Coronavirus

[Castanza]

unless there is strong evidence that the rate is going to jump up again, the idea of having new lockdowns makes no sense

 

There is no strong evidence when predicting the future of COVID.

 

We have mixed evidence:

 

a virus with some flu-like characteristics (which may gain viral strength during traditional flu season) ;

a "second-wave" which hit the US in June-Aug ;

a lack of a "second wave" in most of Europe ;

vaccine progress which to date seems mixed (historically vaccines require aprox 18 months to develop, if at all possible)

 

When presented with conflicting evidence, usually the responsible decision is to "play it safe". At least that is my perspective, yours may differ.

 

“Playing it safe” should be reserved for situations where the outcome is more binary. A we’ve seen so far, lockdowns affect far more than just the spread of the virus. I mean, wasn’t the objective to “flatten the curve” as to not overwhelm hospital systems?

 

[Viking]

Here is one forecast from IMHE (University of Washington) of what we may see in the US in the coming months. They expect an increase in cases/deaths by November and into December. Bottom line, the situation will get worse in all Northern Hemisphere countries, driven primarily by seasonality. How well basic measures, like mask wearing, social distancing etc, are followed will be another important factor.

 

- http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_091120.pdf

 

Projections

• We expect the daily death rate in the US, because of seasonality and declining public vigilance, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December. Cumulative deaths expected by January 1 are 415,090; this is 222,522 deaths from now until the end of the year.

• The large increase in daily deaths expected in late November and December is driven by continued increases in mobility, declines in mask use, and – most importantly – seasonality. We estimate the likely impact of seasonality by examining the trends in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. For example, Southern Hemisphere countries such as Argentina, Chile, southern Brazil, and South Africa had much larger epidemics than expected based on mobility, testing, and mask use. The statistical association between COVID-19 transmission rates and pneumonia seasonality patterns is strong and is the basis for our estimate of the magnitude of the seasonal increase that is expected.

[Viking]

In terms of a vaccine, Scott Gottleib was on CNBC this afternoon and his best guess is a vaccine that is widely available to the US population will be ready for second half of 2021.

 

A vaccine will likely be approved late this year or early in 2021 for use initially in high risk groups. As more data comes in and production facilities ramp production capacity it will reach more people. But this will take many months to play out.

[Cigarbutt]

Here is one forecast from IMHE (University of Washington) of what we may see in the US in the coming months. They expect an increase in cases/deaths by November and into December. Bottom line, the situation will get worse in all Northern Hemisphere countries, driven primarily by seasonality. How well basic measures, like mask wearing, social distancing etc, are followed will be another important factor.

- http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_091120.pdf

...

@Viking,

Can you comment on the limitations of the model?  :)

An interesting exercise is to 'play' with the following in order to see how the output changed over time, especially for the longer term. The model has a reputation for too optimistic 'confidence' intervals. i'd say it's more-than-a-few-weeks predictive record is similar to calling election results or to say where the R2000 index will be by the end of the year.

https://www.covid-projections.com/

Can i offer a tidbit of data that may suggest a more optimistic outlook (at least for the virus, not the host), especially in relation to the seasonality aspect that is still work in progress? The CDC just released an interesting report about the flu. Mitigation efforts were unusual (extent and duration) and adjustments may be required under a less stringent and flexible community spread regime going forward but, under the new normal, it looks like the flu, a typical seasonal virus, is not what it used to be:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm?s_cid=mm6937a6_w

-----

Concerning the no (we can take it on the chin now-Castanza) to full (better safe than sorry-LC) lockdown spectrum, why not aim for a flexible and dynamic model? In my area (for disclosure, my area did very poorly, especially early on), people in charge of governance devised such a 4-color alert-level system based on transparent criteria that will compare regions and that will guide the level of interventions, with the level 1 labeled as 'vigilance' and basic measures which have minimal impact on personal autonomy and which have limited impact on economy and the other costs that are frequently mentioned (schools, inactivity, loneliness etc). People will be able to see where they stand and the trends in different regions. The vigilance appears especially interesting and cost-effective as there may be a component of outcome related to the Hawthorne effect.

[tng]

 

“Playing it safe” should be reserved for situations where the outcome is more binary. A we’ve seen so far, lockdowns affect far more than just the spread of the virus. I mean, wasn’t the objective to “flatten the curve” as to not overwhelm hospital systems?

 

I feel like I am in a split world where one half of the people think we should lockdown forever (to "play it safe") and the other half has been working for the past 6 months and being fully exposed to the virus, so they have gotten over it already. For the white collar office worker that can work from home indefinitely, nothing will make it safe enough. Say we have a vaccine that is 75% effective (which is probably too optimistic). If the current probability of death is too high, is cutting it down by 75% low enough for them to go rushing back onto the subways and going back to the office? Probably not. Is some not very healthy middle aged person with 1% of death going to come out at 0.25% of death?

 

Meanwhile, on the other side, you have someone who has been working at Walmarts, supermarkets, delivery, supply chain, etc that have been working through the pandemic and they are sick of the lockdowns trashing the economy and their kids' futures. Many of them have already been infected (in big cities, probably the majority of them). They've already taken the risk and all the benefits of the lockdown all go to this protected class of white collar workers. Some people seem to be trapped into this indentured servant role where they prefer not to work at a Walmart, but they can't quit (no unemployment for voluntarily quitting), they can't change jobs because everything is closed, and they make less money working than someone sitting at home collecting enhanced unemployment, so obviously they are screaming about how the lockdowns are a violation of human rights, because they feel like they are in a slave class.

 

I'm not really sure how we get out of this. The virus is not catastrophic, which is why most places are partially reopen. But it's also not completely safe. Maybe people didn't respect the flu before, but even if we get COVID down to the same level as the flu (i.e. we have a COVID vaccine that is about as effective as the flus), is that good enough for all the WFH crowd to come back out? If something that is 3x the flu is too dangerous, is the flu itself too dangerous to come back out? And at what point is it too unfair to the people that have been working through the pandemic that they revolt?

[mattee2264]

 

Agree. Playing it safe made a lot more sense in the spring when the potential health outcomes were a lot wider and we knew very little about the virus or how to treat it and also had a lot less data to work with due to limited testing capacity and also the limited number of cases.

 

But now we know that while the virus spreads quickly it is mostly only dangerous for certain identifiable groups. By now the most vulnerable would have either succumbed to it during the first wave or developed some immunity. And in the general population there will be some degree of immunity by now.

 

And yes the lockdown was meant to flatten the curve. But the problem was the benefits of the "circuit breaker" were quickly lost because of poor compliance and enforcement of social distancing rules. And health care spending seems to have gone towards ill though out and unworkable test and trace schemes rather than increasing capacity and equipment and staffing to allow us to accommodate a rise in cases in the winter.

 

So the easy way out for governments is to go back to partial or total lockdowns knowing that even with only partial compliance they will have some success in reducing case numbers and transmission rates. And of course it will be justified as being prudent, playing it safe, not putting lives at risk and politicians will say it is the public's fault there is another lockdown because they didn't follow the rules. But really it would be a failure of governments who had pretty much unlimited resources and unlimited powers to fight the virus but failed to use them effectively.

 

[Spekulatius]

 

“Playing it safe” should be reserved for situations where the outcome is more binary. A we’ve seen so far, lockdowns affect far more than just the spread of the virus. I mean, wasn’t the objective to “flatten the curve” as to not overwhelm hospital systems?

 

I feel like I am in a split world where one half of the people think we should lockdown forever (to "play it safe") and the other half has been working for the past 6 months and being fully exposed to the virus, so they have gotten over it already. For the white collar office worker that can work from home indefinitely, nothing will make it safe enough. Say we have a vaccine that is 75% effective (which is probably too optimistic). If the current probability of death is too high, is cutting it down by 75% low enough for them to go rushing back onto the subways and going back to the office? Probably not. Is some not very healthy middle aged person with 1% of death going to come out at 0.25% of death?

 

Meanwhile, on the other side, you have someone who has been working at Walmarts, supermarkets, delivery, supply chain, etc that have been working through the pandemic and they are sick of the lockdowns trashing the economy and their kids' futures. Many of them have already been infected (in big cities, probably the majority of them). They've already taken the risk and all the benefits of the lockdown all go to this protected class of white collar workers. Some people seem to be trapped into this indentured servant role where they prefer not to work at a Walmart, but they can't quit (no unemployment for voluntarily quitting), they can't change jobs because everything is closed, and they make less money working than someone sitting at home collecting enhanced unemployment, so obviously they are screaming about how the lockdowns are a violation of human rights, because they feel like they are in a slave class.

 

I'm not really sure how we get out of this. The virus is not catastrophic, which is why most places are partially reopen. But it's also not completely safe. Maybe people didn't respect the flu before, but even if we get COVID down to the same level as the flu (i.e. we have a COVID vaccine that is about as effective as the flus), is that good enough for all the WFH crowd to come back out? If something that is 3x the flu is too dangerous, is the flu itself too dangerous to come back out? And at what point is it too unfair to the people that have been working through the pandemic that they revolt?

 

The world isn’t black and white at all. Most people who have been working in offices, retail or as first responders haven’t been exposed at all. I know myself (working in office) and my wife (nurse) haven’t been and nobody in my wife’s team (12 nurses) has gotten sick.

A few more people in my office buildings (~200 people) have gotten it, but not from exposure at the work place. Many regions in the US still have very little viral exposure. I live 35 Miles away from Boston in a pretty rural setting and the cumulative exposure rate (tested positive) is much less  then 1% of the population.

 

Working with proper precautions is actually pretty safe, imo. I am much more concerned about some restaurant settings, bars and gyms and wouldn’t go into any of those. Well I go into restaurants when traveling, but there have been a few cases where we left when we saw the setting and lack of ventilation or precautions taken. Others seem to do a good job, so it all depends.

I have little concerns about going to work in my suburban office (have been going all along). I do think that some higher density settings and shared work places are more concerning.

 

I also think that opening schools with precautions should be pretty safe, but suspect that teacher unions (which are mostly pushing for remote learning) are the driving force in most school districts.

[Spekulatius]

I don't understand the rapidly declining mortality rate.  Case levels in Europe have exploded to levels similar or way higher than the peaks of April but death rates are a tiny fraction.  Belgium and the Netherlands are experiencing case levels above the peaks of April but deaths are consistently countable on one hand.

 

Point being that it will be extremely hard for governments to argue for new lockdowns and economic closures if hospitals are not being overwhelmed and very few people are dying. 

 

Is it just timing?  Is this the new normal?

 

At least in the US, mortality rates don’t seem that low. There are still 800-900 death daily. I would have expected this number to drop off hospitalization rates dropped since July, but this time we seem a lag that is longer than the typical 2-3 weeks and death remain stubbornly high here. 800-900 death daily translates into ~300k death in 12 month, so it’s not negligible. It would translates into a 10% increase in overall population mortality (order of magnitude). I think the mortality will drop off, but there is also a chance that we get yet another surge from thanksgiving and the winter season.

 

As to what this means for the stock Market, I think it is priced in, plus the Market doesn’t really care much about death rates of this Order of magnitude.  Lack of second stimulus package , school not opening (and thus crippling the economy) and lingering uncertainty about election are likely bigger factors.

[mattee2264]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

[UK]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-it-would-take-for-herd-immunity-to-stop-the-coronavirus-pandemic-11600594201

 

"Reflecting these real-world effects in disease models can shift the estimated herd immunity boundary. One group of researchers estimated that threshold for Covid-19 could be as low as 10% to 20%, though many epidemiologists say that is unlikely. Other modelers have estimated it at around 40% to 50%. Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said his group estimates the herd-immunity threshold at between 50% and 80%."

[Gregmal]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

 

Yea I actually just exchanged messages and emails with a few folks over the weekend and this morning on this rising risk. We are entering flu season. Everyone has their minds made up about a second wave. The EU countries are already chomping at the bit to lock everyone down again(MOAR POWER!) Lockdowns kill businesses. So that will have some adverse and material effect. Now what if Biden wins? One of his first actions upon entering the office would be shutting down the country from January til June....I wouldn't "go all cash". But I'd put some trades on that compensate you for this risk.

[StubbleJumper]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

 

Yea I actually just exchanged messages and emails with a few folks over the weekend and this morning on this rising risk. We are entering flu season. Everyone has their minds made up about a second wave. The EU countries are already chomping at the bit to lock everyone down again(MOAR POWER!) Lockdowns kill businesses. So that will have some adverse and material effect. Now what if Biden wins? One of his first actions upon entering the office would be shutting down the country from January til June....I wouldn't "go all cash". But I'd put some trades on that compensate you for this risk.

 

 

Does the US federal government actually have the authority to lock-down businesses and recreational sites within the 50 states?

 

 

SJ

[Gregmal]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

 

Yea I actually just exchanged messages and emails with a few folks over the weekend and this morning on this rising risk. We are entering flu season. Everyone has their minds made up about a second wave. The EU countries are already chomping at the bit to lock everyone down again(MOAR POWER!) Lockdowns kill businesses. So that will have some adverse and material effect. Now what if Biden wins? One of his first actions upon entering the office would be shutting down the country from January til June....I wouldn't "go all cash". But I'd put some trades on that compensate you for this risk.

 

 

Does the US federal government actually have the authority to lock-down businesses and recreational sites within the 50 states?

 

 

SJ

 

Per the constitution, I do not believe they do. But they doesnt really matter to most of these people. Executive orders and work arounds will allow them to accomplish this, if they wish to, which they have already hinted at.

[StubbleJumper]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

 

Yea I actually just exchanged messages and emails with a few folks over the weekend and this morning on this rising risk. We are entering flu season. Everyone has their minds made up about a second wave. The EU countries are already chomping at the bit to lock everyone down again(MOAR POWER!) Lockdowns kill businesses. So that will have some adverse and material effect. Now what if Biden wins? One of his first actions upon entering the office would be shutting down the country from January til June....I wouldn't "go all cash". But I'd put some trades on that compensate you for this risk.

 

 

Does the US federal government actually have the authority to lock-down businesses and recreational sites within the 50 states?

 

 

SJ

 

Per the constitution, I do not believe they do. But they doesnt really matter to most of these people. Executive orders and work arounds will allow them to accomplish this, if they wish to, which they have already hinted at.

 

 

So the federal government could probably shut down every federally regulated industry (air traffic, rails, etc), but individual governors could tell it to go piss-off for every other aspect of economic and social life?  I would expect about 40 governors to tell the president to piss-off in that case.

 

 

SJ

[Gregmal]

We can only hope. But there is still risk that the companies then take the hint, much like Apple and others did in March. I dont think too many CEOs want to get on a new administration's bad side 2 months into the term.

 

The flip side, is we will see stimulus on steroids if Biden wins.

[muscleman]

I'm not convinced it is totally priced in. Rolling lockdowns through the winter even if they are designed to keep as much of the economy open as possible will have an impact on consumer and business confidence and delay the economic recovery another year or so. Further stimulus packages will offset some of the economic damage and of course further lockdowns will reinflate the tech bubble. But I think at least part of the rally was because of improving economic data and easing of the lockdowns and that looks like it will now partially reverse in the winter. And while vaccine development seems on track it is clear that any vaccine will not be available for mass distribution until middle of 2021 at the earliest so we will probably have to hunker down this winter and spring.

 

Yea I actually just exchanged messages and emails with a few folks over the weekend and this morning on this rising risk. We are entering flu season. Everyone has their minds made up about a second wave. The EU countries are already chomping at the bit to lock everyone down again(MOAR POWER!) Lockdowns kill businesses. So that will have some adverse and material effect. Now what if Biden wins? One of his first actions upon entering the office would be shutting down the country from January til June....I wouldn't "go all cash". But I'd put some trades on that compensate you for this risk.

 

I still stand by my hypothesis of herd immunity. FL, TX, GA all reopened for a while and cases are still trending down. There will not be another wave.

Of course if there is for these states, I will apologize. That shows my confidence level.  :) I made a big bet by going all cash in the end of August because COVID is improving fast and I didn't expect further good news to come.

People on the board say it is impossible to predict market movements based on COVID. I think it is part of the factors. It is important to look at a variety of data sets. Most of them are unrelated to COVID. But COVID does play a very important role.

I think the market may form a temporary bottom soon this week (low confidence), and form a major bottom after election (mid confidence).

My theory is that the market has to fall far enough first to scare people of the dire consequences of a Biden win, so they come out on election day to vote for Trump. But with millions of mail ballots with very loose standards for verifications, I have low confidence of electrion fraud. You may ask which side is doing the fraud. Well, just look at which states are relaxing the standards. It is too obvious.

If there were no such frauds, I'd have high confidence of a major bottom in early November. But now it is hard to say.

 

Note: Some people say if the stock market goes up, then the sitting president wins. Otherwise he loses. That's what happened historically. But I don't think that's the case this time. Trump is not your ordinary president, and he has been playing the fear factor very well. If the stock market continues to fall, I expect him to tweet about how the market is scared of a Biden win.

 

[Guest cherzeca]

https://docs4opendebate.be/en/open-letter/

[clutch]

Cases vs. Deaths in Canada

 

 

My personal take on the discrepency:

- The virus has already gone through those who were most susceptible (weak immune system + pre-existing condition), especially in nursing homes

- More younger people are getting infected recently and it's not lethal for them

- Better policy/control at nursing homes now

 

Case fatality rate seems to be much lower than 1% now in Canada. No sudden increase in hospitalization/ICU demands yet. Given these trends, I'd be surprised to see a similar form of lockdown imposed again here.

 

I'm actually quite optimistic. Once we have vaccines, I think this virus just becomes another form of seasonal flu.

[muscleman]

https://docs4opendebate.be/en/open-letter/

 

Same thing happening in the blue states in the US. Governors using COVID to gain huge power to control people's life.

[mattee2264]

 

Problem is that with optimism about a vaccine available for next year there is little appetite for governments to explore a "learn to live with the virus" or "herd immunity" approach. Much easier to play it safe and wait for the cavalry justifying yet more social and economic costs with the argument that the end is near and rising debt can be paid off later down the line.

 

And as soon as one country starts imposing lockdowns it is tough for others not to follow or else risk criticism for leaving things too late. It is very hard politically to sell a policy of "lets wait until the bodies start to pile up" before we take action. And even if the early action is entirely unnecessary so long as enough countries follow suit and death counts stay low governments can take credit as averting potential catastrophe.

[clutch]

Latest on the Swedish approach:

 

 

 

"Sweden spared European surge as coronavirus infections stay low:

Chief epidemiologist puts low number of cases down to light-touch ‘sustainable’ approach"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/sweden-records-its-fewest-daily-covid-19-cases-since-march

[StubbleJumper]

Yes, the people who were saying that Denmark was the best model are pretty quiet these days.  Denmark is at ~500 cases per day about now, for a population of a shade under 6 million people.  So, take Denmark and multiply by about 60, and that would be similar to the US.  So, 500 x 60 = 30,000 (still lower than the current number of new cases in the US, but not appreciably).  All of the people claiming that Sweden was misguided and that Denmark's test and traceback approach was dialed-in are pretty quiet in September.

 

Do we need to talk about the Netherlands or France?

 

Where are all of the aggressive, partisan posts these days?  BTW, Canada is rapidly heading the wrong direction too.

 

 

SJ

[clutch]

Yes, the people who were saying that Denmark was the best model are pretty quiet these days.  Denmark is at ~500 cases per day about now, for a population of a shade under 6 million people.  So, take Denmark and multiply by about 60, and that would be similar to the US.  So, 500 x 60 = 30,000 (still lower than the current number of new cases in the US, but not appreciably).  All of the people claiming that Sweden was misguided and that Denmark's test and traceback approach was dialed-in are pretty quiet in September.

 

Do we need to talk about the Netherlands or France?

 

Where are all of the aggressive, partisan posts these days? BTW, Canada is rapidly heading the wrong direction too.

 

 

SJ

 

I think the US news cycle has moved past the coronavirus now. And people ain't THAT stupid to argue that Trump nor Democrat governors are causing these spikes in other countries.  ::)

[mattee2264]

 

What is the story in Asia? Data probably isn't as reliable (especially China) but looks like they've got the virus firmly under control with no immediate worries about further lockdowns (although I guess it is still early days).

 

[Spekulatius]

Yes, the people who were saying that Denmark was the best model are pretty quiet these days.  Denmark is at ~500 cases per day about now, for a population of a shade under 6 million people.  So, take Denmark and multiply by about 60, and that would be similar to the US.  So, 500 x 60 = 30,000 (still lower than the current number of new cases in the US, but not appreciably).  All of the people claiming that Sweden was misguided and that Denmark's test and traceback approach was dialed-in are pretty quiet in September.

 

Do we need to talk about the Netherlands or France?

 

Where are all of the aggressive, partisan posts these days?  BTW, Canada is rapidly heading the wrong direction too.

 

 

SJ

 

The surge in Europe has been discussed here in this thread, now Denmark got its share too. Why do you expect partisan posts?

Denmarks mortality is 110 cases/1M vs US at 617/1M so no question who is ahead here.