Coronavirus

[undervalued]

There is a WSJ article talking exactly this(also comparing the number to the flu), titled: The Bearer of Good Coronavirus News; Stanford scientist John Ioannidis finds himself under attack for questioning the prevailing wisdom about lockdowns.

 

NYC:  11,267 deaths divided by 21% of 8,000,000 people=mortality rate of 0.67%.  just like the flu.

 

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they?

 

This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/

 

So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu!

 

I love the stupidity!  the 21% positive antibody test results on NYCers (3000 person sample) is the best DATUM we have on creating the correct denominator of the mortality per infection rate.  what is your problem, Larkin?

 

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

 

I agree that this is a meaningful study. It’s large enough and reasonably random. There might be a bias in just choosing people outside vs at home but it is likely not a strong one.

0.67% morbidity is ~7x deadlier than the flu though. The flu kills between 10-50k annually and infects ~30M (roughly ) so thats in the 0.1% ballpark. In addition, it’s much more infective.

 

On thing I overlooked when looking at the IFR rate is that death cases have a long tail. They typically occur many weeks after the infection and display of symptoms Example of this was the Diamond Princess when only 6 death were reported first, but subsequently ended up with 14 dead. While that is a small sample size, I think the likely conclusion is that the IFR rate is higher than the ~0.7% rate calculated probably by as much than a factor 2

 

It’s all highly uncertain at this point and ballpark estimates, but better than nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

 

...and normalize with respect to the age. The median age of the passengers was 69. I believe all of the deaths were passengers.

 

So, if you assume IFR of ~1.4% for that old-age population group, the IFR for the entire population would be much, much lower.

 

Yes, but the crew is substantial ( think it’s roughly 1 crew member for 2  passengers) and the crews median age is 36. Also, the older folks on a cruise are probably healthier than average for their age. So count it all in and it biased old but not that old. It still doesn’t matter, the point I was trying to make is that many death occurred  way later.

[Investor20]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html

 

About 6 percent of Miami-Dade’s population — about 165,000 residents — have antibodies indicating a past infection by the novel coronavirus, dwarfing the state health department’s tally of about 10,600 cases, according to preliminary study results announced by University of Miami researchers Friday.

 

UM researchers used statistical methods to account for the limitations of the antibody test, which is known to generate some false positive results. The researchers say they are 95% certain that the true amount of infection lies between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population, with 6% representing the best estimate.

 

This article does not give fatality rate.  But the following article says "Miami-Dade has confirmed 11,005 cases with 295 deaths".

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2020/04/24/florida-passes-1000-coronavirus-deaths-and-30000-cases/

 

(295/165,000)*100 = 0.17% IFR

 

At lower end of 4.4% or 121,000 infected

 

(295/121,000)*100 = 0.24% IFR

 

Interesting that the death rate is low in Miami Dade with higher portion of older people than in NYC.

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

For the “models were wrong” crowd (i.e. perpetual nonsense peddlers):

 

 

A lot of limitations w the IHME model (for example would miss any second waves, dumb decisions by policy makers to reopen too soon), but it’s done a heckuva job so far.

 

Source:

[Liberty]

Brad Pitt occupying his quarantine time:

 

[Liberty]

Sweden:

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

[clutch]

For the “models were wrong” crowd (i.e. perpetual nonsense peddlers):

 

 

A lot of limitations w the IHME model (for example would miss any second waves, dumb decisions by policy makers to reopen too soon), but it’s done a heckuva job so far.

 

Source:

 

A bit of cherry-picking.

 

In the same thread:

Nostromo26

"Why did you stop plotting deaths on the 20th? Daily deaths haven't gone down since then. Here's a chart updated through 4/25."

 

But regardless, this model predicts that the number of deaths would be close to 0 by July... I guess we will start counting deaths like China at that point.

[clutch]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I'd revisit the deaths/mil number in 16 months and it should be similar across most of the countries. The area under the flattened and peaked curves are about the same...

[clutch]

Play around with a model yourself:

https://www.josstam.com/post/lockdown-blues

[Dalal.Holdings]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I'd revisit the deaths/mil number in 16 months and it should be similar across most of the countries. The area under the flattened and peaked curves are about the same...

 

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

 

If a vaccine or treatment emerges, the flatter curve is better and ends up with a much smaller AUC. That’s one thing you are discounting (in addition to consequences of ICU/vent/healthcare overload).

 

Put another way, it’s everyone going to their bank to withdraw their deposits all at once vs slowly over time. The area under the curve is the same, but in one of the scenarios, the bank fails.

[clutch]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I'd revisit the deaths/mil number in 16 months and it should be similar across most of the countries. The area under the flattened and peaked curves are about the same...

 

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

 

If a vaccine or treatment emerges, the flatter curve is better and ends up with a much smaller AUC. That’s one thing you are discounting (in addition to consequences of ICU/vent/healthcare overload).

 

That's why I say revisit in 16 months, when all those factors would have played out, instead of them being model assumptions.

 

I'm sure Sweden has many qualified health experts too and a prediction model. For some reason, they concluded that their approach is the best course of action. Only time will tell.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I'd revisit the deaths/mil number in 16 months and it should be similar across most of the countries. The area under the flattened and peaked curves are about the same...

 

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

 

If a vaccine or treatment emerges, the flatter curve is better and ends up with a much smaller AUC. That’s one thing you are discounting (in addition to consequences of ICU/vent/healthcare overload).

 

That's why I say revisit in 16 months, when all those factors would have played out, instead of them being model assumptions.

 

I'm sure Sweden has many qualified health experts too and a prediction model. For some reason, they concluded that their approach is the best course of action. Only time will tell.

 

Why 16 months? Let’s revisit in 10b years during the heat death of the universe. /arguing nonsense

[clutch]

I haven't seen any news yet that hospitals in Sweden are overwhelmed. Maybe the experts there knew that was going to be the case.

 

Also, the experts knew that that vaccine won't be available for another 18 months, or the probability is so low.

 

They probably took these into account, and understanding "flattening the curve" is simply prolonging the damage, and decided to roll the dice.

 

They are the experts, too.

[clutch]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I'd revisit the deaths/mil number in 16 months and it should be similar across most of the countries. The area under the flattened and peaked curves are about the same...

 

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

 

If a vaccine or treatment emerges, the flatter curve is better and ends up with a much smaller AUC. That’s one thing you are discounting (in addition to consequences of ICU/vent/healthcare overload).

 

That's why I say revisit in 16 months, when all those factors would have played out, instead of them being model assumptions.

 

I'm sure Sweden has many qualified health experts too and a prediction model. For some reason, they concluded that their approach is the best course of action. Only time will tell.

 

Why 16 months? Let’s revisit in 10b years during the heat death of the universe. /arguing nonsense

 

Because that's the timeline these intervention measures are based on, at least in this paper.

 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

 

"The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package –

or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a

vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission

will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed."

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

A bit of cherry-picking.

 

In the same thread:

Nostromo26

"Why did you stop plotting deaths on the 20th? Daily deaths haven't gone down since then. Here's a chart updated through 4/25."

 

But regardless, this model predicts that the number of deaths would be close to 0 by July... I guess we will start counting deaths like China at that point.

 

Lol. This somehow proves models are useless?

 

Reminder to self: refrain from responding to nonsense peddlers.

[clutch]

A bit of cherry-picking.

 

In the same thread:

Nostromo26

"Why did you stop plotting deaths on the 20th? Daily deaths haven't gone down since then. Here's a chart updated through 4/25."

 

But regardless, this model predicts that the number of deaths would be close to 0 by July... I guess we will start counting deaths like China at that point.

 

Lol. This somehow proves models are useless?

 

Reminder to self: refrain from responding to nonsense peddlers.

 

It shows (not "proves" -- none of these models are provable) that over a longer period time, the model could turn out to be incorrect.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Brad Pitt occupying his quarantine time:

 

 

Typical liberal elitist hollywood guy. Why doesn't he focus on issues relevant to me like Hunter Biden or Biden's sexual assault accuser?

 

Biden only has 1 accuser which is very suspicious to me--most innocent men have 25 accusers like that Harvey guy. And Burisma has more of an impact on my life than Jared Kushner choosing how to distribute ventilators or Ivanka telling gyms to reopen.

 

Time to tune into Hannity where I can get the news that actually applies to my humble life.

[clutch]

Dalal.Holdings, I'm trying to show that I can use scientific evidence and reasoning to counter many of the arguments you are making. That is how science works. None is absolute and things should be critiqued.

 

I think you are just too used to the "deplorables" arguing with you simply based on their ideology. And maybe you are one of them too, just on the other side.

[Guest cherzeca]

@clutch

 

"The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package –

or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a

vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission

will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed."

 

I have not read the imperial link, but is there any discussion in it of anticipated % of population with antibody protection (understanding that the strength of each person's protection is still uncertain).  I dont think much of the modeling that I have seen has been assuming 10-20% antibody level. 

 

again, one can be scientific and create models regarding transmission or use a little common sense and distinguish between those in the population that would be at-risk in the event of transmission, and focus mitigation efforts on them, and let transmission among the not-at-risk proceed (as we do without massive shutdowns every other flu season)

 

[Cigarbutt]

... Investments I was looking at were NSP and BBSI. low PE, high ROE, decent growth prospects, but short term hit from COVID, hopefully not fatal to these companies. These companies basically handle HR, payroll, and benefits for small employers. Part of the profit is insurance. Both seem to offer workers comp themselves , and NSP seems to have some profit/loss impacts from health insurance. There is a cost from the shutdown's reduced employment, usual for these companies in any economic slowdown, but also a possible loss from the insurance side.

Thats what made me wonder about the cost of treatment, who covers it etc. The US is pretty litigious, and the healthcare costs were already a high percentage of GDP. Not sure what impacts the current costs will have on health insurance providers, and ultimately on the costs of renewing/getting insurance. Good point that all other health costs may go down, so the net effect could be small or even positive.

Also not sure how liable employers are if employees get infected at work. Like those meat plants that have shut. Can the employers be sued for not providing enough safety at work? Since the infection will probably form a cluster, frequency of claims can be high. A few deaths, and the exposure can be every large.

The companies you mention are in an area i understand well. Will take a look and maybe start or participate in a separate thread?

For the employers' liability side, the potential cost is still unknown and, using an insurance-like frame of mind, this is very difficult to price at this point. Jurisdictions (see example below) are now publishing (evolving) guidelines and law firms (smelling opportunities) publish their own versions on how to deal with this. If interested, listed below is a reference coming from Corvel (a company i know very well) that offers a webcast next week.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/guidance-business-response.html

https://www.corvel.com/covid-19

 

...

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

Really?

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

...

No one is arguing the area of the curve is different. The area under the curve will be approximately the same, but flattening and delaying peak prevents healthcare overload (which would lead to more deaths and more area under the curve), allows to buy time for positive black swan (treatment, vaccine, warm/humid weather) to emerge.

Really?

 

Flattening the curve strategies do not incorporate in their projections a positive black swan emerging: a vaccine, effective treatment, or heat/humidity reducing spread/severity/mortality (positive black swans) because this is impossible to predict. They also do not necessarily incorporate extra deaths from healthcare overload (which would be very hard to estimate).

 

Hence our nonsense peddlers seize on this as "proof" that flattening has no real benefit. They are left out of models because it is impossible to model black swans (even positive ones) and extra deaths that result from overload. Just because they are left out does not mean these are not very real benefits of flattening (they are).

 

As the bank example I used--if everyone goes to the bank to ask for their deposits all at once vs over time, you will see a real, nonlinear difference as the bank will fail in the fmr scenario.

 

Again, I am not going back to square one (arguing about benefits of curve flattening which should have been settled 6 weeks ago) and coming down to the level of our great nonsense dwellers here...

[clutch]

@clutch

 

"The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package –

or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a

vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission

will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed."

 

I have not read the imperial link, but is there any discussion in it of anticipated % of population with antibody protection (understanding that the strength of each person's protection is still uncertain).  I dont think much of the modeling that I have seen has been assuming 10-20% antibody level. 

 

again, one can be scientific and create models regarding transmission or use a little common sense and distinguish between those in the population that would be at-risk in the event of transmission, and focus mitigation efforts on them, and let transmission among the not-at-risk proceed (as we do without massive shutdowns every other flu season)

 

"On recovery from infection, individuals are assumed to be immune to re-infection

in the short term. Evidence from the Flu Watch cohort study suggests that re-infection with the same

strain of seasonal circulating coronavirus is highly unlikely in the same or following season (Prof

Andrew Hayward, personal communication)."

 

I think they simply assume that the people who were infected won't get infected again. As this group size increases, the rate of infection slows down and we see the curve tail off.

 

Your last point is an important one. The Imperial College model takes age into consideration to predict the percentage of people requiring hospitalization/ICU/fatality rate. It's in Table 1. You will see that they have underestimated the infected fatally rate for the older population. (on the other hand, they have overestimated the hospitalization rate across the entire age groups, likely indicating that they were relying on the numbers from Wuhan/Italy at that time.)

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I think at this point, the Swedes have done OK in my opinion. As long as their health care system isn’t crashing in Stockholm, where the population density is highest, their approach isn’t really a failure.

 

They try to get herd immunity at an acceptable cost (in terms of lives). So far, by their own judgement, that is still the case and who are we to judge otherwise?

 

 

Also, besides that , Sweden isn’t really normal either, they just have a soft shutdown instead off hard one. not too different from what we have in some states in the US.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-coronavirus-the-biggest-myth-about-sweden-is-that-life-is-going-on-as-normal

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Sweden:

 

 

There goes that lone example from the “do nothing” crowd. But what do you expect from people who lack any sense of objectivity and scientific literacy? Often wrong, never in doubt.

 

I think at this point, the Swedes have done OK in my opinion. As long as their health care system isn’t crashing in Stockholm, where the population density is highest, their approach isn’t really a failure.

 

They try to get herd immunity at an acceptable cost (in terms of lives). So far, by their own judgement, that is still the case and who are we to judge otherwise?

 

Swedes may not fare as poorly as some regions--Wuhan, Italy, NYC due to lack of density/different lifestyles, a functional healthcare system, robust sick leave policies, and a population that is highly compliant with social distancing. Even S Korea was able to avoid full lockdown due to underlying positive societal factors (+widespread testing/contact tracing and compliance with self quarantine). Unfortunately not too many other places have these things going for them.

[Jurgis]

My wife is participating in the "open to everyone who has Oura ring" part of this study: https://ouraring.com/ucsf-tempredict-study

She's gonna get a free antibody test as a part of this.

Gonna be interesting.