muscleman Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 muscleman what is your pullback thesis? I remember from earlier in the thread that you think good news re the virus is bad news for the stock market. Markets move on liquidity. If liquidity tightens up, markets will decline, which is something likely to happen when the vaccine comes out. I combine fundamentals with technicals. Flipping through thousands of charts per week gives me a good feel of where the river wants to flow. Thousands of charts? Wow! What chart packs are you looking at? what do you mean by chart packs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 muscleman what is your pullback thesis? I remember from earlier in the thread that you think good news re the virus is bad news for the stock market. Markets move on liquidity. If liquidity tightens up, markets will decline, which is something likely to happen when the vaccine comes out. I combine fundamentals with technicals. Flipping through thousands of charts per week gives me a good feel of where the river wants to flow. I dont see the relationship you posit between liquidity going down and vaccine coming out. I agree that liquidity is important, and using the old term "animal spirits" I would think we would have more demand for equities, less demand for money once the vaccination phase commences. A potential FED withdraw from QE has far bigger liquidity impacts than animal spirits. Something to watch out for. When someone has been smoking heroin for 8 months and suddenly stop, he will have a big problem and need time to get used to the new normal without heroin. without getting into questions of self-medication, I would think the Fed would be a lagging indicator here...keep things jiggy until inflation starts showboating. and if spec is right that brainard becomes T sec., well she and Powell are colleagues, so she will slow go the Fed. I think there will be a liquidity drawdown at some point, but not before 2022. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 muscleman what is your pullback thesis? I remember from earlier in the thread that you think good news re the virus is bad news for the stock market. Markets move on liquidity. If liquidity tightens up, markets will decline, which is something likely to happen when the vaccine comes out. I combine fundamentals with technicals. Flipping through thousands of charts per week gives me a good feel of where the river wants to flow. I dont see the relationship you posit between liquidity going down and vaccine coming out. I agree that liquidity is important, and using the old term "animal spirits" I would think we would have more demand for equities, less demand for money once the vaccination phase commences. A potential FED withdraw from QE has far bigger liquidity impacts than animal spirits. Something to watch out for. When someone has been smoking heroin for 8 months and suddenly stop, he will have a big problem and need time to get used to the new normal without heroin. without getting into questions of self-medication, I would think the Fed would be a lagging indicator here...keep things jiggy until inflation starts showboating. and if spec is right that brainard becomes T sec., well she and Powell are colleagues, so she will slow go the Fed. I think there will be a liquidity drawdown at some point, but not before 2022. Your view is not in conflict with my longer term expectation of a strong rally into March 2021. But I still think we get a pull back first before we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 Interesting. Hospitals in ND full, asymptotic nurses can continue to work. https://www.grandforksherald.com/newsmd/coronavirus/6753876-With-North-Dakota-hospitals-at-100-capacity-Burgum-announces-COVID-positive-nurses-can-stay-at-work SD looks similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 I wonder if Fauci and the CDC will recommend people hold Thanksgiving and eat with their masks on? This will help with the pandemic. If masks prevents virus transmission they should also certainly prevent turkey legs and pumpkin pie from getting through, which will help in the fight against obesity and diabetes and solve covid since for everyone currently in reasonable health this is basically a non issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutch Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 I wonder if Fauci and the CDC will recommend people hold Thanksgiving and eat with their masks on? This will help with the pandemic. If masks prevents virus transmission they should also certainly prevent turkey legs and pumpkin pie from getting through, which will help in the fight against obesity and diabetes and solve covid since for everyone currently in reasonable health this is basically a non issue. Wouldn't be far off from our chief health officer in Canada who recommends wearing masks while having sex. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-s-top-doctor-consider-using-a-mask-during-sexual-activity-1.5090359 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 She must be big time vaginal instead of clitoral as most women. Unless she likes the newfound tickle effect of a mask? I mean what a F'in idiot and that is what we have for health representative? Ontario had record cases yesterday and wanna bet another record today? Thank God we have private enterprise developing multiple cure and vaccines instead of these idiots politicians and WHO only providing useless guidelines which change from one day to the next. Quebec which is a hot spot for Covid and deeply socialist have shut down restaurants, gyms and most entertainment, yet they have allowed Halloween or kids to go collect candies door to door.... Super-spreaders anyone? How could you be so stupid? Meantime I understand it is $1,000/person fine for being caught meeting a family member... Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 Interesting. Hospitals in ND full, asymptotic nurses can continue to work. https://www.grandforksherald.com/newsmd/coronavirus/6753876-With-North-Dakota-hospitals-at-100-capacity-Burgum-announces-COVID-positive-nurses-can-stay-at-work SD looks similar. There are interesting developments in several states including Utah etc. The trends in numbers in the states that were 'spared' earlier are eye-opening. The herd mentality in many of those states was to take it on the chin and they are. Interestingly, Nebraska is showing poor trends and i hope Mr. Buffett is taking precautions as it seems that he said that he elected to live in the Midwest in order to be protected form what was going on in Wall Street. i listened to a short presentation yesterday by critical care people. Just like in many other places, they confirm continued spread in urban centers and widespread spread in rural and even remote areas. This virus which cannot survive on its own is nonetheless methodical, especially if allowed to. The ICU people mentioned that despite being overwhelmed early on, they are able to report mortality numbers similar (not worse) to that of the aggregate curve over time. They also mentioned, like elsewhere, that the mortality rate improvements seem to have reached a plateau. It looks like the early improvement in death rates was essentially caused by moving away from unproven cures, going back to established practice for respiratory distress and better triage criteria for severity definition. Basically, people survived more because less was done. The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/dr-juan-fitz-a-hero-of-emergency-medicine-dies-of-covid-19-in-texas/ar-BB1aUsqs?ocid=msedgntp Why do we need heroes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/dr-juan-fitz-a-hero-of-emergency-medicine-dies-of-covid-19-in-texas/ar-BB1aUsqs?ocid=msedgntp Why do we need heroes? Weren't they just suggesting that asymptomatic covid carriers could continue to work in a hospital's covid hot-zone? The patients in the hot-zone all have covid anyway, so does it really matter if some of the staff also have covid? I guess there's the viral-load argument that the staff could contribute to the viral load in the air, but that seems to me like a pretty marginal effect. Now, if they were suggesting that a covid-positive doctor work in a hospital's cold-zone, there might be some serious ethical and legal considerations.... SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCLarkin Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 some promising results from Slovakia’s widespread testing scheme. Infections cut in half? https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-11-09/slovakia-says-covid-double-testing-cut-number-of-infections-by-more-than-half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 She must be big time vaginal instead of clitoral as most women. Unless she likes the newfound tickle effect of a mask? I mean what a F'in idiot and that is what we have for health representative? Ontario had record cases yesterday and wanna bet another record today? Thank God we have private enterprise developing multiple cure and vaccines instead of these idiots politicians and WHO only providing useless guidelines which change from one day to the next. Quebec which is a hot spot for Covid and deeply socialist have shut down restaurants, gyms and most entertainment, yet they have allowed Halloween or kids to go collect candies door to door.... Super-spreaders anyone? How could you be so stupid? Meantime I understand it is $1,000/person fine for being caught meeting a family member... Cardboard There's a third option, which I think may be more likely....some of these folks, are real weirdos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. Weren't they just suggesting that asymptomatic covid carriers could continue to work in a hospital's covid hot-zone? The patients in the hot-zone all have covid anyway, so does it really matter if some of the staff also have covid? I guess there's the viral-load argument that the staff could contribute to the viral load in the air, but that seems to me like a pretty marginal effect. Now, if they were suggesting that a covid-positive doctor work in a hospital's cold-zone, there might be some serious ethical and legal considerations.... SJ Short answer: you are technically and theoretically correct. Longer answer: First, there are practical considerations. For people going to work in hospitals, where do they change, eat, go around, use bathrooms? Do you create a separate infrastructure? In my area, it was shown that significant spreading events occurred in nursing homes from people (healthcare workers) sharing the physical space where they ate and, despite theoretical considerations of 'protection', there were several super-spreader events from healthcare workers (Covid+) who continued to work in several centers (due to human resources shortage situation). Do you think safety measures are well observed when there are worker shortage situations? Second, from a conceptual point of view, sticking to the surge scenarios' perspective, it's accepted (CDC and all) that contingency plans need to be in place, just in case, and the next level is to have Covid+ workers treating Covid- patients, and the next level is to have workers without protective equipment etc. i simply wonder if underlying assumptions should not be questioned when going in this direction. In Canada and other areas of 'socialized' medicine, compromises have to be reached all the time when dealing with supply-demand mismatches and this is obviously a significant problem but it's surprising (and perhaps humbling) to see such contingency plans in places that are relatively new to the concept. i understand that you have a fatalistic approach to the whole thing but i'm perplexed at the extent of the reach for herd immunity when effective vaccine options are on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/dr-juan-fitz-a-hero-of-emergency-medicine-dies-of-covid-19-in-texas/ar-BB1aUsqs?ocid=msedgntp Why do we need heroes? Weren't they just suggesting that asymptomatic covid carriers could continue to work in a hospital's covid hot-zone? The patients in the hot-zone all have covid anyway, so does it really matter if some of the staff also have covid? I guess there's the viral-load argument that the staff could contribute to the viral load in the air, but that seems to me like a pretty marginal effect. Now, if they were suggesting that a covid-positive doctor work in a hospital's cold-zone, there might be some serious ethical and legal considerations.... SJ No, not every patient in a CoVID-19 hotspot zone has CoVID-19 and not every employee or nurse or doctor has it, but with these lack of precautions they probably will. We are basically seeing a repeat of NYC in March in a rural setting with less people. I think mortality rates will be quite bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/dr-juan-fitz-a-hero-of-emergency-medicine-dies-of-covid-19-in-texas/ar-BB1aUsqs?ocid=msedgntp Why do we need heroes? Weren't they just suggesting that asymptomatic covid carriers could continue to work in a hospital's covid hot-zone? The patients in the hot-zone all have covid anyway, so does it really matter if some of the staff also have covid? I guess there's the viral-load argument that the staff could contribute to the viral load in the air, but that seems to me like a pretty marginal effect. Now, if they were suggesting that a covid-positive doctor work in a hospital's cold-zone, there might be some serious ethical and legal considerations.... SJ No, not every patient in a CoVID-19 hotspot zone has CoVID-19 and not every employee or nurse or doctor has it, but with these lack of precautions they probably will. We are basically seeing a repeat of NYC in March in a rural setting with less people. I think mortality rates will be quite bad. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. A "hot-zone" within a hospital is a segregated area where all of the covid patients are housed. It's the area where it is presumed that the virus is circulating in the air and is present on surfaces. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that somebody could be misdiagnosed and errantly placed into a hospital's hot-zone (it could happen that a patient exhibited covid symptoms and registered a false-positive on their covid test). If a covid-positive staff member is working in the hot-zone, both he and his patients already have the virus. SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-coronavirus-adviser-emanuel-vaccine-distribution Biden coronavirus adviser wants US to distribute vaccine globally before it's available to all Americans I am sure liberals will say: Good idea to have this rushed vaccine tested by poor 3rd world country people before it is widely used in the USA. :) :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 The most flabbergasting aspect of your post is the 'recommendation' for Covid-19 'asymptomatic frontline workers to maintain presence on the frontlines. i guess it does make sense under very special circumstances even if those circumstances were self-induced but this is terribly unusual and counterintuitive. What if you are the worker, isn't there a duty (by law, rule or basic ethics) to disclose to people taken care of that you carry the disease? What if you are the typical patient going to the hospital, how do you feel concerning the fact that people taking care of you may carry the disease? i never thought i would carry this type of discussion in North America. Weren't they just suggesting that asymptomatic covid carriers could continue to work in a hospital's covid hot-zone? The patients in the hot-zone all have covid anyway, so does it really matter if some of the staff also have covid? I guess there's the viral-load argument that the staff could contribute to the viral load in the air, but that seems to me like a pretty marginal effect. Now, if they were suggesting that a covid-positive doctor work in a hospital's cold-zone, there might be some serious ethical and legal considerations.... SJ Short answer: you are technically and theoretically correct. Longer answer: First, there are practical considerations. For people going to work in hospitals, where do they change, eat, go around, use bathrooms? Do you create a separate infrastructure? In my area, it was shown that significant spreading events occurred in nursing homes from people (healthcare workers) sharing the physical space where they ate and, despite theoretical considerations of 'protection', there were several super-spreader events from healthcare workers (Covid+) who continued to work in several centers (due to human resources shortage situation). Do you think safety measures are well observed when there are worker shortage situations? Second, from a conceptual point of view, sticking to the surge scenarios' perspective, it's accepted (CDC and all) that contingency plans need to be in place, just in case, and the next level is to have Covid+ workers treating Covid- patients, and the next level is to have workers without protective equipment etc. i simply wonder if underlying assumptions should not be questioned when going in this direction. In Canada and other areas of 'socialized' medicine, compromises have to be reached all the time when dealing with supply-demand mismatches and this is obviously a significant problem but it's surprising (and perhaps humbling) to see such contingency plans in places that are relatively new to the concept. i understand that you have a fatalistic approach to the whole thing but i'm perplexed at the extent of the reach for herd immunity when effective vaccine options are on the way. That's certainly a series of practical considerations. Clearly, you would need to designate separate staff facilities in the hot-zone. The bathroom and lunch facilities are probably less of a problem than designating a segregated entrance to the building, separate elevators and change-room for covid-positive staff. Every facility likely has different latitude to re-purpose space within a hot-zone, but in most cases it's probably not a show-stopper. Your second observation is a bit perplexing. Your argument against doing something that can be done relatively safely is that it could be the stepping-stone to doing something that is clearly unsafe? Is that the "gate-way drug" argument? On a personal level, this is the second time you have referred to my "fatalistic" views. I think I have been pretty clear that covid can only be curtailed (not eradicated) at a significant economic and social cost, and generally through using control measures that are not sustainable. My opinion is that most people in the western world are unwilling to accept that cost for a prolonged period (is that fatalistic view or a simple objective observation?). The "reach for herd immunity" is a simple observation of the virus' progress to date, which IMO, is a perspective that is sadly lacking amongst public health officials. The vaccine which will be administered over the next 6 months will be of considerable value in many countries, notably Canada, where the progression of the virus has been modest. But, in a few countries, such as the US, Belgium and the Czech Republic, it looks to me as if the virus may very well begin to burn itself out roughly at the same time that the first vaccine recipients receive their second shot. Those countries might very well have achieved herd immunity (ie R0<1) without a meaningful contribution from the vaccine (that does not, however, imply that the vaccine has zero benefit for those populations). On all occasions, I try to articulate my assumptions, share the basic arithmetic and not to be too abusive of significant digits. People are free to agree to disagree with my assumptions and replace them with their own. But it is completely baffling to me that any interested observer would NOT be trying to understand the extent of the virus' progression within a population of interest. The public policy question which you now seem to be hinting at is, how should virus control measures be directed on a going forward basis now that a promising vaccine has been announced. In essence, with the development of this vaccine, governments have moved from decision making under uncertainty to decision making with relative certainty (ie, a 90% effective vaccine which can be likely be generally administered within 6 or 8 months). On that point, I would suggest that the decision making process is a much easier process because the economic and social cost of lockdown measures are reasonably well understood from our experience last spring, but the benefit of lockdown measures has become much more clear -- it is no longer a situation where economic and social costs are incurred on the basis of a faint hope that there might be a benefit. At this point the benefit seems relatively clear and the challenge for governments is to assess whether that cost-benefit proposition is well-aligned with the preferences of their population (those preferences differ in every country). While you may find it counter-intuitive, my guess is that the majority of countries will not impose meaningfully stricter control measures for the next 3 or 4 months, despite the compelling cost-benefit proposition. But, that opinion is not a should or should not opinion, rather it is my guess about how governments will manage the risk preferences of their population. SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwise Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 If there are 18 million official cases, how many true cases will the US have had? Is it 10-to-1? How about 8-to-1? Something else? At a certain point, a considerable portion of the US will have already had covid and the R0 will drop by virtue of running out of potential carriers. If you believe that R0 will be pushed below 1 once ~60% of the population has already been infected, you would probably be pretty close to the finish line when you see 18 million official cases reported in the US. SJ, Slovakia’s results don’t show a 10-to-1 ratio of true cases to reported cases. They tested the whole population and found about 2-to-1. Previous PCR based results: 79k, with 23k recovered, I.e 56k active cases https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/slovakia/ Then they tested everyone else with rapid tests, and found 57k. https://ca.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-slovakia/slovakia-says-covid-double-testing-cut-number-of-infections-by-more-than-half-idUSL8N2HV5G4 Herd immunity may be further if you change that assumption down to 2-to-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 ... 1- Your second observation is a bit perplexing. Your argument against doing something that can be done relatively safely is that it could be the stepping-stone to doing something that is clearly unsafe? Is that the "gate-way drug" argument? 2- On a personal level, this is the second time you have referred to my "fatalistic" views. I think I have been pretty clear that covid can only be curtailed (not eradicated) at a significant economic and social cost, and generally through using control measures that are not sustainable. My opinion is that most people in the western world are unwilling to accept that cost for a prolonged period (is that fatalistic view or a simple objective observation?). Historical path-dependency argument... SJ First, thank you. i hate restrictions (commercial, children home for school, arrows painted on floors in grocery aisles etc {also, some colleagues indicate that their billings have been less by at least 50% for a few months}) and, from an evolutionary standpoint, this virus will help to improve the profile of population pyramids. i also tend to agree with the Ezekiel Emanuel's Life after 75 article that muscleman indirectly refers to in the post above. But i really enjoy our civilized world and wonder about cost effective measures. About 1- Most of what i was trying to describe is that if you're in the middle of a disaster, you have to deal with the disaster and the imminent consequences but that shouldn't totally preclude from learning from the past for your future and the future of those who can learn from your difficulties. You can use a 4-quadrant matrix to compare how countries (developed or not) have been dealing with Covid-19 and there are patterns. Some have been able to combine relatively low economic costs and relatively less poor health outcomes and some have been able to combine high economic costs and poor health outcomes. i agree that sustainability is important, but countries have tended to remain in the same quadrant all along, at least so far but trajectories can change. The MidWest states, relatively speaking, are not doing well from that perspective: About 2- What i perceive to be fatalism on your part may be realism but what i'm suggesting is not turning a frog into a prince but more like stirring the boat in the right direction. It looks like Sweden improved their momentum and some developed countries have consistently adapted to minimize costs and maximize health outcomes, allowing to reach herd immunity (helped with vaccines) in an overall better shape. Israel was going in a very ominous direction but difficult measures were imposed and a new direction has been defined: Isn't that what good governance is all about? Going forward, the idea is to mitigate poor trends and i argue that places like North Dakota are keeping the same vision and strategy that brought them there in the first place and things could have been different. And things could be different going forward. i would offer the opinion that leadership counts. --- In the grand scheme of things the Covid-19 issue is no such big deal but it has been a global phenomenon that was unexpected and 'new' in nature. Somebody recently said that they had to design and execute simultaneously which is kind of challenging, especially when your job is to aggregate data, make decisions and suffer consequences of those decisions. In the last post, muscleman refers to the policy of global vaccine distribution vs America First. i couldn't help remembering the design of the Marshall Plan after WWII. After WWI, the US came back to a splendid isolation and that, with other factors, contributed to the eventual course of human events. The Marshall Plan was not popular. It required leadership, communication and some pedagogy. The Plan was mostly made of grants and was a true significant liability in the fiscal budget then. Still, it could be argued that it was one of the most convincing positive NPV project from purely an American point of view. i would say similar principles apply to the Covid episode. Collaboration at the group level can have a net positive impact and late is not too late. But i respect the fact that may have a better handle on human nature (2021 edition) and i may suffer from utopian considerations, at least at this point of the cycle Note: The images above were borrowed from the Edge and Odds site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 If there are 18 million official cases, how many true cases will the US have had? Is it 10-to-1? How about 8-to-1? Something else? At a certain point, a considerable portion of the US will have already had covid and the R0 will drop by virtue of running out of potential carriers. If you believe that R0 will be pushed below 1 once ~60% of the population has already been infected, you would probably be pretty close to the finish line when you see 18 million official cases reported in the US. SJ, Slovakia’s results don’t show a 10-to-1 ratio of true cases to reported cases. They tested the whole population and found about 2-to-1. Previous PCR based results: 79k, with 23k recovered, I.e 56k active cases https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/slovakia/ Then they tested everyone else with rapid tests, and found 57k. https://ca.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-slovakia/slovakia-says-covid-double-testing-cut-number-of-infections-by-more-than-half-idUSL8N2HV5G4 Herd immunity may be further if you change that assumption down to 2-to-1. A ratio of 2:1 would definitely leave a long road ahead to arrive at herd immunity. There have been a considerable number of antibody testing studies that have been published over the past 7 or 8 months, all of which have varying results. Most of the early tests have been suggested of a 10:1 or 15:1 ratio, or sometimes even higher. The most significant recent study was the dialysis users study ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext ) which suggested that about 8x more people carried covid antibodies than were ever officially diagnosed with the virus. Turning to the Slovakia study, I am not sure that I've entirely understood what they have done, but it appears to me that it was an antigen study rather than an antibody study. What they seemed to be attempting to measure is the number of people currently ill rather than those who have antibodies that are indicative of past illness. They seem to have obtained a nice current snapshot of the situation, but as I understand it, that doesn't really tell us what has happened in the past. That being said, there is much uncertainty of the true covid infection rate. We know very well that it is much, much higher than the officially diagnosed cases would suggest, but we don't really know for certain how much higher. I would encourage people to keep an open mind about just how far and wide this has spread in the United States. If you believe that herd immunity kicks in once ~60% of the population has been infected, that would require about 200 million people to have already had covid. If you believe the studies that suggest a 10:1 ratio between true cases and official cases, then the US might hit herd immunity once about 20 million official cases are reported. If you believe the 8:1 ratio suggested by the dialysis study, then you might expect to see herd immunity once about 25 million official cases are reported. As of today, the CDC is reporting 10.2 million official cases. Are we half-way there? Is it 40% of the way there? Something else? By the time the first person in the US is immune by virtue of the vaccine (which will be approximately January 1st), how many official cases will there be? It's another 50 days, so add at least another 5 million or so to the existing 10 million? SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Media is ecstatic. Corey Lewandowski will be dead in T+3 days.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Media is ecstatic. Corey Lewandowski will be dead in T+3 days.... Ironically got it at the Trump “victory” party. I guess this is badly needed “positive” news for the Trump team. Gesundheit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Surely there isn't another country in the world that has tested more rigorously than the Faroe Islands. Population 52.000 Samples 156.223 !!! Confirmed cases 495 Recovered 490 (5 active cases) It has to be said, that only 27 people over the age of 60 have had the virus. www.corona.fo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/30308543/golden-state-warriors-submit-plan-home-game-testing-allow-50-percent-fan-capacity Pretty interesting. Lets see if the bureaucrats listen to the "science" or continue to find excuses for their power grab. Joe Lacob is infinitely more credible and qualified than any of them, and probably even moreso than the purely academic scientists like Fauci, who have never been forced to make a living in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 This will likely be my last post about the pure Coronavirus topic (out of respect for others focused on pure investments and because leading indicators suggest that CV is becoming less relevant going forward). Reported numbers look bad and trends are still negative: And some areas are more affected by others: But, after moving from urban to rural and back to urban, this third sub-wave likely represents the third and final significant act of the overall expected wave covering the US continent. Canada is still behind the curves on the way to vaccines and the US is clearly reaching territory of 'functional' herd immunity. ----- @StubbleJumper, if you read this, Some states are still reporting amazingly high positive rates (as of yesterday, SD 58.8%, KA 58.7%, IA 52.6%) which suggests that using tests may make sense at the individual level but using tests at the population level with such high %s has essentially no meaning for pre-emptive action except to realize that contingency measures have to be put in place in hospitals. North Dakota has focused efforts on more tests (15.7% positive rate yesterday) and now 'leaders' are suggesting that positive workers stay on the job. In response to this suggestion, the nurses association politely responded. It seems that they're ready to forget sunk costs of previous failed cost-effective prevention but they added (sort of): Even if 'we' are late in the game sir, can you not consider more sensible population measures? This AM, at this part of the juncture, the person in charge announced a statewide mask mandate and various restrictions on economic activity. When comparing the costs and benefits of various actions, it's interesting to compare with Delaware. Yesterday, Delaware's positive rate was 6.3% and they have lower test per population rates. North Dakota, in this race of deaths per capita, has already surpassed Delaware and will be a clear winner on that front with, likely, even higher economic costs from wrong policies and untimely applied policies: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945e1.htm So, i expect North Dakota to turn the corner too. @Investor20, if you read this, For hospitalization rates, it has become unnecessary to update previous posts. i assume that, within a few weeks, the CDC and their well paid number crunchers will report positive trends in recent hospitalizations when, in fact, real activity on the ground will reveal that trends are down. Also, many pundits expect that this third wave to grow much worse because of various variables: colder temperature, decreased sunlight exposure etc but the virus does not know that. ----- In terms of concluding investment remarks for the virus, i thought it was impossible to use virus numbers to forecast market movements (although market swings were relatively significant on the way down and up), but valuation levels for some names became reasonable during a window period. Because of concerns about the host (economic), i did not go all-in and even abstained from some profitable trades (examples: i did not buy Travelers or Zimmer Holdings even if price target ranges were met) so positive returns related to viral events remain relatively modest. However, i was surprised by the extent to which the virus revealed the institutional weaknesses to deal with challenges (economic or otherwise). Economic co-morbidities are nothing new but the present underlying picture is quite unusual and this too shall pass. Good luck to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted November 15, 2020 Share Posted November 15, 2020 Pretty good article explaining why people do what they do: https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/surging-virus-cases-get-a-shrug-in-many-midwestern-towns/article_b1022b5a-d490-5b1f-b99e-58f9911ebce3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts