The economy grew at an annual rate of 6.5% last quarter. Wow! But the news was nearly ignored because everyone is afraid the Delta variant will wreck the planet again.
It probably won't, though. So go ahead and feel good about this. And if you have any un-vaxxed friends, offer them a cookie if they'll get themselves vaccinated.
Offer them a cookie, then spit in your hand and hold it out to them to seal the deal.
And that is far safer for them, than their very presence is to you...
I am vaccinated, so some of it could rub off.
Sorry, but the approved media lead is that "disappointing" GDP growth was well below "expectations". This seems to me to be equivalent to blaming voters for not doing what the polls predicted, but I'm sure the media has the better argument.
Yes, I was rather surprised at that, given the 6.5%....
Lamestream Media is all left-wing Fake News as we know, so it can't be a partisan slant, amirite?
Politically this performance is tricky for either party.
- If the Democrats brag the GOP retort is ' well below expectation. This is a disappointment.."
- If the Republicans lead with criticism the Dems put 6.5% in historical context: 'this is the best quarter since X year and Y best since WWII'
The broader challenge, the Biden recovery has been good, but not as strong as hoped/projected....
The recovery has been very V-shaped which is as good as it gets, unless one is hoping for the Miracle of Loaves and Fishes on a gigantic scale.
Inventory draws distorted that report. Obviously this will raise 3rd and 4th quarter GDP outside the consistency of revisions over the next 10 years.
Inventory was lower than expected and consumer spending higher. That's a tradeoff worth taking!
Why doesn’t this GDP growth get the same sort of Drum Adjustment given to inflation figures? The lack of GDP growth in 2020 is just as artificially induced as the lack of inflation.
Because we mostly made up the GDP pandemic losses already.
I’d like to see the Drum Chart with the trend line and actual supporting that.
Because GDP growth is calculated differently than inflation is. The latter, as Kevin has pointed out, is determined by the increase in prices relative to the previous year. GDP growth is calculated by annualizing the growth since the previous quarter. So, the growth over the past year, as Special Newb has mentioned, is already adjusted for in the numbers.
I'm not following this. The number is a number for quarterly growth. That quarter in 2020 was still a down quarter to use as the denominator in calculating the percentage change.
Yes, quarterly growth--from *last quarter* to *this quarter*. The numerator is Q2 2021, and the denominator is Q1 2021. Nothing from 2020 affects it.
Ah thanks, from the phrasing I thought we were comparing two different Q2s not Q2 to Q1.
GQPuto says what!?
Give them a fortune cookie and plant a fortune in it that says “Get the vaccine or you will die in agony!”
'And if you have any un-vaxxed friends, offer them a cookie if they'll get themselves vaccinated.'
I offered them science, reason, common sense, and a plea for some basic sense of Civic Duty. But apparently, none of that was as digestible as a cookie. But then, they weren't my friends, either....
Why would you eat a cookie from a stranger??
I'd offer them a boot in the ass.
It's the American way.
Is now a good time to point out that GDP is a terrible indicator of actual economic health?
No, it's a good indicator when it's high. It's a terrible indicator when it's low.
While I agree that GDP is a flawed/limited measure, may I ask what single measure do you believe better represents country wide economic performance?
Using a double "x" in any word is silly, unless you're trying to sell soda pop. "Unvaxed" should do fine.
Kevin is trying to axxentuate the positive!
Ooooh, I like!
Also, monthly mean trimmed PCE dropped.
Or roughly translated: outside of perverse inflation caused by supply chain issues and other extreme oddities resulting from an exogenous shock, prices have dropped.
In other news, the price of a 2x4 x 8' stud has dropped ~30%. Still has another 50% to drop before it hits "normal".
Also, @RationalThought I have an answer to your question about the 1000x more infectious point: Earlier data suggested that the viral load of people infected w/ Delta was 1000x higher than original strain.
I think we're underestimating how much more infectious Delta really is. If the viral load is 1000x higher, a lot more people will be infected just by passing someone in the street, breathing in their aerosolized particles from a cough.
First I have to say that, at this point, I am skeptical of anything based only on a study from china, if there is no other study outside of China verifying it.
But this at best only provides a reason why that Biden transition covid " expert " made such a bone headed statement as that delta is 1000 times more infectious. The contention that delta has a 1000 times higher viral load is presumably a way to explain why it is more transmissible or more infectious. That is not the same as saying it is 1000 times more infectious. The study , far as I can see, does not state what they think how more infectious is, but they are not claiming 1000 times. And 1000 times is still utter and complete nonsense that anyone with any idea of what is going on should know.
So what happened. Did she just say 1000 times as hyperbole like you initially claimed? I might accept that if the context was different ( seemed like a serious claim to me) and if the other statement re one second equaling 15 minutes was not also included.
Or did she try to play games and mislead because she thought it would scare people to do the right thing?
Or is she just so stupid that she got confused that this study means 1000 times more infectious and was unable to realize how absurd that was.
I am assuming, although your post is not clear, that you are not actually trying to defend the ridiculous 1000 times statement factually.
I would note that, if delta really was 1000 times as infectious, we would have near 100% immunity from vaccine or natural as everybody by now would have got it , and that would have only taken a few weeks . And then restricting masking etc. would be pointless.
And one thing I might see from that study report. 1000 times the viral load when? Note they say delta reproduces faster so has a shorter cycle ( time between infections ). So if original, after 4 days, is only starting to ramp up in the body , and you are not even infectious yet, but delta is at peak after 4 days, then comparing viral load at 4 days might mean delta is 1000 times. But if original peaks are 6 days, and delta going down by then, maybe at 6 days delta is only 3 times viral load or even less than original. I do not see where study states what they are comparing.
Like you, I am suspecting that delta is relatively more transmissible.than we thought. Like maybe 4 times original not 2.5 times. That just fits the facts better.
And that is good, not bad. We know how many confirmed cases , just not how many unconfirmed cases ( largely asymptomatic) are out there. We also know fairly solid how many hospitalizations and deaths. Most estimates of transmissibility come from the change in confirmed cases. If there are more unconfirmed with delta , then the r is higher than we thought. But then the fatality rate is less and delta really is that more infectious less deadly mutation that evolution should prefer.
And look at the uk. Cases already coming down fast. But they still have not had enough new infections to expect to get to herd immunity from last wave if you use a low multiplier from confirmed cases. So maybe the multiplier was far higher and way more cases, and enough extra natural immunity to get to herd immunity where they seem to be now.
And we are maybe just a few weeks behind ?
re: this RationalThought comment: This is a good analysis. I'd like to add that in the UK, cases are going up again that past couple of days, so it's a little too early to draw conclusions with high confidence. On the other hand, the Delta variant curve in India also had a shape similar to what UK's is starting to look like: Sharp increase follow by sharp drop-off.
What we often forget to include is that behavioral changes in the population affect the numbers also; it was noted that Scotland's number have been lower than England's, possibly due to the fact that Scotland got eliminated from the soccer tournament much earlier than England, so fewer people out in Pubs to watch the games.
So many factors. Complexity. Well, we do the best we can.
I really try to avoid looking at day to day changes as that can drive you nuts, and try to just look at 7 day averages. Day to day too driven by reporting delays and quirks and you have to adjust for the normal daily trend, which in the uk I think has been gradual increase through the week and then drop off on weekend. So cases staying equal from say Wednesday to Thursday might indicate a small actual decline. But with huge day to day variability. Get back to me if cases on weekly average go up in uk.
And with herd immunity development, actual reasonable pattern is a quick drop from cases once it peaks and then the drop should slow or even, less likely, reverse. As you stated, there are behavioral changes and you have to factor in delays in reporting and it "sinking in".
So, when cases were actually starting to fall after a peak in the uk, the reported new cases would still be increasing due to delay ( i.e. reporting actual infections from a week or two before when still going up). So max fear time and most avoiding social contact. And r is below 1.0 under THOSE conditions. Then, a few weeks or a month later, when people now know that cases are going down, they loosen up behavior. And this R might increase from say .7 to .9 and the decline slow down ( but note still new infections and total immunity increasing). As cases continue to slide slowly, you tend to get a stable somewhat below R when continual behavior loosening is offset by addtl immunity. But then can also factor in declining immunity over time.
Some complex models show a series of waves, but smaller each time.
The first sentence sounds kinda racist. I think I'll skip the rest.
That is bs and an undeserved insult. I said I did not trust studies from china , not that I did not trust studies by Chinese. A study from Singapore, from Taiwan, from Chinese american researchers I have no reason to distrust because of the race of the researcher. But we have plenty of reasons to distrust research coming from an area controlled by the mainland Chinese government.
I suppose all the democrats who have been distrusting anything coming out of the Russia controlled by Putin can be accused of being racist against Russians too.
I'm not defending her comment; I'm trying to understand her comment. I thought maybe it was hyperbole at first. That she specifically called out 1000x aligns extremely well in timing and scope to prepub Nature study specifically pointing to 1000x higher viral load.
The study is relatively new, so, it'll take time for others to follow up. Some of the best studies of SARS-CoV-2 come from within China, with some exceptions that have to deal specifically with policy -- those are fairly easy to identify.
Read the paper re viral load count and days. Your questions show that either you didn't read the paper or don't understand it. Too lazy? Here's the direct link: https://bityl.co/8770
What I read was what you initially posted. No, I did not spend time searching on the internet looking for more evidence to support what you were trying to say. If you post something to make a point, then it is incumbent on you to back it up. Not me. It is ridiculous for you to then come back saying why did I not read something you did not post or cite. And note I was asking questions not just dismissing it.
But since you posted this, I will comment. I have not read the entire 23 pages in detail. Has a lot of technical detail that is over my head with terminology.
But I think I see what they are saying but it still does not make sense and seems off. But I would assume I am missing something as, if it was that wrong, they would not embarrass themselves by publishing it.
It does seem to say that they are comparing viral loads as of the time they can be detected by the pcr test. Assuming that they mean comparing the original ( when it first is detectable by pcr) to delta ( when delta first is detectable by vcr), something seems wrong.
Would not the viral load at that point, the exact crossover when it is detectable, be when they both have the same viral load by definition almost?
But then it seems to say this is because delta is multiplying faster. But that would only seem to make sense if they were determining the viral load LATER than the pcr test, so as to give time for the virus to further multiply after the pcr test can first detect it.
If so, how much delay?
And then not sure what this implies.
Say you need viral load of x to pcr detect. original initially grows slower then delta, but both accelerate quickly, the growth slows as the immune system reacts, viral load peaks, and then tails off as immune system kills it off.
With exponentential growth and a short reproduction cycle, a small difference in growth rate can make a huge short term difference.
Assume delta hits x load at 4 days and is detectable and this then growing at 10 times per hour
And they check viral load four hours after the pcr test first detects. Delta is then 10,000 times x. Original gets to x at six days and is then growing 1.7 times per hour . When measured 4 hours later it is 10x, so delta has 1000 times the viral load at 4 hours after first pcr detection.
But that assumes that, somehow, they could monitor pcr test every minute to see exact time it is detectable. And that delay to virus count was the same period. And that pcr test works same for delta.
But seems that they were comparing the tests done back at start of epidemic for original to those done now with delta. And I tend to doubt everything was identical.
So say back in 2020 they were doing testing for PCR each day. And original virus growing at rate of 1.5 times per hour. Pcr will then be positive if virus count is x or more. That threshold might have been crossed just before the pcr test or 24 hours before. So virus counts done exact same time will range from x to 16,800 x. If delta has exact same viral count at every stage as original, but you were testing every two days for pcr by then, the viral counts would range from x to 283,000 x.
CDC MMWR report: https://bityl.co/87DT
Ct values are the same as that preprint study from China. IOW, confirmed, Delta has 1000x higher viral load.
Anything else, I didn't bother reading once you said that it was technical.
IOW, I'm not going to bother responding to your uninformed speculation.
Sigh. Do. Your. Research. No one else is going to do it for you.
Don't text the vaccinated. I would refuse one. That is distorting cases.
My takeaway is: Guaranteed Income will produce excellent economic growth. 😉