CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

You're kind of presenting two caricatures. Life isn't like an Ayn Rand novel where people fall into two categories of either noble productive members of society or moochers. You can find example but many people are in the middle. There are hard-working, decent people who just don't have much, and lazy assholes who have gotten lucky or inherited money.

Unfortunately when you have in your head that there are all these "Case A" types, you tend to only see that.

For many people it's a mixed bag. I'm self-employed and run a small business. But on the other hand, I have fixed employees (employed indirectly through a services company with others) and will never need more because of the nature of my work. If you gave me a stimulus package I wouldn't change my behaviour. It'd probably just go on my fixed expenses which aren't going away over the next few months no matter what happens. The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

---

Indeed. The stimulus isn't designed to benefit the recipient - it's to benefit the businesses that they patronise, which helps keep their employees working, which means the Govt gets income tax instead of paying out more unemployment benefits. Very simple economics really, and only requires a modicum of thought.

There is a very good reason why $750 won't be going out until March 31st, and it's part political and part "crowd control" for want of a better expression. It means that it will be spent in the second quarter which will boost GDP in that quarter. The presumption is that the current quarter is going to be -ve growth, so stack it up with negativity and try to keep the next quarter +ve.

That way, a technical recession is avoided (at least for the time being) which means that Smirko can beat his political chest (the part political reason) but also more importantly keep us in a mindset we we don't have to live through a recession - because they are essentially a state of mind brought on by a loss of confidence. The stock market is just the same - confidence/herd mentality driven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Do you honestly believe all those people we've seen assaulting old people in the supermarkets fighting over toilet rolls are "the wealthy"?

---

What old people being assaulted? I've not heard of any. We've all seen the edited footage of those dickheads fighting over bumroll. We never did see what the start of that ridiculous scene was - what did the single person do to the selfish mother and daughter in the first place, if anything? Did she just walk over to their trolley and try to take a packet out. All unknown, and none of them would be classified as old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

You're kind of presenting two caricatures. Life isn't like an Ayn Rand novel where people fall into two categories of either noble productive members of society or moochers. You can find example but many people are in the middle. There are hard-working, decent people who just don't have much, and lazy assholes who have gotten lucky or inherited money.

Unfortunately when you have in your head that there are all these "Case A" types, you tend to only see that.

For many people it's a mixed bag. I'm self-employed and run a small business. But on the other hand, I have fixed employees (employed indirectly through a services company with others) and will never need more because of the nature of my work. If you gave me a stimulus package I wouldn't change my behaviour. It'd probably just go on my fixed expenses which aren't going away over the next few months no matter what happens. The economy would probably be better off objectively if the money went to someone on the dole who spent it in local businesses.

---

Yes of course I understand there are different scenarios but if I was to try to cover them all it would be ridiculous so I've limited my examples to caricatures as you have correctly identified. Essentially that is to pick out extremes of each example. Essentially the question is if this was the choice who would you pick? And the answer (so far) seems to be the moochers who will spend it on themselves (buying from the bottleshop owners, corporate supermarket owners, travel agents etc. the very people you say you wouldn't give it to) vs. the Case B who may spend it on buying more employees who would benefit more and spread the money wider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

the moochers who will spend it on themselves (buying from the bottleshop owners, corporate supermarket owners, travel agents etc. the very people you say you wouldn't give it to)

---

I think that says more about a certain attitude than it does about the people you "describe". Maybe fundamental economics isn't your go, but low income earners spending the money immediately is keeping people employed. Now is NOT the time to try to expand a business with more employees. Now is the time for businesses to try to survive as best they can.

So yeah, people should spend the money on themselves, whether they are unemployed, under-employed, disabled, old, or just moochers. The $750 is only available to welfare recipients and other people receiving Govt payments (6.5mill people).

I know some people who can be very lazy sometimes, and indeed a lot of the time, but I don't think it's helpful writing people off as "moochers". I know people who have jobs that just don't make much money, and (at my stage in life) often have young kids which means re-training or going back to uni just isn't an option.

Unless there is a miracle cure out of nowhere, this is an unprecedented issue and the economics are complicated. I think you missed the point of Case B. If they're given a stimulus they may not spend more because they're already spending what they need. The people who might spend money they wouldn't otherwise may be the people who have no choice.

Your Case B types might even end up better off, because if they can weather the storm they might be able to snatch up assets like shares and property when the price is low and make a killing, like some did during the GFC. Someone bought all the shares that were sold at the bottom of the market and then lurched back up.

I can understand the view about the morality of it all. But it's not the tale of the ant and the grasshopper. The point of a stimulus isn't to reward moral behaviour but avoid an even worse recession.

Back on topic.

Three days ago Australia had round 300 cases of COVID19, and it's well know the doubling rate appears to be ~3 days
OK its been 3 days and here we are today with 636 cases.

The numbers we see today are because of (a lack of) decisions made around 2 weeks ago.
Projecting that forward, unless something drastic is done today, in 2 weeks time we will have ~20,000 people with this virus.

I guess this is what we get when we let Pollies be in charge of a Public Medical Crisis.

What do you suggest as being "something drastic"

Crown still open, <yt-formatted-string force-default-style="" class="style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="word-break: break-word;">You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany</yt-formatted-string>

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

---

Just had a look at your #279 post and yes it's drastic and yes I believe you're on the money.

BobL for PM!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

---

We will see that the definition of non-essential gets stretched for those with affluence and money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

BobL for PM!

---

None of these suggestions are original - they all come from epidemiologists less tainted by political pressure.
It's a war and and until the pollies give the reins completely to the experts there will continue to be compromised decisions.
WA just had its biggest reported jump in numbers of (17) cases for one day and only 4 of these can be traced to overseas travellers - this means 13 are from community transmission.
"Road blocks on the state border on both ends of Highway 1" I say!

Wait - one day please :D - my "recovering from cancer bro" is, as I write, setting out from Melb to drive to WA.

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Do people honestly believe that the more money you accumulate the worse you become as a human being? If you are an A hole and come into a bit of money you are then a rich A hole.......it is that simple

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 44Ronin

We will see that the definition of non-essential gets stretched for those with affluence and money.

---

Yeah always a problem - that probably what's happened in Italy but we have start somewhere.
There's already been some talk about internal tourists, especially grey nomads, being prime carriers as well as potentially clogging up the regional hospitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Do people honestly believe that the more money you accumulate the worse you become as a human being? If you are an A hole and come into a bit of money you are then a rich A hole.......it is that simple

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

---

Nothing too mysterious about it, just plain old human envy. He's got more than me - not fair! It doesn't apply to everyone but it certainly applies to some. Why do they get the stimulus package? Because they have learnt to work the system. They manage to insinuate themselves among the genuinely needy whom no one would deny a helping hand.

Those who've lost their jobs and still need to pay the rent? Collateral damage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it?

---

A few years back I asked my mate who has been a tree surgeon for about 40 years, who are the most difficult clients to get payments from and he said it's mostly from those who have too little or too much. The ones who have too little he has some sympathy, for but the ones who have too much he is quite disparaging about as they usually have no excuse and it's not like they paid any more. In fact they were usually very bargainers and usually paid less. When the financial climate was positive, and he had more work than he could poke a chainsaw at, for a while he even stopped performing tree surgery in some of the wealthier/riverside suburbs of Perth. Sorry, too busy mate.

Another mate who was a cabinet maker told me the same thing and several large jobs nearly sent him broke over dragged out non payments. He said the wealthier the clients were the longer it took to get the payments out of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Nothing too mysterious about it, just plain old human envy. He's got more than me - not fair! It doesn't apply to everyone but it certainly applies to some. Why do they get the stimulus package? Because they have learnt to work the system. They manage to insinuate themselves among the genuinely needy whom no one would deny a helping hand.

Those who've lost their jobs and still need to pay the rent? Collateral damage...

---

I agree but lets be careful we don't apply the same broad brush as the other blokes.
Amongst these so called "bludgers there are many many pensioners, sole parents, disabled and genuine cases that need to be treated with dignity and respect, and not derision.
Like wise I have every sympathy for the genuine small business owner who has given it a red hot go and has a large debt with a bank and this virus causes him to go belly up and I really do hope the pollies do something for them.

The quality of our society in these times will be judged by how well we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.

Reading through this thread tonight, I couldn’t help but ponder something.

We are handing out money at a time that some people seem to have a new toilet paper collection hobby.

You have to wonder if the release of the money will create more chaos. I hope those in charge have considered this outcome and don’t hand out all the money at once.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Well, after 6 odd weeks of significantly reduced worldwide industrial activity, especially in China, and more recently significant reductions in air transport, the measurements are starting to come in. ~20% reduction in NOx and ~25 % reduction in CO2. Plus fish appearing for the first time in decades in venetian canals! - although the locals say this is just cos the crud has settled out of the water so the fish can be seen.
It will be interesting to see the PM2.5 data when it becomes available (which BTW kills millions of people each year)
This all has to continue for some time to have a significant effect but maybe the net death rate from COVID-19 will not be as much as we thought? :D

"~25 % reduction in CO2"

I'll be watching closely as the temperature drops :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forrestmount

You have to wonder if the release of the money will create more chaos. I hope those in charge have considered this outcome and don’t hand out all the money at once.

---

It's from March 31st, so it won't be all at once. With a bit of luck the panic buying & hording will settle down when people start seeing that they have clearly bought too much stuff and it is still being replenished on the shelves. Maybe a week or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status.

---

Agreed. Some people just have a mindset about stigmatised groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

---

As far as I know there are measures being put into place to help people who are losing their jobs - bearing in mind that the situation is extremely fluid, and with low viscosity to boot.

As far as people on welfare already being catered for - you might have to try living on unemployment benefits and paying rent to get a full understanding. How would your lifestyle be if you got ~$500 out of which you had to pay say $250 rent leaving $250 for everything else? The reason they are targeted for stimulus packages is because it is widely known that life on welfare means a frugal life, and any extra money that comes along gets spent almost immediately - which is exactly the goal of a stimulus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

---

I'm not a financial genius, but I thought they were giving cash to those already supported by the system because they won't "need" the cash and therefore will buy themselves a new TV. It's seems to be the same idea behind cutting payroll tax for SME's and also giving small biz up to $25k. It's all about keeping business in business. If the government gave me $750, I would put it in the bank in case I lost my job. If I lost my job, well at least I have $750 to cover about 2 weeks worth of mortgage repayments, but paying back my mortgage doesn't prop up small biz.

Kuffy, do I recall you saying you hang our sometimes at Crown Casino?

Yeah, but no more than about 15 hours per week :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

Yeah, but no more than about 15 hours per week :D

---

Then can you confirm <yt-formatted-string force-default-style="" class="style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="word-break: break-word;">You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany? :-)</yt-formatted-string>

Awww, that seems so mean. How about I say, on a Friday night, there are lots of people there to have a good time. However on a Tuesday morning at 3am.......ahhh ummmm...woops my internet cut out so I can't share my opinion of the "people" there at that time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

Awww, that seems so mean. How about I say, on a Friday night, there are lots of people there to have a good time. However on a Tuesday morning at 3am.......ahhh ummmm...woops my internet cut out so I can't share my opinion of the "people" there at that time

---

I was quoting someone else so he may have been referring to the 3am crowd (which I'm sure you've only been told about :-). In any case I think I need to go and see myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

In any case I think I need to go and see myself!

---

I'll just leave this here and make my way to the naughty corner :D
Attachment 470160

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

I'll just leave this here and make my way to the naughty corner :D
Attachment 470160

---

Make sure it’s been disinfected first, stand in the corner minimum 1500 mm from anyone else in there too please.

Cheers Matt

Back on track...

Did I read correctly today that we have had only six deaths in Australia? That's less than 1%?

Yep 6 deaths on 568 cases...each death is a tragedy but compared to many other countries , our good health system seems to be coping and giving the critical ones every chance of surviving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Back on track...

Did I read correctly today that we have had only six deaths in Australia? That's less than 1%?

---

Correct, Lots of countries have about the same number of cases but even less deaths.
eg Norway 1400/3 , Canada 560/1, Portugal 642/2
Low death rates calculated today are a result of deaths usually occurring about 2 weeks after infections.
So of the 300 new infections that are detected in the last 3 days those that will die from this will happen in about 2 weeks time.

To get a better indication we should be dividing total deaths today, by infection rate about two weeks ago which was only 66 infections - not looking so good now eh!

And as soon as you run out of ventilators, for serious case it takes off and its less than a week till death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Correct, Lots of countries have ABOUT the same number of cases and even less deaths.
This is because deaths usually occur about 2 weeks after infections.
eg Norway 1400/3 , Canada 560/1, Portugal 642/2

And as soon as you run out of ventilators, for serious case it takes off and its less than a week till death.

---

So when do you estimate we'll see some serious numbers of deaths? Two weeks time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tccp123

So when do you estimate we'll see some serious numbers of deaths? Two weeks time?

---

Depends what you means by serious,
Germany had 349 cases 14 days ago and now have 13 deaths total ie death rate of. ~3%
if the "real" death rate is 3%, (like Germany) then in two weeks we should be seeing ~18 deaths a day.

Two weeks ago Australia had 66 infectees and today we have 5 deaths - that's a rate of 7.5% - ie not so good.

The numbers for Italy are scary weird - 2 weeks ago they only had 3100 infected and today have total of nearly 3000 deaths, that's a theoretic death rate of almost 100%
What this probably means is that a) they have not measured the real infections rates any where close to reality and b) they have run out of ventilators and are unfortunately leaving people over 60 to die. This means they die in a few days so the numbers that die greatly increases.
What we should be doing to get a death rate is comparing with numbers of infectees maybe 5 days ago, its still a high death rate.

Death rates strongly depends how well we can keep it out of nursing homes and retirement villages.
In Italy a lot of seniors live at home with their families
This is why I think it is completely daft for Aussie seniors to be going shopping en masse for sunny rolls like they have been.
And why seniors villages should be locked down now - my doc says seniors (like me) can live on very little food and could benefit from losing a bit of weight :D

Please note I am not an expert epidemilologist - these are just my interpretations of the numbers.

As has been mentioned before, comparing, and even trying to calculate death rates is an extremely imprecise science. The number of deaths can certainly be ascertained. The number of infections is a completely rubbery set of figures with way too many holes in it for accuracy - starting with how honest the reporting of the country is (Iran, Russia, probably China) and then going out into all the furry stuff like how many test kits are available, do the kits work properly, age of population, where they live as old people (as Bob referred to) and so on and so forth.

Especially in these relatively early days it is pretty pointless trying to extrapolate how many deaths we will see here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As has been mentioned before, comparing, and even trying to calculate death rates is an extremely imprecise science. The number of deaths can certainly be ascertained. The number of infections is a completely rubbery set of figures with way too many holes in it for accuracy - starting with how honest the reporting of the country is (Iran, Russia, probably China) and then going out into all the furry stuff like how many test kits are available, do the kits work properly, age of population, where they live as old people (as Bob referred to) and so on and so forth. .

---

I agree and is probably why the South Korean rate is so low. Remember they peaked nearly 3 weeks ago. They tested lots of people so probably have the most reliable numbers of infections. Two weeks ago they had a total of 5800 infected and today have 84 deaths so 1.6% death rate. But the also went into lock down early and did a lot more testing and tracking than anyone else except perhaps Singapore who currently have 313 infected and no deaths.

The US have got serious issues - two weeks go they only had 150 reported cases and today they have close to 100 deaths. The deaths are real so this is almost certain classic underreporting of infects. If the "real death rate is ~3% then when 2 weeks ago when they thought they had 150 infects they probably had closer to 3000! Working forwards with a 3 day doubling then today when they think they have 7000 infects they really have ~48000! They know all this and is why certain US cities are going into lockdown.

But all very rubbery!