a 1.5 trillion dollar bailout occurred and no one even noticed

[brainbomb]

On friday 1.5 trillion dollars was poured into the market to prevent collapse. There was no headlines about it. Am I crazy or is this a really bad decision to make before the virus peaks?

[brainbomb]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1584033537

[brainbomb]

Long term financial consequences of Covid will eventually trigger a Restaurant/Food Service bailout to protect corporate and small business eateries from inevitable bankruptcy

[brainbomb]

Youre looking at bailouts and stimulus 3 times larger than 2008,2009 measures

[Randomizer]

The Fed has been protecting an ungrateful Trump for years as he keeps causing economic disasters. This is just one more to prevent the US from going into a depression.

[Randomizer]

The Fed cut interest rates to zero for the first time since 2008 to keep the US surviving Trump's coronavirus mistakes.

[orathaic]

Is it a bailout if it doesn't come from the federal budget/tax payers? Does it just devalue your savings and effectively depress wages?

[brainbomb]

I dont think these people even know what they did or why.

[Randomizer]

Proposed stimulus package to boost the US economy like in past recent cases:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/romney-sugge ... 12364.html

[MajorMitchell]

Lookout gang we've gone over the edge of the abyss, crossed the event horizon and we enter grim & challenging times.
My crude maths comes up with a death toll of between 300 million persons and 800 million from a global population of nine billion.
I predict that between now and Christmas in Trumptoad's USA more fatalities of persons under the age of fifty years will be gun related & not caused directly by Cironavirus but by fear, panic and chaos amongst a nation awash with firearms.

[brainbomb]

yikes

[Octavious]

That is very crude maths, Major :p. Care to show your workings? I'll be surprised if it's much more than 1% of your figures

[orathaic]

That is very crude maths, Major :p. Care to show your workings? I'll be surprised if it's much more than 1% of your figures

Which end of 3-8 million?

[Octavious]

It's all the same order of magnitude. I don't think trying to aim for a more precise figure with current levels of information is particularly useful.

[taylor4]

Chancellor Merkel said (10 March) that 60 to 70% of the German population would be infected.
Extrapolation of a putative Death Toll - go beyond 1918 "Spanish" flu figures to a plague average.
Thucydides had grim anecdotal plague reports (including Pericles' death from the plague).
Is Daniel Defoe the author of JOURNAL OF A PLAGUE YEAR?

[MajorMitchell]

I used my daffy clockwork brain in a well lubricated with whisky condition and did it abstract, so I've just used pen and paper & relatively sober lubricated with tea clockwork brain & new result .. one hundred million dead from nine billion.
Sixty percent infection rate of nine billion is 5.4 billion
Two percent fatalities.. 108 million
Call me sceptical, but I think a 2% death rate globally is optimistic.
But I will revise my estimate to, as a crude rough guestimate.. to between one hundred million and four hundred million. So 2% to 8% of sixty percent of nine billion.
I'm confident that humanity's survival will continue despite coronavirus .. at that crude level, even if half a billion are killed, that still leaves 8.5 billion.

[Octavious]

Unless Australia is hiding an extra billion or two people in the Outback I reckon your starting figure for the global population is a little high. The death rate figures are also wildly inflated by the testing being disproportionately applied to those showing severe symptoms. There is no reliable figure, but it will likely be closer to 0.1%. We'll know more when reliable antibody testing starts being rolled out in the near future.

It's also worth keeping in mind that globally the population is far younger than that of the current virus hotspots, so the impact in the likes of Africa will likely be somewhat milder. And eventually we'll start getting effective treatments online, which will limit the impact over longer time scales.

I don't think we'll get anywhere near half a billion. Although you still have a higher figure for global population after the virus than I do :p

[orathaic]

Also note, China no longer has local infections (ie all jew cases are being brought in by travellers), so suppression methods employed work.

That said, nowhere else has implemented such harsh methods. And most state apparatuses may not be able to effectively impose such measures. Likewise, easing restrictions now opens up China for massive reinfection. They need to lock down everything until an effective vaccine is available (estimates are still at 12-18 months).

Still Imperial College Covid-19 responce team recommended Suppression (not mitigation) for now.

In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we
predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US.

In the UK, this conclusion has only been reached in the last few days, with the refinement of estimates of likely ICU demand due to COVID-19 based on experience in Italy and the UK (previous planning estimates assumed half the demand now estimated) and with the NHS providing increasing certainty around the limits of hospital surge capacity.

We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.

[orathaic]

Other people also reporting on this ICL paper:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6153 ... 18-months/

[Octavious]

Also note, China no longer has local infections (ie all jew cases are being brought in by travellers), so suppression methods employed work.

Again with the Jewish conspiracies, Ora?

In all honesty, considering the vast amount of disinformation spread by the Chinese government throughout this crisis, I will take these numbers with a pinch of salt.

An interesting thing to note about the Imperial College figures is that, whilst death estimates for flu are based on the number of expected deaths above background level, the number of expected deaths for coronavirus are not. In short, a lot of the people expected to die would have been expected to die anyway. I am not a fan of this double counting when quite so much is at stake