The European Union Is Facing Its Worst Recession Ever. Watch Out, World(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The European Union Is Facing Its Worst Recession Ever. Watch Out, World
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/coronavirus-europe-reopening-recession.html
55 comments
Everyone that isn't able to work from home, and lives on the edge of their economies really understands it.
In the US I guess, but in France and AFAIK in most Europe, people are being paid even when they can't work (not 100% of their salaries, but it's still 3/4 of it here in France + benefits for the lower incomes).
I this kind of crisis, what's remain of the welfare state is immensely valuable, too bad many American citizens have been brainwashed by cold war propaganda and consider this as socialism…
I this kind of crisis, what's remain of the welfare state is immensely valuable, too bad many American citizens have been brainwashed by cold war propaganda and consider this as socialism…
> people are being paid even when they can't work
Not in Italy, for example, where a tiny fraction of people got 600 euro (minus tax) for the March period, and for the rest there are loans that could be technically obtained and need to be repaid within 6 years (but the procedure is byzantine).
And the government asked for "an act of love" from the banks (== give money without guarantees) instead of, say, act as guarantor (for the above-mentioned loans, there is some form of guarantee, but not everything).
Also the EU fiscal policy has not changed in practice, so you can't go on a spending spree without facing the consequences later.
I'm not surprised the GDP is expected to drop by 15%. Very tough times ahead.
Not in Italy, for example, where a tiny fraction of people got 600 euro (minus tax) for the March period, and for the rest there are loans that could be technically obtained and need to be repaid within 6 years (but the procedure is byzantine).
And the government asked for "an act of love" from the banks (== give money without guarantees) instead of, say, act as guarantor (for the above-mentioned loans, there is some form of guarantee, but not everything).
Also the EU fiscal policy has not changed in practice, so you can't go on a spending spree without facing the consequences later.
I'm not surprised the GDP is expected to drop by 15%. Very tough times ahead.
Unemployment in the US is currently $600/week, which incidentally is almost exactly the median household income in France. On top of that there’s also state benefits (up to $450/week in California).
And how much of that is going to be spent on COBRA payments to continue your health insurance so you don’t become homeless if you happen to get hit with covid-19?
Depending on your situation, you can get a heavily subsidized plan through the healthcare marketplace (e.g. a bronze Kaiser HMO is ~$300/month for two 55 year olds making 70k) or Medi-Cal, which is free.
State UI + the federal weekly stipend + the one time grant is far more than what the average out of work due to lockdown EU resident will get unless this drags for much longer past June, depending on the state people can be getting as much as $15K between March (backdated to Feb if you lost your job then) and end of June.
While much of the EU has overall much better unemployment benefits these were never tested in a period where so many people could lose their jobs.
While much of the EU has overall much better unemployment benefits these were never tested in a period where so many people could lose their jobs.
Some people are, but we have still seen massive layoffs and many companies going bankrupt.
The structure of support makes things less severe for the average citizen than in the us, but that doesn’t mean we’ve dodged the overall effects on the economy.
The structure of support makes things less severe for the average citizen than in the us, but that doesn’t mean we’ve dodged the overall effects on the economy.
Except the minor detail that when you have low income and bills to pay, not only 3/4 isn't enough, the government doesn't have infinite amount of money for the whole country.
… because the the rest of us lack empathy and are too dumb to be enable to imagine anything that we don't experience ourselves?
I think, just like some comments below mention, it's hard to grasp this when you are not affected by this. Most of the people here have savings or work in fields that are still ok, but there is more to the world than this. I work in a company which now had its best quarter ever, thanks to this situation, as we're focused on things that became all of the sudden very important. I have colleagues that are working remotely, because they just decided that it's a better financial option for them to go back to their home countries, instead of working in a more expensive one, where we are based. They think that everything is fine, were joking that they don't care, while in the same time telling stories how in their home town (Eastern European legacy) the only 2 factories that employed most of the active population are closed and people have a very low income now for over 2 months and it appears that the social impact and the pressure of this might not have good results, so now all of the sudden, when crime rates go up and people are becoming more and more desperate, it's starting to creep on them.
That’s odd, which east european country is that? Most east EU nations have very low covid numbers, and people are still allowed to work. Some factories are indeed closed, but in countries like Romania for instance, where people living on the country still farm chicken and pigs, and those in the city have relatives doing it, food is not really an issue. Also there is a rent freeze, banks suspended mortgages and utilities are delayed. Kicking someone out for not paying rent is also illegal during the pandemic. From what I gather Italy, France and others already have social tensions due to the virus, but haven’t heard about similar issues in east europe.
France had social tension prior to the virus (3 month prior healthcare workers were gassed during a protest). If anything we have less social tension now, but it might be starting to build up too and explode.
And we are more than self-sufficient concerning agricultural product even with the reduced output caused by the pandemic. We could also reduce our meat intake by 10%, doing so would allow us to export as much food as we did in 2019.
And we are more than self-sufficient concerning agricultural product even with the reduced output caused by the pandemic. We could also reduce our meat intake by 10%, doing so would allow us to export as much food as we did in 2019.
Capitalism comes with an embedded growth obligation. At the meta/aggregate level we have already consumed / are consuming the future and our current efforts are to fill the gap with interest.
So unless the top of the pyramid decides we can suspend capitalism for a few months, all the dominoes keep cascading growth obligations downstream and if you can't meet them you are pushed over the edge of the cliff.
So unless the top of the pyramid decides we can suspend capitalism for a few months, all the dominoes keep cascading growth obligations downstream and if you can't meet them you are pushed over the edge of the cliff.
Capitalism isn’t embedded with anything. It’s human desire that is endless and never satisfied.
It’s not capitalism that has Leonardo DiCaprio date multitudes of models in their 20s. It’s not capitalism when Soviet citizens would line up outside of the better armory factories to get their allotment of cutlery.
It’s not capitalism that has Leonardo DiCaprio date multitudes of models in their 20s. It’s not capitalism when Soviet citizens would line up outside of the better armory factories to get their allotment of cutlery.
Europe has already been vulnerable to populism, and this pandemic and the recession to follow will be heavily exploited by far right populists. Also the fact that the EU itself was quite useless through-ought the process will make it an easy target. It will be a difficult few years from this perspective and potentially have geopolitical consequences.
In Netherland, restaurants and cafes can reopen soon, but it has to be by reservation, so the owner can manage occupancy, and no more than 30 people can be inside, including staff. Of course everybody will have to keep 1.5 m distance from each other.
I also know of one restaurant in Amsterdam that is testing a setup that will have individual glass cabins for each table[0]. Many restaurants in Amsterdam, including Michelin-star restaurants, have switched to delivery. We've had some amazing delivery food in the past weeks (though the best required quite a bit of preparation at home).
Simply closing everything down is not sustainable; we need to figure out how to live with this new situation.
[0] https://dutchreview.com/coronavirus/1-5m-society-amsterdam-r...
I also know of one restaurant in Amsterdam that is testing a setup that will have individual glass cabins for each table[0]. Many restaurants in Amsterdam, including Michelin-star restaurants, have switched to delivery. We've had some amazing delivery food in the past weeks (though the best required quite a bit of preparation at home).
Simply closing everything down is not sustainable; we need to figure out how to live with this new situation.
[0] https://dutchreview.com/coronavirus/1-5m-society-amsterdam-r...
Try to compare this sort of logic with what we already know happened with the last financial crisis. Before that crisis, banks lent out a lot of dud loans and people bought too many expensive houses. A lot of the people who ended up being unemployed afterwards were not the people who made bad financial decisions, they were just a regular part of the economy, and the damage lasted for many years. I think if you tried to carry through with the "average of normal + lockdown" logic for the financial crisis, you'd get an unrealistic result: you'd expect the economy to be back to normal fairly soon because all those people who could be working the way they were before the crisis could just show up to work (they can do that work just as well as they could before the crisis, obviously). None of this has anything to do with "fear", this is just what recessions look like.
Just because the system could go back to normal in no way shows that it will, or even that it is likely to, and that's a fundamental feature of recessions. It's like the system as a whole has multiple equilibriums, and which equilibrium it ends up in depends on the history leading up to it: the "average of normal + lockdown" only tries to show that a desirable equilibrium exists and vaguely implies that that's the equilibrium it will end up in. My understanding is that conventional economics and past experience both say that it is far more likely that it won't and that the recession will be as genuine as any other.
Just because the system could go back to normal in no way shows that it will, or even that it is likely to, and that's a fundamental feature of recessions. It's like the system as a whole has multiple equilibriums, and which equilibrium it ends up in depends on the history leading up to it: the "average of normal + lockdown" only tries to show that a desirable equilibrium exists and vaguely implies that that's the equilibrium it will end up in. My understanding is that conventional economics and past experience both say that it is far more likely that it won't and that the recession will be as genuine as any other.
Take a look at this graph of us unemployment over time.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/03/upshot/03up-unemp...
Unemployment always goes up quickly, then takes time to go back down. It’s like any other injury; the damage happens fast, healing takes time.
Given the damage that has already occurred, and the rate that jobs can be added back to the economy, I’d guess that it will be something like 10 years before unemployment goes back down to pre-corona levels. If it just jumps back as soon as the lockdown is lifted, it will be the first time in history that has ever happened.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/03/upshot/03up-unemp...
Unemployment always goes up quickly, then takes time to go back down. It’s like any other injury; the damage happens fast, healing takes time.
Given the damage that has already occurred, and the rate that jobs can be added back to the economy, I’d guess that it will be something like 10 years before unemployment goes back down to pre-corona levels. If it just jumps back as soon as the lockdown is lifted, it will be the first time in history that has ever happened.
Suspect they'll be in good company.
Every percentage drop in per capita GDP is associated with a loss in life expectancy.
The response to the coronavirus pandemic, of mandatory lockdowns of nearly the entire population, for several weeks, may prove to be one of the most egregious cases of self-inflicted social harm the world has ever seen.
The response to the coronavirus pandemic, of mandatory lockdowns of nearly the entire population, for several weeks, may prove to be one of the most egregious cases of self-inflicted social harm the world has ever seen.
It's funny to see you downvoted into the light gray at the time of reading. I mean, You did say "may turn out to be".
It seems as with any partisan issue america jumps on, the party lines are quickly formed, and it's now black or white, you are either for or against.
Your nuance is not appreciated.
It seems as with any partisan issue america jumps on, the party lines are quickly formed, and it's now black or white, you are either for or against.
Your nuance is not appreciated.
I fail to see the nuance. The parent comment is not downvoted for partisan reasons, it is downvoted for stating that the lockdown is directly responsible for the economic issues as if that is obvious, when that is extremely questionable.
The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. Even if the government lifted the lockdown most people will still not consume like they did before. People will not fly like they did before, travel like they did before, eat out like they did before, etc until the root cause is gone.
The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run because it means the root cause is gone sooner. Lifting the lockdown early (or not having a lockdown at all) means the virus will linger around for much longer which means the economy remains in shambles for longer.
You can force people to work, but you cannot force people to consume, and lack of consumption is the main cause of the current economic issues.
The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. Even if the government lifted the lockdown most people will still not consume like they did before. People will not fly like they did before, travel like they did before, eat out like they did before, etc until the root cause is gone.
The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run because it means the root cause is gone sooner. Lifting the lockdown early (or not having a lockdown at all) means the virus will linger around for much longer which means the economy remains in shambles for longer.
You can force people to work, but you cannot force people to consume, and lack of consumption is the main cause of the current economic issues.
>>The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus.
The lockdown undoubtedly magnifies the economic damage, given it prevents many people who would otherwise be working, from working, and businesses that would otherwise be operating, from operating.
The only possible rationale I can imagine you having for believing the economic damage without the lockdowns would be the same/worse is that the virus would have hurt productivity even more than the lockdowns did, by killing workers.
But the virus has an extremely low mortality rate for those of working age, and especially those in good health who are disproportionately represented among the most productive, so I don't know how you could reason that absent the lockdown, productivity might have taken an equivalent or larger hit due to more people being infected.
The lockdown undoubtedly magnifies the economic damage, given it prevents many people who would otherwise be working, from working, and businesses that would otherwise be operating, from operating.
The only possible rationale I can imagine you having for believing the economic damage without the lockdowns would be the same/worse is that the virus would have hurt productivity even more than the lockdowns did, by killing workers.
But the virus has an extremely low mortality rate for those of working age, and especially those in good health who are disproportionately represented among the most productive, so I don't know how you could reason that absent the lockdown, productivity might have taken an equivalent or larger hit due to more people being infected.
Overrun hospitals with refrigerator trucks parked outside to handle all the dead bodies would probably have a similar affect to the lockdowns. People would become very nervous about participating in the economy. Younger individuals and children would die due to lack of hospital resources. And large loss of life would cost quite a bit economically as well.
The IFR of the coronavirus is likely below 1%, and it disproportionately impacts the very old. Many would continue going out and engaging in productive activity, albeit with perhaps more precautions, absent a lockdown.
Looking at the available data, it's highly likely that herd immunity, and the decline in the number of deaths per day, would emerge very quickly, and then most people would carry on with their lives.
Looking at the available data, it's highly likely that herd immunity, and the decline in the number of deaths per day, would emerge very quickly, and then most people would carry on with their lives.
The virus is obviously for some of the economic impact and the lockdown is obviously responsible for some of the economic impact.
There are plenty of cities and counties which have 0 recorded cases which are going on two months of lockdown at this point. Please realize that people are dying in those cities Because of the lockdown, and lives are being destroyed. As you say, The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run, but the root cause will not be eliminated. That does not mean that there couldn’t have been or can’t be a better version of the lockdown that is less destructive
It's hard to see any other course of action when we saw what was happening in Northern Italy. In fact if anything I would say most Western countries didn't lock down early or hard enough.
Countries that ease the lockdown before they have a handle on the virus are in for a lot of pain further down the road. Probably more economic damage as well.
Countries that ease the lockdown before they have a handle on the virus are in for a lot of pain further down the road. Probably more economic damage as well.
As an example, 9 million people die each year due to hunger or hunger-related issues, many of them children. 135 million face food insecurity. Due to lockdowns and recession, the World Food Program estimates the toll will double this year. And hunger is just one cause of death that a recession can lead to (suicides, substance abuse, etc).
Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. And while death is, of course, final, suffering in life should count for something too.
https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-...
Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. And while death is, of course, final, suffering in life should count for something too.
https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-...
> Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives.
That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact; not doing so effectively is a policy choice (and, in practice, a deliberate active one made when the alternative of providing the aid is presented), not an inherent corollary of lockdowns.
That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact; not doing so effectively is a policy choice (and, in practice, a deliberate active one made when the alternative of providing the aid is presented), not an inherent corollary of lockdowns.
> That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact
That seems like a pretty sterile way to describe it.
Right now, in the (presumably) developed US, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food, 3x the amount during 2008. That's a result of years of policy choices, but one particularly policy choice caused it to spike. If there's a resource buffer, it's not buffering.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid...
That seems like a pretty sterile way to describe it.
Right now, in the (presumably) developed US, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food, 3x the amount during 2008. That's a result of years of policy choices, but one particularly policy choice caused it to spike. If there's a resource buffer, it's not buffering.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid...
> Right now, in the (presumably) developed US, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food, 3x the amount during 2008. That's a result of years of policy choices, but one particularly policy choice caused it to spike.
Yes, the policy choice not provide the kind of mass aid (whether directly to citizens or through firms in a way which reasons the mass of the citizenry to protect empmoyment and pay) to the population that pretty much every other industrialized country facing this crisis has, even the ones (like Sweden) without mandatory lockdowns.
The US federal response to COVID-19, both in narrow public health measures and broader, including economic policy, measures (and structurally much of this has to be done at the federal level because of the way state and federal financing works) has been nothing short of mass murder by depraved indifference.
Yes, the policy choice not provide the kind of mass aid (whether directly to citizens or through firms in a way which reasons the mass of the citizenry to protect empmoyment and pay) to the population that pretty much every other industrialized country facing this crisis has, even the ones (like Sweden) without mandatory lockdowns.
The US federal response to COVID-19, both in narrow public health measures and broader, including economic policy, measures (and structurally much of this has to be done at the federal level because of the way state and federal financing works) has been nothing short of mass murder by depraved indifference.
Life expectancy correlates strongly with per capita GDP in the developed world.
The losses in GDP caused by lockdowns will therefore very likely have a cost in lives in the developed world too.
The losses in GDP caused by lockdowns will therefore very likely have a cost in lives in the developed world too.
> Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. And while death is, of course, final, suffering in life should count for something too.
The choice between "saving people" vs "economy" is a false choice. Lockdowns might help the economy more in the long run. People that live in fear of the virus will not consume, and lockdowns reduce the amount of time that the virus is out there.
You can force people to go back to work, but you can't force people to consume.
The choice between "saving people" vs "economy" is a false choice. Lockdowns might help the economy more in the long run. People that live in fear of the virus will not consume, and lockdowns reduce the amount of time that the virus is out there.
You can force people to go back to work, but you can't force people to consume.
> Lockdowns might help the economy more in the long run.
It might. We're not really sure. Either way, I think OP has a good point. It is not entirely impossible that we do the lockdown, still same number of people die and we also grind economic activity to a halt leading to other kinds of shortages. If this is what will happen, then the lockdown is a would be a bad choice. Sweden actually is banking on this. They might be wrong, but it's not an entirely crazy stance, there is a reasoning behind it.
It might. We're not really sure. Either way, I think OP has a good point. It is not entirely impossible that we do the lockdown, still same number of people die and we also grind economic activity to a halt leading to other kinds of shortages. If this is what will happen, then the lockdown is a would be a bad choice. Sweden actually is banking on this. They might be wrong, but it's not an entirely crazy stance, there is a reasoning behind it.
Those are not opposing viewpoints though.
Given what we saw in North Italy it would have been foolish not to go to lockdown imo.
But with hindsight we might still assess it was the wrong measure.
Given what we saw in North Italy it would have been foolish not to go to lockdown imo.
But with hindsight we might still assess it was the wrong measure.
But with hindsight we might still assess it was the wrong measure.
I suspect we will be debating that for years or even decades.
I suspect we will be debating that for years or even decades.
The other course of action was what South Korea did: mass testing and contact tracing. South Korea didn't lock down the entire society.
As for getting a handle on the virus, it's entirely possible that only herd immunity will do that, and the countries delaying that happening with lockdowns are just delaying the inevitable while incurring unnecessary economic damage in the process.
As for getting a handle on the virus, it's entirely possible that only herd immunity will do that, and the countries delaying that happening with lockdowns are just delaying the inevitable while incurring unnecessary economic damage in the process.
It's false choice. This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right. For example, Sweden will not be ok economically.
We have already 0.1 million dead.
EU has 445 million people, so more than 1 million can still die 445(1000^2)0.5*0.5%
There is also question about long term health of people who got COVID-19. Based on Japanese study on Grand Princess passengers [0] and some 6 divers [1] all with mild cases from Germany around 50 to 80% of people seem to have damage to the lungs visible on CT scans after mild symptomatic or even asymptomatic infection. Two of the divers had significant oxygen deficiency when doing physical exercise after 5-6 weeks of recovery. The guess of the doctor who was inspecting them is that this is permanent damage that may take years to recover if ever.
[0] https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110
[1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
We have already 0.1 million dead.
EU has 445 million people, so more than 1 million can still die 445(1000^2)0.5*0.5%
There is also question about long term health of people who got COVID-19. Based on Japanese study on Grand Princess passengers [0] and some 6 divers [1] all with mild cases from Germany around 50 to 80% of people seem to have damage to the lungs visible on CT scans after mild symptomatic or even asymptomatic infection. Two of the divers had significant oxygen deficiency when doing physical exercise after 5-6 weeks of recovery. The guess of the doctor who was inspecting them is that this is permanent damage that may take years to recover if ever.
[0] https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110
[1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
> This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right.
Doesn't around 0.8% of the population die each year normally? So at worst (everyone infected) we'd have a year or two where all-cause mortality roughly doubles (concentrated in people 65+ year olds)? That's a big increase and by no means easy to handle, but surely that shouldn't end or stop the economy like you're claiming.
Doesn't around 0.8% of the population die each year normally? So at worst (everyone infected) we'd have a year or two where all-cause mortality roughly doubles (concentrated in people 65+ year olds)? That's a big increase and by no means easy to handle, but surely that shouldn't end or stop the economy like you're claiming.
We don't need to speculate - it is happening in Belarus. Sweden is quite close to a lock-down, but Belarus is far away from a lock-down. Lukaszenko is advising sport, especially on ice and vodka to fight off the virus.
Still, Belarus mobility statistics according to Google [0] are:
Retail & recreation: -16%
Transit stations: -20%
Workplaces: -25%
Their economic activity is certainly reduced right now. People do not want to expose themselves even if their leaders are downplaying it. BTW - Belarus was probably prepared the best in the world for pandemic with 11 beds per 1000 people vs. 5.8 beds per 1000 people in EU in 2010 [2].
So entering speculation again, IMF is projecting 6% GDP contraction in Belarus [1].
Another data point is Open Table (restaurants reservations) data [3] from USA. Most of the drop in reservations happened before lock-down. People decided to not go on their own - on average 73% down before restaurants were ordered to close. My prediction is that up-tick in states that are opening right now will be very small as well.
[0] https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobil...
[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR
[2] https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=...
[3] https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png
Still, Belarus mobility statistics according to Google [0] are:
Retail & recreation: -16%
Transit stations: -20%
Workplaces: -25%
Their economic activity is certainly reduced right now. People do not want to expose themselves even if their leaders are downplaying it. BTW - Belarus was probably prepared the best in the world for pandemic with 11 beds per 1000 people vs. 5.8 beds per 1000 people in EU in 2010 [2].
So entering speculation again, IMF is projecting 6% GDP contraction in Belarus [1].
Another data point is Open Table (restaurants reservations) data [3] from USA. Most of the drop in reservations happened before lock-down. People decided to not go on their own - on average 73% down before restaurants were ordered to close. My prediction is that up-tick in states that are opening right now will be very small as well.
[0] https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobil...
[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR
[2] https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=...
[3] https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png
Your statistics don't support your position, that people's natural reaction to the virus would reduce economic productivity as much as the lockdown does.
The economy CAN function when people are dying left and right. It functions every year, with a huge percentage of the population suffering this sort of personal tragedy.
Of course, activity will decline even in the absence of a lockdown, but far less than if nearly the entire population is forced to shelter-at-home for an indeterminant length of time (all the while failing to build herd immunity).
Of course, activity will decline even in the absence of a lockdown, but far less than if nearly the entire population is forced to shelter-at-home for an indeterminant length of time (all the while failing to build herd immunity).
The economy could function, indeed, but they don't seem to [0], certainly not on the baseline level. Human psychology that allowed our ancestors to survive even more deadly plagues is at work here.
And people are correct in their everyday choices, herd immunity is just wrong when you have no idea what this virus actually does to people and you can afford to not get sick. If indeed 50% of people including young and middle age asymptomatic/mild cases of COVID-19 lead to permanent lung damage (we don't know!), then "herd immunity" means destroying health of the population, while killing millions at the same time. We are certain that people needing intrusive ventilation will need years to go back to fully normal life, but they may never recover full health.
And I agree, maybe USA, Africa and India can not afford to suppress the virus. Starvation will very likely be bigger killer in those countries. I was and I still am especially worried about India, because I don't see how they could stop exponential spread even with full lock-down. Social distancing is just impossible there. And they have millions upon millions of people that have to work to eat. Thankfully, India seems to be easing lock-down.
But EU economies certainly can afford lock-down. Even Swedish people paid and are paying heavy economical price to stop the exponential growth. But we did suppress the virus, now we can go back to sort of normal life and keep things under control.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922
And people are correct in their everyday choices, herd immunity is just wrong when you have no idea what this virus actually does to people and you can afford to not get sick. If indeed 50% of people including young and middle age asymptomatic/mild cases of COVID-19 lead to permanent lung damage (we don't know!), then "herd immunity" means destroying health of the population, while killing millions at the same time. We are certain that people needing intrusive ventilation will need years to go back to fully normal life, but they may never recover full health.
And I agree, maybe USA, Africa and India can not afford to suppress the virus. Starvation will very likely be bigger killer in those countries. I was and I still am especially worried about India, because I don't see how they could stop exponential spread even with full lock-down. Social distancing is just impossible there. And they have millions upon millions of people that have to work to eat. Thankfully, India seems to be easing lock-down.
But EU economies certainly can afford lock-down. Even Swedish people paid and are paying heavy economical price to stop the exponential growth. But we did suppress the virus, now we can go back to sort of normal life and keep things under control.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922
The voluntary reduction in economic activity is far less disruptive, and extreme, than the mandatory reduction caused by indiscriminate lockdowns.
When voluntary, each individual can judge whether a particular activity should be continued based on their own circumstances and the particularities of that activity, and give up those activities that provide the least economic return relative to risk incurred.
A cookie-cutter rule OTOH has no such intelligence, and leads to a massive amount of waste, from critical activity being prevented that would have provided a large risk-adjusted social benefit.
When voluntary, each individual can judge whether a particular activity should be continued based on their own circumstances and the particularities of that activity, and give up those activities that provide the least economic return relative to risk incurred.
A cookie-cutter rule OTOH has no such intelligence, and leads to a massive amount of waste, from critical activity being prevented that would have provided a large risk-adjusted social benefit.
If you mean in the context of Swedish deaths, those are 2,900 or so deaths, not 0.1 million.
Edit: I interpreted the number to be in the context of Sweden, as it was mentioned just in the sentence prior. Reply updated to make that clear.
Edit: I interpreted the number to be in the context of Sweden, as it was mentioned just in the sentence prior. Reply updated to make that clear.
So, to clarify the number refers to the whole EU (without UK).
Currently there are little bit more than 0.1 million reported deaths across the EU.
And as I was saying, in the best case scenario, based on the current data [0] 1 million more could die if people would live their lives normally.
But people would not live normally as they do not in Sweden or Belarus and economies would be in downfall anyway.
The difference would be in the number of deaths, long term health issues, as well as in the length of the crisis - probably more like 2 years, or until herd immunity trough vaccination.
[0] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.pn...
Currently there are little bit more than 0.1 million reported deaths across the EU.
And as I was saying, in the best case scenario, based on the current data [0] 1 million more could die if people would live their lives normally.
But people would not live normally as they do not in Sweden or Belarus and economies would be in downfall anyway.
The difference would be in the number of deaths, long term health issues, as well as in the length of the crisis - probably more like 2 years, or until herd immunity trough vaccination.
[0] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.pn...
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... - you're a couple orders of magnitude off the actual death toll.
I may have interpreted the post I responded to incorrectly to be in the context of Swedish numbers, since Sweden was mentioned in the sentence prior to the number that was cited. I have updated my response accordingly.
The lockdown was a necessity for countries healthcare systems to cope with the amount of people requiring care. Not doing so would have been self-inflicted social harm too, not only for people requiring healthcare because of COVID-19 but also for people requiring healthcare from other diseases.
They were a necessity in some places like NYC and parts of Europe, but in many other places, lockdown began before the virus spread there and the hospitals have been gaping empty while lockdown continues. The original tactic was "flatten the curve" to keep cases where the healthcare system could handle them, but that tactic has been changed to "get cases down to the level where we can test & trace down to zero". Sweden appears to be the only country sticking to the original flatten the curve plan, they've been keeping their R hovering around 1, staying about 20% under ICU capacity.
Original report and PR:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
And the rest of the world not?
How about we call it what it is, a Depression.
And let people make the argument if "it's just a Recession Bro"
What time line do people expect for this to be "just a Recession"?
When do people expect business to stop being legally stopped from opening and people wanting to use them across the world. So when will all borders reopen for instance? Vaccines might be 2 years. So this is the best case, the world let's C19 run it's natural course.
Then after that, we will have to pull out of a global financial slump.
We have both a lack of financial confidence combined with a fear of a virus to deal with.
And let people make the argument if "it's just a Recession Bro"
What time line do people expect for this to be "just a Recession"?
When do people expect business to stop being legally stopped from opening and people wanting to use them across the world. So when will all borders reopen for instance? Vaccines might be 2 years. So this is the best case, the world let's C19 run it's natural course.
Then after that, we will have to pull out of a global financial slump.
We have both a lack of financial confidence combined with a fear of a virus to deal with.
Of course I'am worried about what's next, because when we are reopening not everything will reopened (tourism, restaurants, and many things are going to stay closed for a looong time) and then we will see long-term damage. But the current figures just sounds like a calculation artifact to me.
Edit: in fact, I'm even worried that the fear around the “artificial recession” is going to create a real one: many countries are currently reopening because they are afraid of the recession, but it's way too early so they won't reopen completely and they may even face a “second wave” which could probably have been avoided if the lockdown was sustained enough to eradicate the disease in the country.