I think this is going to be the fundamental issue - the supply chain. We will see a cascading impact to all businesses that will hit earnings and potentially impact the market further.
I try not to be an alarmist, but I feel this could drive us into a recession.
Maybe in a way but I was not intending it that way. I meant more, it is deadlier for people who currently do not contribute as much to GDP (retired/disabled for example) so long-term global growth should not be impacted as much as say if it was deadlier for kids or teens. But short term, other issues like supply chain will have a significant impact.
On my oath, when I wrote that I had not read this piece from Wired . . . which is nearly a month old:
The Coronavirus Is a Threat to the Global Drug Supply
You probably should read the article if you are dependent on medications, or if people who rely on you are in that situation. Here is a pull quote:
“All it takes is one plant to shut down to cause a global shortage. That’s because there’s such concentration of global production in China,” says Rosemary Gibson, author of China Rx and a strong advocate for rebuilding domestic capabilities.
“This is a warning to the United States and other countries,” she adds. “If you have a supply chain concentrated in a single country, no matter what country it is, that’s a risk of epic proportions.”
Of course a month ago we all had the hope this coronavirus event would by now be coming under control. That does not appear to be the case, quite the contrary, so this might be a good time to give consideration to supply continuity regarding any medication(s) upon which you or a loved one are dependent.
Yes, the 2% often referred to is “overall”*. Almost twice as fatal for men than women. and ~15% for over 80 (I don’t know if that means close to 10% for women over 80 and 20%+ for men over 80).
Numbers are much lower for lower age groups.
*still some issues, such as: mild cases and asymptomatic are unlikely to be found except some exceptions, etc, etc. Plus there’s probably fatalities not reported or not reported as connected to covid19, as well, since there’s NOT testing for every person who dies from a respiratory complication.
Japan and perhaps Germany are now looking at a recession. Technically, you need two consecutive quarters of negative growth to declare a recession. So, the USA is less likely to declare a recession this (election) year.
As the coronavirus selloff continues apace, El-Erian is this morning cautioning against buying back in too early:
The virus is also kicking the tar out of interest rates . . . as if we did not already have sufficient woe in that realm.
#MeToo revenge. 
Even mother nature’s bought into it.
Although that’s probable and in China’s case, by design, I suspect there are a lot more people who are infected that are not reported. Thus, I think the overall mortality rate will probably end up being well less than 2%.
We’re fucked https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/dow-futures-fall-after-microsoft-issues-coronavirus-warning.html
That was posted three days ago. Today this appeared:
Coronavirus could lead to drug shortages in US
Here is a pull quote:
“We don’t want people to panic,” Jacobson said, but “patients might try to position to have a couple months ahead just in case. We do have to recognize that if everybody tried to do that, it would exacerbate the problem, but that’s what I would have my family do.”
I did go ahead on Monday and re-order my prescriptions. No second thoughts. They will keep. Bird in the hand.
I’m not sure how any person could write “on the positive side” and “if a billion people die,” in the same sentence. The climate change religion has really messed people up. How many people does climate change kill each year? None. How many are predicted to die because of climate change? If they don’t stand in the ocean up to their neck for the next hundred years, none.* How can a billion deaths be a positive to curb something that isn’t directly causing deaths.
This is like saying, “On the positive side, if 1 billion people die from opioid overdoses, it would probably help with poppyseed muffin related choking deaths.”
*I know the WHO claims that climate change could cause 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050; but those would be due to heat exposure in elderly people, diarrhea, malaria, and childhood undernutrition, all things that kills lots of people without climate change, and all things that we are continuously getting better at fixing (in the developing world - already fixed in the developed world).
An optimist. To be honest, I am a pessimist, but occasionally, I like to dip my toe to the other side, but I must be bad optimist. Lets see:
Pessimist:
Optimist:
Hmmm… these two list seems pretty similar depending on which side of the line you are standing.
"250 000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050; 38 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48 000 due to diarrhoea, 60 000 due to malaria, and 95 000 due to childhood undernutrition. "
https://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/quantitative-risk-assessment/en/
I’d assume that 99.9% of those deaths wouldn’t be in the US. We’ve got air conditioning and modern medicine and a social safety net.
I’m not a member of the climate change “religion”.
But I really don’t understand the climate change denier mentality. Why so much hate and argument against the idea we shouldn’t use so much oil? ? Do you personally work for Exxon ?
Why did you rewrite what I wrote at the bottom of my post?
You ask a specific question that assumes something I didn’t say.
“Why so much hate and argument against the idea we shouldn’t use so much oil?”
Please point to the part of my post where I said anything about the amount of oil we use.
As for general hate and argument, here are a few reasons:
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/
Why? I think the opposite would happen.
Wages and prices will both rise, I believe. Wages will rise because there are fewer workers available. Prices will rise in the aftermath because there are fewer goods and there is disruption in the supply chains. Even local items nowadays require some type of imported goods: machinery, spare parts, fertilizer, etc.
There would also be less demand, creating downward pressure on both prices and wages. Although in the near term there could be a panic-induced spike.
Like everything, the answer is it depends on a variety of things including industry. But in general, wages will rise because of less work force. Local price will fall because items that used to be exported will now will stay local due to tougher export laws (quarantine of items, in particular food stuff, etc.)
But all of this is a guess.
I didn’t rewrite what you wrote. Nor did I say you said anything about oil.
You guys were talking climate change so I talked about cliamte change.
I asked generally about the climate change denier mentality. You may or may not be in that camp…
Was your derision about climate change misplaced and you’re actually totally on board with agreeing with the science? Do you have a problem with us using less oil?
Maybe your mocking tone was just cause you think its exaggerated yet you still totally agree with climate change and you are onboard with reducing oil. shrug
edit to add : Ah, I see I did say “Do you work for exxon?” I used “you” there and replied to you so it all looked like I was talking to you specifically about all of it. Probably shoulda said “they” or at most “you people”. (assuming you’re a science denier)
BTW, the NY Post is not a credible source of actual news.
I was kind of thinking the same thing. Looking at other articles on those two linked articles that meed18 posted; as well at the main page of the NY Post. It seems like click-bait. But I don’t really know anything about NY Post. That was just an gut feeling from the headlines.
We have a social safety net?