Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

We all know Ron won't keep his promise to stop posting if an argument of his is invalidated. But, in a recent post Ron wrote in response to Adolf Allerbus's argument that killing millions of American would have a severe economic impact said, "Either way your economic argument doesn't work because the majority of deaths from COVID are people who are economic burdens on society."

Ron's argument is invalid for a number of reasons. For one, a majority is not everybody especially when talking about millions of deaths so even going with Ron's flawed logic some substantial portion of deaths destroy human capital Ron deems economically useful.

Ron's argument is further invalidated because contrary to his apparent belief, older workers add value to the economy and boost GDP. About 20% of workers over age 65 have a graduate degree and remain in skilled positions while the rest who remain in the workforce add value in too many other ways to list. People 50 and older also have the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity, creating 33% of new businesses which creates more jobs for younger workers.

Sure nobody likes boomers except boomers (kidding) but many older Americans are economically productive which when combined with the portion of younger people also removed from the work force under a millions of deaths scenario easily invalidates Ron's argument that COVID deaths do not matter economically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ron johnson

Here is a challenge to you or anyone else: Find one post of mine that wasn't valid and I won't post in the thread again.

It should be pretty easy since my views are apparently equivalent to believing the earth is flat.

---

"And I'll take that elevator. If we are talking cold-hearted economics, letting COVID run through the population wouldn't be a bad thing. It's not a flat death rate. It's killing the people that are economic negatives on society, not the young and productive."

The above post is not valid so please don't post in this thread again. Thank you.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...b1&oe=5EFA5939

^^^ I laffed

How it spreads.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/05/23/your-guide-how/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

How it spreads.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/05/23/your-guide-how/

---

Ok. I am done going to gay nightclubs. Thx

Now what are we going to do? Hey, at least the restrooms are considered safer ;)

Back in the eighties rumors were flying around that HIV infection could occur by sitting on a public toilet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

Back in the eighties rumors were flying around that HIV infection could occur by sitting on a public toilet.

---

That’s how my girlfriend got herpes.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK47bp

That’s how my girlfriend got herpes.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

That's what she told you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

You have the right to be a flat earther. But you don’t have the right to your flat earth opinions being respected.

Don’t bother replying. Instead use that time and energy to read the above two sentences until it sinks in. You are not a victim. Quit hoping and praying you can be seen as one.

---

That's one sentence with a period where a comma should be. There are standards--this place is all about proper grammer, speling; and punctuation.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavir...153503886.html
No one doubts Norway's success in bringing the pandemic under control. On Friday, there were just 30 people in hospital with coronavirus and five on a ventilator. Only one person had died all week. The per capita death toll is now 44 per million people, just over a tenth of that seen in neighbouring Sweden, where 4,971 people have died.

But this success has come at a prohibitive social and economic cost. An expert committee charged with carrying out a cost-benefit analysis into the lockdown measures in April estimated that they had together cost Norway 27bn kroner (£2.3) every month. With only 0.7 per cent of Norwegians infected, according to NIPH estimates, there is almost no immunity in the population.

The expert committee concluded last Friday that the country should avoid lockdown if there is a second wave of infections.

"We recommend a much lighter approach," the committee's head, Steinar Holden, an Oslo University economics professor, told the Sunday Telegraph. "We should start with measures at an individual level -- which is what we have now -- and if there’s a second wave, we should have measures in the local area where this occurs, and avoid measures at a national level if that is possible."

Norway's current strategy -- using testing, contact tracing, and home isolation to keep the level of infections down without heavy restrictions -- would be best, the report concluded. But if this 'keep down' strategy fails to prevent a surge in cases, a 'brake strategy' which aims to suppress the rate of transmission but not bring it below 1, would be preferable to a lockdown.

"If it’s necessary to have very strict restrictions for a long time, then the costs are higher than letting the infection go through the population," Holden told the Telegraph. "Because that would be immensely costly."

According to the report, a brake strategy would cost as much as 234bn kroner (£20bn) less than an "unstable keep-down" scenario, if you assume that those infected gain immunity and that no vaccine is developed until 2023. But it would also lead to a little over 3,000 additional deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

That's what she told you.

---

That’s what I told her.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

"If it’s necessary to have very strict restrictions for a long time, then the costs are higher than letting the infection go through the population," Holden told the Telegraph. "Because that would be immensely costly.".

---

I wonder how they define cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

We all know Ron won't keep his promise to stop posting if an argument of his is invalidated. But, in a recent post Ron wrote in response to Adolf Allerbus's argument that killing millions of American would have a severe economic impact said, "Either way your economic argument doesn't work because the majority of deaths from COVID are people who are economic burdens on society."

Ron's argument is invalid for a number of reasons. For one, a majority is not everybody especially when talking about millions of deaths so even going with Ron's flawed logic some substantial portion of deaths destroy human capital Ron deems economically useful.

Ron's argument is further invalidated because contrary to his apparent belief, older workers add value to the economy and boost GDP. About 20% of workers over age 65 have a graduate degree and remain in skilled positions while the rest who remain in the workforce add value in too many other ways to list. People 50 and older also have the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity, creating 33% of new businesses which creates more jobs for younger workers.

Sure nobody likes boomers except boomers (kidding) but many older Americans are economically productive which when combined with the portion of younger people also removed from the work force under a millions of deaths scenario easily invalidates Ron's argument that COVID deaths do not matter economically.

---

I'm not denying that there will be a small % of COVID deaths from economically productive people. The point is that the productive deaths will be overshadowed by the nonproductive deaths and will not result in a severe economic impact like Adolf claimed.

Your 20% of workers over 65 that have a graduate degree and remain in skilled positions is a small subset of the population, and of that subset, and an even smaller % would die from COVID. Beyond that, this small group of people don't have many years left in this productive position.

Why does this subgroup account for a large rate of entrepreneurial activity? Because they have experience and capital. When they die, their savings will be passed on to their heirs who will now have the capital to take on the entrepreneurial risk they otherwise wouldn't have. Even if this entire subgroup were to die from COVID, there would not be a corresponding 33% reduction in new businesses.

Try again guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

We all know Ron won't keep his promise to stop posting if an argument of his is invalidated. But, in a recent post Ron wrote in response to Adolf Allerbus's argument that killing millions of American would have a severe economic impact said, "Either way your economic argument doesn't work because the majority of deaths from COVID are people who are economic burdens on society."

Ron's argument is invalid for a number of reasons. For one, a majority is not everybody especially when talking about millions of deaths so even going with Ron's flawed logic some substantial portion of deaths destroy human capital Ron deems economically useful.

Ron's argument is further invalidated because contrary to his apparent belief, older workers add value to the economy and boost GDP. About 20% of workers over age 65 have a graduate degree and remain in skilled positions while the rest who remain in the workforce add value in too many other ways to list. People 50 and older also have the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity, creating 33% of new businesses which creates more jobs for younger workers.

Sure nobody likes boomers except boomers (kidding) but many older Americans are economically productive which when combined with the portion of younger people also removed from the work force under a millions of deaths scenario easily invalidates Ron's argument that COVID deaths do not matter economically.

---

My father is in his late 70s. He has just an AA. He is still working, and making bank because he has been working with an insurance company for over a decade that is working to move it's database from DOS to the cloud. They skipped the software revolution and my pops is the only guy on the team that understands how the old system works, He has wanted to retire for yers, but they keep paying him more and passing along fat bonuses to keep the dinosaur around. It was supposed to be a 5 year project, but the cloud team of youngsters pricks seems to deem more valuable keep fucking up shit on their end. So pops sticks around to keep the company operating. Fucking old people are totally just a cost to society and we should just be done with them. Right?

It is fucking idiotic to suggest that the best course of action is to just let the old people die in droves. Even if that made economic sense (it does not) or ethical sense (it does not - just identifies you as a selfish asshole) it would over whelm the morgues and we would have rotting bodies to deal with, so it does not make sanitation sense.

But trolls gonna troll and claim it is some sort of opposing view. So please just stop bickering with them. They will eventually go away when they become bored. They are only here to get your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusty

"And I'll take that elevator. If we are talking cold-hearted economics, letting COVID run through the population wouldn't be a bad thing. It's not a flat death rate. It's killing the people that are economic negatives on society, not the young and productive."

The above post is not valid so please don't post in this thread again. Thank you.

---

Saying so doesn't make it so. Prove it.

lol, as predicted Ron breaks his promise by moving the goalpost with his otherwise invalid argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavir...153503886.html
No one doubts Norway's success in bringing the pandemic under control. On Friday, there were just 30 people in hospital with coronavirus and five on a ventilator. Only one person had died all week. The per capita death toll is now 44 per million people, just over a tenth of that seen in neighbouring Sweden, where 4,971 people have died.

But this success has come at a prohibitive social and economic cost. An expert committee charged with carrying out a cost-benefit analysis into the lockdown measures in April estimated that they had together cost Norway 27bn kroner (£2.3) every month. With only 0.7 per cent of Norwegians infected, according to NIPH estimates, there is almost no immunity in the population.

The expert committee concluded last Friday that the country should avoid lockdown if there is a second wave of infections.

"We recommend a much lighter approach," the committee's head, Steinar Holden, an Oslo University economics professor, told the Sunday Telegraph. "We should start with measures at an individual level -- which is what we have now -- and if there’s a second wave, we should have measures in the local area where this occurs, and avoid measures at a national level if that is possible."

Norway's current strategy -- using testing, contact tracing, and home isolation to keep the level of infections down without heavy restrictions -- would be best, the report concluded. But if this 'keep down' strategy fails to prevent a surge in cases, a 'brake strategy' which aims to suppress the rate of transmission but not bring it below 1, would be preferable to a lockdown.

"If it’s necessary to have very strict restrictions for a long time, then the costs are higher than letting the infection go through the population," Holden told the Telegraph. "Because that would be immensely costly."

According to the report, a brake strategy would cost as much as 234bn kroner (£20bn) less than an "unstable keep-down" scenario, if you assume that those infected gain immunity and that no vaccine is developed until 2023. But it would also lead to a little over 3,000 additional deaths.

---

Careful posting stuff like that, you might get kicked out of the club.

Why? I've been making a similar argument, along with plenty of other people, to the one in liv2ski's post here for months and we're still in the club. You haven't brought anything new to the table.

Jesus loves you Ron! Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ottime

My father is in his late 70s. He has just an AA. He is still working, and making bank because he has been working with an insurance company for over a decade that is working to move it's database from DOS to the cloud. They skipped the software revolution and my pops is the only guy on the team that understands how the old system works, He has wanted to retire for yers, but they keep paying him more and passing along fat bonuses to keep the dinosaur around. It was supposed to be a 5 year project, but the cloud team of youngsters pricks seems to deem more valuable keep fucking up shit on their end. So pops sticks around to keep the company operating. Fucking old people are totally just a cost to society and we should just be done with them. Right?

It is fucking idiotic to suggest that the best course of action is to just let the old people die in droves. Even if that made economic sense (it does not) or ethical sense (it does not - just identifies you as a selfish asshole) it would over whelm the morgues and we would have rotting bodies to deal with, so it does not make sanitation sense.

But trolls gonna troll and claim it is some sort of opposing view. So please just stop bickering with them. They will eventually go away when they become bored. They are only here to get your response.

---

Basically the argument against me is highlighting that there is a small % of especially productive older people, while ignoring the economic productivity of the at risk population subset AS A WHOLE.

And I am not suggesting this is the best course of action. I'm speaking strictly to the economics in response to Adolf's claims.

Just food for thought. I don't think one solution fits every region. The greater the social distancing, low population, I would hope for a better outcome with out the draconian lock down protocol. But what do I know? I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night and I sure as hell don't play a Dr. on TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

lol, as predicted Ron breaks his promise by moving the goalpost with his otherwise invalid argument.

---

My response isn't invalid, yours was.

What makes you think I won't keep my word? When have I ever said I would do something and not done it?

Ignore means ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Why? I've been making a similar argument, along with plenty of other people, to the one in liv2ski's post here for months and we're still in the club. You haven't brought anything new to the table.

Jesus loves you Ron! Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.

---

News to me. Seemed like you were pro lockdown.