly."

Your statement leaves out the fact that deaths per day dramatically dropped from 1,300 to 950 and almost no 7 day period will show much of a decline. From the U.S. pandemic page at Wiki, the number of confirmed deaths:

Five days including Jun 3: 1004+1039+478+605+979 = 4105

4105/5 = 821

"Case #'s are still directly proportional to testing amount. "

This is also false. Positive % has declined substantially with increased testing.

People seem afraid of what they don't understand:

Sure, "Reason," no-lockdown Sweden is now #1 in the world in its rate of increase in covid-19 deaths per capita. Maybe you need to get another moniker for yourself.


Don't give me the facts.
I react to emotion
Emotion tells me
That I am right.
And those around me,
Who agree with me,
Give me strength to hold my convictions.
And also give me
Covid as well.


This is just fake news
Perpetrated by Main Stream Media.
It will be over April,
Well, May, oh,
Possibly June
If you take Trump brand
Have Faith in the Healer in Chief.

The "rate of increase in covid-19 deaths per capita" in Sweden has been negative since April. So I would doubt it's higher than South America. Less negative than other countries, maybe. For which countries we'll find that buying more negative certainly cost em.

[email protected] you and your team.

Sweden has approximately the same # of deaths per capita as France, Italy, UK, and Spain. These are nearby large countries who locked down and they have approximately the same death rate.

Note: We currently have no understanding of the heterogeneity of the death rate of the disease.

...without that understanding, and noting that almost every country that locked down did better than Sweden, maybe it was the best option at a very fast moving time without any information?

I mean, we did a lockdown, the virus is now contained, and now we are opening back up. It's all going pretty well considering what happened all over the world. And yet it's nonstop whining.

We are reopening now, so you can stop.

Telling people who lost their jobs, etc. over an unnecessary lockdown to quit whining is pretty elistist and callous. May need to send that talking point back to the focus group.

- Lockdown not unnecessary
- Only told you to stop whining
- Truth is not a talking point
- No focus groups involved

Impressive lying there, Trumpian in quality

Well, it ("lockdown" classed as compulsory stay at home restrictions, closures of bars, restaurants, events) was obviously unnecessary to "flatten the curve". We know that now, for sure. Exponential growth simply did not continue, even absent these orders.

Whether it was necessary to prevent some number of excess deaths... Maybe it did (maybe), but then there's a cost benefit analysis to be had on that marginal. And "lockdown" (compulsory stay at home orders) was marginal.

So many hypocrites. It's easy to shrug off lost jobs, looted businesses, burned out stores, etc. when it's NOT YOURS. These people lack empathy, plain and simple.

No. You don't get to spend trillions on your half baked theories/feelings.

Sorry, liberal.

Sorry, you disgusting piece of stupid garbage, "Reason," you do not get to lie lie lie and get away with it, "Moron."

Sorry about triggering you with facts, liberal.

I know it hurts when people push back on your authoritarian instincts.

Very sorry about the feels.

But I'm not. You're just laughably wrong.

Yes, "Moron," facts like that Sweden has had the highest per capita rate of covid-19 deaths in the world. That is the hard fact here.


You can't even read a chart and you post.


"noting that almost every country that locked down did better than Sweden"

[email protected] reading comprehension fail. I listed the large countries in close proximity and they all had about the same deaths/capita.

I don't blame you for lying. You side does it by reflex.

Keep it up then. I was obviously refuting your narrative that lockdowns were unnecessary. They obviously were.

Here is a graph of selected countries:
At some point the countries around Sweden had a reasonably similar per capita death rate but per capita deaths and per capita new cases have stayed high for longer in Sweden than other countries. Sweden looks more like the UK and USA then France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Sure, but the claim for Sweden was never "our death rate will decline most rapidly". That was not, and is not, the only concern.

It was "exponential growth will not happen, the curve will stay flat, healthcare resources will not be overwhelmed, and we'll better balance against deaths our costs to the economy, obeying the law and building some immunity in the young and healthy population which will be protective in future".

And that's mostly what actually happened and what they actually achieved.

Those that claimed they'd see exponential explosion and overwhelmed healthcare following that model were wrong. (And the question is *why* thosr folk were so consistently wrong. Part of that is probably because the topic got politicised with advocates for a bigger and more centralised state placing their chips on lockdown, as a win against people arguing for a restricted state, then doubling down.)

"I listed the large countries in close proximity and they all had about the same deaths/capita. "

Really? Where's Germany? What you mean is you cherry-picked the very worst countries and noticed that Sweden is doing equally bad

Cherry picked?

It is true, libs always project what they are doing on others. It is amazing.

I picked a number of nearby countries that enacted lockdown showing that they have similar stats. You pick an outlier and say I am cherry picking? It’s amazing.

You are a perfect caricature of a lib. Congrats!

I'm not a lib at all. But someone disagrees with you and you think OH NO IT MUST BE A LIBTARD! ONLY LIBTARDS DON'T TAKE ORDERS FROM DONALD TRUMP!!

Basically all countries enacted lockdowns- you arbitrarily picked the ones that did the worst, to make yourself look good. You could have picked literally any other countries (except Belgium and Andorra) and Sweden would have looked worse. That's over 200 other countries!

Sorry about the triggering, lib.

LOL at you, "Reason," you worthless ignorant idiot. As of yesterday Sweden had the highest per capita death rate in the world of any nation over the previous seven days. See
Face the facts, "Reason," and do try to pick a better name. I think "Moron" would be appropriate.

That is a very suspiciously specific claim. Like when I catch a five year old looking guilty and he says "I definitely did not put the cat in the dryer".

First of all, the Guardian is worthless. They are committed to this in a way that makes them irrational. Second "As of yesterday Sweden had the highest per capita death rate in the world of any nation over the previous seven days." Look at all the specific details. As of yesterday? So presumably as of last week they were not doing so badly? Highest per capita? So if I select some other measure they will be doing better? Previous seven days? How have they done over the previous seven months?

So much spinning, so little fact.

test: posts are not posting (ignore)

I'm not surprised by it but why does everyone treat "the lockdown was the best solution given what we knew at the time" like it is not possible to be true?

A novel virus that we knew very little about was spreading rapidly. Over the course of literal weeks we learned more and more, and our optimal policy response evolved over time.

Learning new facts and changing your course of action based on those facts is NOT a character flaw.

I don't see a lot of people here changing their course of action based on new facts. I see a lot of people here jumping on an opportunity to make fun of others they deem less intelligent than themselves based on priors they haven't updated since early March.

As far as the lockdown goes, it was self-evident then, just as much as it is now, that it was ham-fisted and unnecessarily severe. We had plenty of data then, even given China's malfeasance, to determine that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions were most at risk. Unfortunately common sense lost out to power-hungry politicians and the FUD pushed by the media and the blue-checkmark brigade that continues to this day (unless there's a riot to be had, then the virus is paused).

And it worked. But keep on Trumping.

"We had plenty of data then, even given China's malfeasance, to determine that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions were most at risk."

Yes, everyone was well aware of this. The fact that you think it wasn't taken into account shows the shallowness of your thinking.

Of course the lockdown was down stupidly and the reopening is being done equally stupidly. All we need is universal masks when indoors around other people. But no, we're apparently not capable of doing that.

Hmmm, it sure doesn't seem like the leftist governors of several states took that data into account when they sent infected elderly back to nursing homes to infect others (the unnecessary deaths subsequently used by the media to browbeat healthy people into lockdown).

They certainly did. Just saying "doesn't seem like it" doesn't make it so

Just say whatever he wants as if it's true. Very Trumpy.

Agreed, except that "the lockdown was the best solution given what some epidemiologists knew, what the CDC didn't know, and what it did know and prevented, and what the FDA also prevented".

Yes, almost all are learning, and I believe one can buy masks now.

The point is that we should have had known more earlier.

Epidemiological models produced poor results, which was a result of low GRE scores among epidemiologists (and unrelated to the order-of-magnitude error bars around minor inputs like number of infections, infection fatality rate and infectiousness).

If we had let economists write the models instead, we could have made better policy decisions, like in early 2008 when economists had tons of accurate, near-real-time data and were completely united in urging aggressive fiscal and monetary expansion to snuff out the incoming recession.

+1, Steve. Might the initial policy response been better, given the knowledge we already had at the time? Sure. And would the response have been better without the bureaucratic screw-ups around testing? Absolutely. But policy is never about being optimal. It's about being reasonable. And given the stakes in this case, and the enormous shortfalls in knowledge even now, it's about precaution. For example, we still have zero knowledge of the medium- and long-term health consequences for those who recover, and we can't even be sure that infection imparts immunity for any period. So precaution remains in order.

Big picture, you can break risk questions into two situations. In the first, you're looking at the risk to an individual or small group crossing the street. In those situations, you can afford to be wrong because only a few people die if a car meets them at 50 mph in the crosswalk. If you dart across the street to make it to the concert hall before the doors close, therefore, then worst case, only you and maybe your date are dead, plus maybe a few people in the car are hurt. No big deal.

In the second, you're looking at the risk to an huge group of people, such as a country or the entire race, crossing the street. In those situations, you can't afford to be wrong. A lot of people could die, because a lot of people are exposed to the possible car. This is obviously the case with COVID-19. Of course, once you learn better who is more exposed, and once you know more about how to protect the street-crossers, then you can adjust your street-crossing strategy, especially when not crossing is extremely expensive, as it is here.

Also, whenever a strategy is for a group, you need to articulate it in a way that's acceptable to the group. This puts constraints on what you can do. We're facing that now, as a lot of folks--justifiably--are questioning the high-cost aspects of the strategy. What's absurd, however, as well as a character flaw, is overzealous questioning or refusal to follow no-brainer, low-cost aspects of the anti-disease strategy: easy things like wearing a mask when near others in public, keeping extra distance from other folks while conducting business or shopping, or working from home where feasible instead of congregating unnecessarily in an office.

But a waste of time to most of this lot. Too reasonable.

Thanks. The two categories of risk are also why you never, ever put a person with a career in real-estate transactions or the like into political office. Real-estate and similar transactions are squarely in the first category. So over time, a person from that world will, appropriately, develop an attitude for risk that's happily, beautifully profitable in the low stakes of "high-stakes" business dealings--you know, the $500 million dollar office building or $10 billion real-estate fund. That sort of thing. Real money, for sure, but in a totally sandboxed environment. The worst that can happen if you screw up is you lose investors $10 billion, get fired, or go bankrupt. Whatever.

But if you take that category-one attitude into category two... Well, then you have the President.

You have won this thread, congratulations.

+1 Darren. Cheers mate

'Using best practices of gerrymandering, if we draw the boundary big enough, we can still meet the average spacing required by at least one of the guidelines'

Life is beautiful because individuals’ scales of preferences are disparate, ever-changing and utterly unknowable.

the dudes abide man

"We like our odds"

Pretty good.

The average Vegas gambler loses money (otherwise the casinos wouldn't be able to afford their billions in construction and operational costs). So I'm not sure if I'd put a lot of money on the accuracy of the average Vegas gambler's estimates of their odds.

That's exactly the point... people will definitely lose (i.e., the virus is still out there) but they still want to play.

The "gamblers" know the odds and the takeout. They know that someone must win or the there's no business for the casino. The odds are far better than any state or national lottery. A win of less than $600 is untaxed. Shooting craps and playing cards is actually fun. The returns (or losses) are immediate, no waiting around for the share price to go up or a stock split or a merger. No contemplating an eight-figure payoff to some financial wonder that can't figure out how to fix a lawn mower.

This one definitely wins.

Also +1 to Tyler for the funny post amidst all the humorless news.

Why are these folks cheering while entering the place where they lose gobs of money? Is it because people aren't very good at measuring risk, whether the risk is losing money gambling or losing their lives to covid-19? The lockdown was a great success at limiting the spread of covid-19, and people are mad as Hell about it. Reacting to the protestors with violence incites more violence, and Trump and Barr are Hell-bent on escalating the violence, but at least Trump and Barr are reacting reasonably, reasonably for two people who would destroy America in order for the two of them to stay in power.

Not really. As always Trump’s rhetoric is scorching hot and his actions are incomplete, incoherent and avowedly discombobulated....

Yet he’ll get branded as Adolph or Attila the Hunn....

People don’t go to casinos because of the expected ROI. They go because it is fun.

The lockdown did nothing. People would have voluntarily socially distanced and avoided crowds and restaurants. But instead of blanket government dictate, supply and demand would have equilibrated demand for risky activity with supply of risky activity. You can argue for the old people but no amount of externality would have been worse than sending Covid positive elderly and providers back to nursing homes.

And people would have distanced enough anyway, why the heck are you guys still whining about it?

Also, the whole world locked down. And it worked. There would not have been enough voluntary distancing without coordinated government action. And now 2 1/2 months later we are reopening. Why are you folks still bitching?

For an Econ blog, not one person is thinking on the margin. Or really doing anything except flinging shit. Barkley, you’re an Econ prof for f’s sake, and a (deservedly) well known one.

We should know by around 1/1/2021 if the lockdowns were effective on the margin in reducing deaths. We can compare the Japan/Sweden set of policy choices to the rest.

From there the next step will be calculating the cost per QALY, assuming that the sign of the coefficient for “Lockdown” is negative (dependent variable being deaths). There’s a decent chance it’s statistically insignificant

Or whatever, go back to flinging shit

+1, (QALY loss from year end total excess mortality linked fairly safely to the virus) - (QALY loss from excess remaining indoors and future economic cost)?

If "people would have distanced enough anyway, why the heck are you" still arguing there "would not have been enough voluntary distancing without coordinated government action"? Why is it so important to you to assert this?

Because it's not about the lockdown to you and yours; it's about the principle that the government can and should mandate action to people in their "best interests". And on the other side, for "us", it's that this isn't needed, and a government that advises free people to take voluntary action gets it done, well enough to tolerable levels.

The whole world did a lockdown, and it worked. Now we are reopening. And the recovery is going faster than anyone expected so far. Why are you still complaining about what any common sense evaluation would say is mainly good news?

It was a high cost strategy, it may not have been necessary. The costs are still with us. It is authoritarian to try and silence people who still are talking about whether it was the right choice or not.

You can't change the past, and considering how little we knew and how fast things were developing and how the entire world did the same thing...I am sincerely wondering why you keep hammering on this.

And it's hard to imagine that only voluntary distancing would have had as much effect. In fact by definition you are saying we should have distanced less. Not sure how that helps.

We had a temporary shutdown. The government provided plenty of support so no one starved. Jobs are coming back faster than anyone predicted. Bad stuff happens, we deal with it, we learn from it, we move on. You should move on.

If only they had been throwing bricks through those glass doors to light the casino on fire, then they wouldn't be at risk of catching the Deep State Fever.

You can't get the virus indoors if you go in through the window!

"And Yet They are All Wearing Masks"

"In other words, masks are signalling"

The footage is grainy but I don't see many people wearing masks

“It’s called herd immunity for a reason - people behave like a herd of cattle.”

The smug derision from the lockdown Karens in this comment section is very much to be expected, given the demographics, but I appreciate the extra irony you piled on by making a reference to herd mentality. This commentariat gets less self-aware by the day.

You picked up a new smug and derisive putdown I see, "Karen", you must be a SJW eh?

All Lives Matter: and we’re going on tour next year.

Covid has to compete with so many other viruses in Vegas

Group to try to recall Las Vegas Mayor after virus comments

Judge Brandeis called the States "laboratories of democracy".
Well, Nevada is providing a handy petri dish we can all keep our eyes on.

Just like we were keeping our eyes on Georgia, and Florida, and Texas, and Tennessee...

I like to imagine that five years from now when the Deep State Fever is a distant memory the average MR reader will still be cracking his blinds to look out on the street and saying to his long-suffering wife, "Look at these idiots going outside... heh heh heh... They'll be sorry..."

Here in reality, the worldwide lockdown worked, we are now reopening, and you are still whining.

Gdamn, you have a quota or something? We all saw your opinion 6 times already, you don't have to copy pasta to every thread. Quite your troll spamming!

I wish this wasn't the case, but Texas and Florida daily cases are rising. Georgia appears to be as well although I have less data. I hope they can keep it manageable.

It's funny how dissociated from facts all of Shark's comments drift.

Not really for any of them. Testing is rising, but the overall positive rate of those tested is in a long term down trend that holds today for all those states. I don't know how often it takes for the point to sink in, but increased new cases come from increased testing, not necessarily from COVID actually spreading wider. All of those states have been open for over a month without a spike in new cases- how long do we have to wait for you to admit that? Just give us a date, and we won't read your comments again until then.

Nothing bad about rising cases, that's the only way to get to herd immunity. The important question is are we reducing case fatality rates with those new cases, that's the measure of success.

I don’t remember, what is the experts’ stance on heat and the virus?

Hopefully, they’ll get their 15 minutes a day Vitamin D sunlight.

I really want NN Taleb to write the caption for this.
How about: "The tool booth to Extremistan".

My title would be "Adverse Selection"

And yes I know this is a play on the formal definition.

In line
To get
Covid Lottery

They may have more
To lose
Than their money.

If you don't lose your life
You may lose your taste or smell
And then be able
To eat
The Buffet food.

And, when they are over,
And go home,
And shedding the virus
They will be
In your face
Telling you what a great time they had.

Is it a haiku?

Those who ask may know
Those who think they Know may not
And those Who doubt they know are wise
And find the truth by searching Alone
Led by the light of their doubt and not by others

Suggested title: Testing John Cochrane's behavioral SIR model

I take it back -- Vegas is where the DNC will re-launch COVID in September.

Can someone point me in the direction of the literature on risk-aversion among gamblers vs general population?

All news is fake news.

Lots of enthusiasm for making fun of others' risk tolerance.

But no enthusiasm for just reading a couple of papers on NAD+ levels and the PARP10 anti-virus protein. Or just read this human trial in Denmark:

No results yet, right?

I've been taking NR (a vitamin B3 derivative being studied) for more than three years, and I haven't had Covid-19 *once*!

Hmm, gamblers.

So, heroin addicts are the test group for drug safety risk tolerance.

Street racers for the the public's view on speed limits.

And so on.

How about "we hear that if we chant #Black Lives Matter we're immune!

Gretch Whitmer was shoulder-to-shoulder with other "protesters" today. It's pretty clear she knows this isn't real. What a joke. How is anybody supposed to take social distancing seriously anymore? We've moved onto race riots, like we do so many times during the summer.

All of us are now Straussian.

All of us are now Straussian.

What's not real?

TC, glad you didn't do a "model this" or "solve for the equilibrium" for the temporary suspension of all COVID19 guidance for the past week plus due to the protests since many MSM journalists and politicians support going out en masse and violating all the CDC guidance.

You wouldn't want the thought police going after you after all.

I don't have an up to date figure for excess deaths, but it's likely to be considerably more. This means total US death exceeds those from WW1. Total US years of life lost may be more than the Korean War, but that's a more complex calculation.

Total U.S. deaths at 120,000 by July will also exceed the 80,000 flu deaths of 2018/19 season. What's your point? Excess deaths will take time to figure out as that will include increases in suicide and deaths from fear from going to the hospital.

My above comment was meant to be a reply to the 110,000 deaths comment further up. If you are asking what is the point of making comparisons, it's because people find it easier to understand things if you compare them to other things they already know.

People understand flu deaths quite well and are quite similar to Covid-19 deaths in age distribution and time it takes for deaths. Those who were killed in WW1 and the Korean War were over 99% male and an average age in the low 20s. In my state, the average age for dying of Covid-19 has been around 80.

I would have expected the median age to be around the mid 20s. Early 20s seems very unlikely. In 1915 US population was 100 million and 3 million men were inducted. Given the considerable number of exemptions, I don't think it would be possible for the median age to be early 20s. The US simply wouldn't have had enough young adults for that to be possible.

...and yet, it is only 2-3 years of US highway accident deaths, or US suicides. Or less than 2 years of US diabetes deaths. Less than 1 year of Alzheimers or Stroke deaths. Less than ⅓ of annual US cancer or heart disease deaths..... just to put things in perspective, as you say.

The United States has 110,000 highway deaths every 2-3 years? Your country is really bad at a lot of important things, isn't it?

Maybe the maskless crowd figures with less people gambling, their odds are better

Academics and software engineers are the only people in the US who want to and can afford to stay home

Almost any 'white collar' job: lawyers, financial advisors, accountants, doctors (telemedicine), managers, salesmen....

To be fair, unless they are attached to a bailed out bank or major corporation, the neutron bomb for the professional service sector is coming...

Schools are now slashing payroll, state and local governments cutting staff, many medical practices got creamed, anybody who supports restaurants, small retail, or commercial real estate... these are all part of the second wave.

You'll be surprised, others will rise up to provide the services, it's just gonna take a vaccine and some time.

There will be one no doubt major shift: working from home/telemedecine/Zoom working is here to stay. Going forward everyone is going to recalibrate how much they need to come into the office, and as we now know how to do this, it's gonna be huge.

Yes commercial/office real estate is gonna take a bath. But we're gonna have less traffic, driving fatalities, and pollution too. Basically a trend slowly happening got all up in here all at once.

Seems to me like easily manipulated, easily excitable, purely limbic system reacting Trump voters - no rational and intelligent person would go to a casino, let alone in crowds, given the guidance of much more smarter people. Sad!

Darwinism in action!

Good to see the liberal educated elite on the coasts, especially in NYC since that was a CV19 hotspot, are above the fray from frothing at the mouth, reacting on pure emotions, looking for quick fixes, and not huddling in groups as if some large scale petri dish.

Solve for equilibrium? If a reduction in deaths or simple habituation reduces caution, then the spread of the virus will increase until fear results increased caution. If each person who contracts the virus spreads it to an average of more than one other person it will continue to spread until it burns out due to enough people acquiring sufficient immunity, either naturally or from a vaccine. If infections spread quickly and a vaccine or other solution isn't found soon enough, then around half of one percent of the US population may die. That's over one million US citizens.

Nothing changed in 1960s except the Democrats put all the blacks on welfare.

I'd expect something about the low elasticity of demand for one's gambling fix. I'm not a gambler, but I've been told that some people get quite a dopamine rush from it.

Gamblers in all things.

Excuse me? That’s “RISK takers” please. “Gambler” seems so last month.

It’s like “Protester.” Last month protesters were killing grandma. Now we know them to be among the most noble minded, peace loving of our fellow citizens.

I think the caption suggested by Gregory House is best:


Comments for this post are closed