I might only be a plebeian but I find this Wharton model dubious

[DemocratSinceBirth]

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-latest-new-university-of-penn-model-predicts-350000-deaths-by-end-of-june-if-all-states-fully-reopen/

The model suggests we can trade jobs for lives. Implicit in the model's assumptions is that if all businesses magically reopen while there will be an increased spread of the contagion and consequently more deaths things will return to the way they were before COVID-19 and jobs will be saved. I would submit that an infinitely more likely scenario is that if everything magically reopened without social distancing the ranks of the infected , sick, and dying would grow exponentially, hospitals would be overrun like in the early days of the contagion in Italy, vacant warehouses would be turned into ersatz morgues, all this would be playing out on tv and in social media and your median American would be so shook he or she wouldn't even venture out of his or her home to take out their garbage. It would be an apocalyptic situation and the economy would suffer greatly mitigating any job gains from the endeavor.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Why?

[uponit7771]

5. Job losses, there's no consumer presure there's not a country who's shut down who have had

... a positive GDP in a month yet.

The Chinese government is literally paying people to shop.

It takes a critical mass in over half of small business to be worth being open and keep buying inventory and paying staff.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The model assumes if everything magically reopens the

The model assumes if everything magically reopens the populous will resume their normal lives. To put it in layman's terms I would argue the contagion would get so out of hand that more people would be scared to venture out of their homes and consequently with people not venturing out of their homes to buy things job losses would be worse.

[Loki Liesmith]

12. Does it assume that though?

I presume it assumes some kind of coupling between employment and the strictness of stay at home orders and that coupling is negative. I presume there is some empirical support here. Time to take a look at it’s guts.

[BSdetect]

2. Without full accurate testing, a vaccine and a cure there are no worthy predictions.

[unblock]

6. well if we had all that, predictions would be much easier....

[unblock]

3. yes, i don't think scenario 3 takes into account how people would react to 350,000 deaths

would you be eager to go to a restaurant or bar or rock concert or anywhere crowded when people are dropping like flies?

i think demand for things that require violating social distancing would be way down, which would lead to the loss of way more than 500,000 jobs.

[uponit7771]

7. +1, and this death is horrible. Laying in the bed suffocating alone while someone shows your face in

... an IPAD if they have time

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Everybody's risk tolerance is different.

That's why I settled on the risk tolerance of your average American.

[Salviati]

14. And I think that 350,000 deaths is wildly optimistic if it supposes a return to "normal" behavior.

And looking at the model, it looks like a full return to normal would predict more like a million deaths, which seems more realistic.

The 350k outcome is if people continue their personal social distancing practices even if the states open up, which maybe I haven't looked hard enough, or don't understand their model, but I don't see how just having things open up for business will keep the jobs there if there isn't the confidence in the population that we've got this pandemic under control...

[unblock]

17. not even clear what that number is supposed to represent

the other numbers say "by end of june" and "additional deaths", this one just says "deaths"

the graphic is a mess.

i assume in any event, the 350,000 is just by end of june; and then, july and august would be horrific....

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Yeah, no.

A hole large enough to drive a herd of cattle.

[lostnfound]

9. "By end of June"? And how many in July, August, September??

For Wall Street only the next quarter matters?

[C_U_L8R]

10. I'm not sure the reporting entirely matches the model

You can play with the 'model' here... https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/5/1/coronavirus-reopening-simulator

And as they say, garbage in, garbage out. These things can be gamed to say anything you want. Partly why we're in this mess - that and there are idiots in the White House interpreting the results

[Salviati]

13. The choice isn't between economic harm or a high body count...

It's between economic harm or economic harm and a high body count.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. There's data that people aren't close to resuming their pre COVID-19 lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-deeply-wary-of-reopening-as-white-house-weighs-ending-covid-19-task-force/2020/05/05/d2efcbbe-8eec-11ea-9e23-6914ee410a5f_story.html

[uponit7771]

15. K&R, This is assuming people would flock back to work or flock back to shopping. Bad assumption ...

... seeing there is no economy out there that has done this.

[Progressive dog]

18. "By end of June"

Just a year, at least, before the most optomistic predict a vaccine.
If they just kill the people now who are most likely to die from covid19, they could even save the health care system. IMO That's what they'd really like to do. Trading your life for their dollars.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Notice in scenario #2, that's 162,000 additional deaths, for a total

of 279,000.

[Caliman73]

25. Yes and magically, in scenario 3 only 350k people.

The least safe and least restrictive only adds 200k deaths?

[Chainfire]

20. Scenario #3 must be based

upon the people, as well as the businesses opening up.
I don't know how much of a minority my wife and I may be, but we will not be actively participating in the local brick and mortar businesses except for the necessary trips to the pharmacy and grocery store.

We used to eat out, and shop frequently, but it ain't happening until the medical issues change. I just will not accept a political solution to a medical issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. There is a gym, spa and pool at my apartment complex. It's closed

I would use the gym if I was the only person in it and would use the pool and the spa under the same conditions. I would be willing to take a 1 in 10,000 risk but not a 1 in say 50 risk.

[Fresh_Start]

21. i joined you ...there are some idiotic assumptions in that model

in particular...if everything is open... all those millions of jobs will be saved.
If the restaurants open tomorrow, I'm not going ....
and I'm sure a lot of other people will still stay home also.

[Celerity]

23. if you ask 1000 Republicans, would they trade an additional 1 death per 1750 people (the

difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3) in exchange for saving 13.5 million jobs

950 plus will take it. Probably 980 or even more.

IF this is the model that comes to be accepted, it is doom.

I find the model massively flawed.

[Caliman73]

24. Sounds kind of like this...

It is ridiculous to assume that deaths will magically cap out at 350,000 with the lifting of restrictions. The infection rate will sky rocket, the death rate will skyrocket AND finally, jobs will be lost because workers and consumers will be DEAD.

[zonemaster]

26. 500,000 jobs lost? Not a chance it could be that low in Scenario #3.

30,000,000+ people are currently unemployed. Are they saying that 29,500,000 are getting their jobs back / getting new jobs as soon as we open everything back up? I'm sure there are at least many times 500,000 jobs that don't even exist as positions anymore because the businesses that were tied to them are now defunct and will never come back, or will take years to come back. NFW the general consumers are just going to start going about their business and engage in the same level of economic activity they once did for months or years, even if they're still employed, to say nothing of the ones with NO JOBS.