Coronavirus

[Cigarbutt]

Here's some more of Gato's stupid analysis. 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbDBdetU0AEITRc?format=png&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbDBstcUwAEa8N7?format=jpg&name=medium

Useless.  He's the worst. 

What's your point?

Do you want to put emphasis on relative performance (intra- and inter- geographies) going through the first wave?

There's an old law, Farr's law, which basically suggests that an epidemic scenario will have an intrinsic set of reasons pushing for a pattern of an up and then down curve pattern. Of course, human can interact to flatten the slope of the curve, going up and down, in a positive sense.

[jamesmadison]

My point is that the trend line is clearly improving in the US and that there is no hospital crisis, notwithstanding the panic porn doomsayers' claims to the contrary. 

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

My point is that the trend line is clearly improving in the US and that there is no hospital crisis, notwithstanding the panic porn doomsayers' claims to the contrary.

Point well taken.

-Do you agree that this net positive trend line hides the feature that many states are improving while many other states are not, even at this stage of the game, post-peak?

-What do you think of the fact that the closest "comparables", in terms of the trend of hospitalized and ICU cases post-peak (once basic adjustments are made for population size, testing, etc) are Brazil and Russia?

 

Conceptually, this virus wants to spread and persist and there are 'natural' reasons to prevent that. Why would you be satisfied with a process that helps the virus to stick around while slowly mutating?

"Lockdown" measures have huge costs but, so far, the economic damage hasn't been proportional to the degrees of lockdown measures. So far, it appears that countries and regions that reacted slowly are the ones opening up too fast and (this leading to that) are the most likely to react slowly if there is a second wave. Isn't that bizarre?

[cubsfan]

It's funny that after all this time, the conventional idea of how to mitigate this is converging on the original one: protect the old and vulnerable and everyone else be careful.

 

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it and a lot of folks are of the same opinion. Been hearing the same from Orthopa for weeks.

 

 

 

[Gregmal]

It's funny that after all this time, the conventional idea of how to mitigate this is converging on the original one: protect the old and vulnerable and everyone else be careful.

 

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it and a lot of folks are of the same opinion. Been hearing the same from Orthopa for weeks.

 

Theres no narrative or agenda though. For instance, its totally coincidental that when Florida cases go from 3800 to 4200, the headlines of "cases soar to another record", but when cases drop to 3400 theres nothing of the same aggressiveness like "Florida cases plummet!". Then theres other folks who during the height of the panic were posting many times a day, and then mysteriously disappeared. Only to come roaring right back at the first sign of "another wave"... No agenda either from any of these fellas. They deserve oh so much credit for predicting that, wait for it, cases are trending up!

 

Orthopa was on the money months ago. For a while the message board DR's thought they knew better, but he turned out to be spot on. Remember, the was NO coronavirus anywhere prior to late February! Its was impossible that it was around before then! Impossible. No way more testing equals more confirmed positives! Then there was the time someone said, I hope you are invested in the market...trying arrogantly to be condescending, and then the entire market proceeded to go up 20%+. Brilliance all around for sure.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Lol! For some reason, there is a strong "correlation" between whether one favors Trump and their willingness to dismiss the pandemic--the (former politics section Trumper) brigade is out in full force in this thread. Anyone want to run a regression on it? As I said--you get the "analysis" you deserve, CoBF.

 

Here's one for people who are not beyond the level of reading graphs:

 

Nothing to see here folks--just fake news alarmism and another dumb graph! Clearly it's just a blip of a "second wave" for FL, not a surging first wave at all! After all, it's been in the millions since January!

 

And ignore those like me who disappear and then come back to warn like I did in early March. After all, I am focused on cases which in my flawed view are leading indicators of what's to come...Remember, we should ignore cases and focus on hospitalizations and mortality. Clearly mortality is going down when you divide by cases. And of course hospitalizations and mortality are the predictive indicators to look at right now, they are not lagging indicators, amirite? We clearly don't understand what lagging indicator means anyway on here...derp.

 

Also, those claiming it's been here and "millions were infected" and that they saw many patients who had it in January--so strange that it is only surging now in FL in June. Weird--if it was widespread in January, what took so long to get to FL? Top level analysis. Keep it up.

[KCLarkin]

In light of your comments, how would you attempt to prove or support an argument for lockdowns?  The economic costs have been staggering - trillions of dollars.  The social costs have been terrible as well.  And what for us - rich people in a rich country might count as inconvenience, is for poor people in poor countries devastating.  A compelling must be made by those who argue for them. 

 

Agreed, that much of the data is messy and inconsistent and as I previously pointed out, likely getting worse here in the USA.  We should all be in favor of wanting it to be as clean and consistent as possible.  In the absence of that, we either have to (a) ignore or (b) adjust it.  In the case of China, I would argue that "ignore" is the right strategy.  What's your suggestion?

 

James, I wouldn't start by attempting to prove anything. That is a sure way to introduce confirmation bias. I would read peer-reviewed journal articles. I would understand the real world is messy and there is an enormous amount of uncertainty. It is unethical to use deadly viruses in experiments, so we will never have high quality data.

 

But you miss my main point. The economic costs weren't caused by the lockdown. They were caused by an uncontrolled epidemic of a deadly disease.  Countries that had uncontrolled epidemics and didn't have formal lockdowns are also facing staggering economic costs. Countries that controlled their epidemics (by luck or skill) minimized the economic costs.

 

Marten Bjellerup, chief economist at the debt office in Stockholm, said he thinks Sweden will fare “somewhat better” than others, but acknowledged “the difference is marginal.”

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

This is what some people call a failure of lockdowns:

 

 

 

Remember, lockdowns went into effect in late March in NY and on March 9th in Italy, but we should ignore that timing. Clearly lockdowns do not work because they did not cause deaths to go down immediately on the day they went into effect. With lockdowns, we should expect deaths to decline immediately, not 2-3 weeks later like doctors say due to the natural progression of covid infection from onset to mortality. Again, we do not understand lagging indicators on here...

 

It turns out in the case of Italy and NY, they might have been late when it comes to locking down, but it turns out that it is better late than never when it comes do lockdowns.

 

Here we see two countries where universal lockdowns were not imposed (no eating carrots before moving onto dessert)--compare these to Italy, NY, and the EU--note the righthand part of the graphs:

 

USA:

 

Sweden (daily new cases):

 

Sorry for polluting your precious minds with "useless" graphs!

[KCLarkin]

Orthopa was on the money months ago. For a while the message board DR's thought they knew better, but he turned out to be spot on.

 

Speaking as one of Orhopa's smuggest critics, 100,000 deaths and mass graves were proof enough for me that he was wrong.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Orthopa was on the money months ago. For a while the message board DR's thought they knew better, but he turned out to be spot on.

 

Speaking as one of Orhopa's smuggest critics, 100,000 deaths and mass graves were proof enough for me that he was wrong.

 

Apparently to believe the "widespread/millions infected in January" thesis, you'd have to believe hundreds of thousands died back then and doctors had no idea what it was and put something else on the death certificate...Also none of those millions of people made it to FL, AZ, TX, OK, etc until now in June...

 

Also, love the strawman attempt--to accuse those like us who saying it most certainly was not widespread in U.S. January as if we were saying it was not at all here in U.S. in January--we clearly stated it was here in Jan, particularly in WA state (even citing an infectious disease doctor in Seattle who was ignored back in January by Federal gov't/FDA). 

 

But yeah, either some people have memory problems or just aim to mislead about what was argued in the past. *Shrugs*

[John Hjorth]

Orthopa was on the money months ago. For a while the message board DR's thought they knew better, but he turned out to be spot on.

 

Speaking as one of Orhopa's smuggest critics, 100,000 deaths and mass graves were proof enough for me that he was wrong.

 

Apparently to believe the "widespread/millions infected in January" thesis, you'd have to believe hundreds of thousands died back then and doctors had no idea what it was and put something else on the death certificate...Also none of those millions of people made it to FL, AZ, TX, OK, etc until now in June...

 

Also, love the strawman attempt--to accuse those like us who saying it most certainly was not widespread in U.S. January as if we were saying it was not at all here in U.S. in January--we clearly stated it was here in Jan, particularly in WA state (even citing an infectious disease doctor in Seattle who was ignored back in January by Federal gov't/FDA). 

 

But yeah, either some people have memory problems or just aim to mislead about what was argued in the past. *Shrugs*

 

Please can't we let this line of discussion go here? Is it constructive? [To me, no.] Is it fruitful [from a post mortem perspective] [for us, as investors]? [To me, no.]

[Dalal.Holdings]

Nothing. To See. Here.

 

[Cigarbutt]

^In the spirit of balanced analysis and go-forward perspective, the recent rise in US and Sweden "cases" needs to take into account the rising number of tests. Also, it appears (at least in the US) that the median age of people with positive tests has been coming down, which would imply some mitigation for the number of hospitalized and ICU patients to come.

 

However, these adjustments only help slightly given the VERY unusual trend in curves in the US, compared to similar advanced economies and the heterogeneity in results will make it very hard (impossible?) to test and trace effectively. Calculated Risk produces regular updates related to this aspect and the author suggests that 3% rate of positive tests is a relevant threshold. The 3% is not a cause and effect criteria ie a low positive test rate does not cause the caseload to go down, it is associated with it.

https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/06/june-20-covid-19-test-results-most.html

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/28/21270515/coronavirus-covid-reopen-economy-social-distancing-states-map-data

See goal 4.

 

A concerning aspect is that the rate of positive tests has started to go up versus the number of tests done, suggesting community spread to a degree which may become uncomfortable and which may render a "V"-shaped recovery (to previous economic trends) less likely.

 

A question: Why were frail CV+ patients sent back to nursing homes from hospitals?

A possible solution to this difficult question may be to avoid ending up in a situation when the question needs to be asked.

[Dalal.Holdings]

One needs to stratify the U.S. by region to truly understand what is happening:

 

[ERICOPOLY]

A concerning aspect is that the rate of positive tests has started to go up versus the number of tests done, suggesting community spread to a degree which may become uncomfortable and which may render a "V"-shaped recovery (to previous economic trends) less likely.

 

Increasing contact tracing may also increase the rate of positive tests.  I'm not leaning either way. 

[Cigarbutt]

...

Increasing contact tracing may also increase the rate of positive tests.  I'm not leaning either way.

Excellent observation as some data suggests positive rates around 10-15% in more targeted contact tracing scenarios, even with relatively low prevalence in the community.

-The positive for this thesis: Efforts for contact tracing have been ramping up and this could show a temporary blip, at some point, in positive test results (inverse "J" effect).

-The negatives for this thesis: The timeline does not fit very well (the blip should have been seen before), the pattern of rising positive tests appear high versus what tracing efforts could achieve, hospitalization rates have started to correlate in some places (which should be coincidentally independent of tracing efforts) and a well planned and coordinated deployment of a tracing strategy at large would constitute a relative break from previous mitigation trends.

 

The data is noisy but i have a feeling that some states probably are implementing successful efforts at driving down the positive rates already due to tracing while other states may have difficulty building tracing teams or may meet unusual resistance (not related to immunity) in some quarters and, in this instance also, there may be a pattern developing..

[Investor20]

He didn't say causation, but you are the one who is implying that there is causation (more deaths -> harder lockdowns)...?

 

Yes, this is why I called Gato's analysis the stupidest thing posted on this thread!

 

Let's do this analysis for February.

 

U.S. -> 1 death, no lockdown

Canada -> 0 deaths, no lockdown

Wuhan -> Thousands of deaths*, lockdown.

 

Lockdowns are definitely correlated with deaths! But, I'm confident that Wuhan locked down BECAUSE of the outbreak.

 

* numbers made up

 

Lets take this further.  Causation comes with timing.

 

When did lockdown start in New York City?  When did all the deaths come.  Before or after?

 

Well, most people die of the flu after the vaccine has been administered.  Another correlation:  most of the deaths came after Trump told us that he shut down the flights from China.  And it all happened after Valentine's Day, so I'm wondering if all those Hallmark cards were involved.

 

After Flu vaccine is given, number of cases of flu go down, not up.

After lockdown did cases go down or up?

[Cigarbutt]

He didn't say causation, but you are the one who is implying that there is causation (more deaths -> harder lockdowns)...?

Yes, this is why I called Gato's analysis the stupidest thing posted on this thread!

Let's do this analysis for February.

U.S. -> 1 death, no lockdown

Canada -> 0 deaths, no lockdown

Wuhan -> Thousands of deaths*, lockdown.

Lockdowns are definitely correlated with deaths! But, I'm confident that Wuhan locked down BECAUSE of the outbreak.

* numbers made up

Lets take this further.  Causation comes with timing.

When did lockdown start in New York City?  When did all the deaths come.  Before or after?

Well, most people die of the flu after the vaccine has been administered.  Another correlation:  most of the deaths came after Trump told us that he shut down the flights from China.  And it all happened after Valentine's Day, so I'm wondering if all those Hallmark cards were involved.

After Flu vaccine is given, number of cases of flu go down, not up.

After lockdown did cases go down or up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

i'm not saying you're wrong, but you have a lot more work to do in order to form a convincing case.

BTW, it's a typical fallacy when people assume that they develop a problem after a vaccine.

[ERICOPOLY]

After Flu vaccine is given, number of cases of flu go down, not up.

After lockdown did cases go down or up?

 

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year.  Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards.

[Investor20]

 

I dont know Japanese.

 

 

https://vdata.nikkei.com/en/newsgraphics/coronavirus-economy/

 

Thanks.  And it shows Japanese overall had much more mobility than New York.  It is interesting Parks & Supermarkets activity did not go down much at all for Japan. 

 

The parks data shows Japanese were educated upfront about enclosed places. 

Japanese were going out to parks all through Feb-Jun, while New yorkers reduced going out to parks.

 

When someone is outside at park, they are not at home - automatic social distancing.

 

[Investor20]

After Flu vaccine is given, number of cases of flu go down, not up.

After lockdown did cases go down or up?

 

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year.  Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards.

 

Because we all know that summer time respiratory diseases go down and winter they go up. Thats why they give flu vaccine in October.

 

Though everyone was fighting with me in March when I said cases will go down in summer. 

 

So they were modelling cases exponentially continuously going up without lockdown.  But that is not correct.  Cases will start going down in summer and an honest modelling will take that into account.

 

But lockdown in March/April is a different beast.  Normally they start going down for respiratory diseases by March/April.

[ERICOPOLY]

After Flu vaccine is given, number of cases of flu go down, not up.

After lockdown did cases go down or up?

 

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year.  Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards.

 

Because we all know that summer time respiratory diseases go down and winter they go up. Thats why they give flu vaccine in October.

 

Nevertheless.  Cases rising X amount after locking people down does not show that it was ineffective.  For example, let's say one person in my household was just exposed on the morning the lockdown began.  That person doesn't test positive for 10 more days, and then 10 more days after that a couple more people in the household come down with it.  That's 20 days of lockdown and an explosion in cases within my household.

[jamesmadison]

My point is that the trend line is clearly improving in the US and that there is no hospital crisis, notwithstanding the panic porn doomsayers' claims to the contrary.

Point well taken.

-Do you agree that this net positive trend line hides the feature that many states are improving while many other states are not, even at this stage of the game, post-peak?

-What do you think of the fact that the closest "comparables", in terms of the trend of hospitalized and ICU cases post-peak (once basic adjustments are made for population size, testing, etc) are Brazil and Russia?

 

Conceptually, this virus wants to spread and persist and there are 'natural' reasons to prevent that. Why would you be satisfied with a process that helps the virus to stick around while slowly mutating?

"Lockdown" measures have huge costs but, so far, the economic damage hasn't been proportional to the degrees of lockdown measures. So far, it appears that countries and regions that reacted slowly are the ones opening up too fast and (this leading to that) are the most likely to react slowly if there is a second wave. Isn't that bizarre?

 

Given the size of the USA - both area and population, there will absolutely be differences in different regions.  Eg, early on, NYC metropolitan region and city in particular was a total disaster while the rest of the country was essentially unscathed.   

 

I don't have a point of view on Brazil and Russia being "comps" for the USA

 

I think we will need to agree to disagree on the massive costs of the lockdowns.  As I previously noted, they are in the trillions of dollars and the human cost around the world has been staggering.  Also, given my prior statements, no surprise that we will also need to agree to disagree on the benefits of lockdowns. 

 

[LC]

Though everyone was fighting with me in March when I said cases will go down in summer. 

 

https://apnews.com/144ec47b53e8637a8b7c232e64a44e01?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

 

The World Health Organization on Sunday reported the largest single-day increase in coronavirus cases by its count, at more than 183,000 new cases in the latest 24 hours.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-deaths-covid-19

 

 

[jamesmadison]

In light of your comments, how would you attempt to prove or support an argument for lockdowns?  The economic costs have been staggering - trillions of dollars.  The social costs have been terrible as well.  And what for us - rich people in a rich country might count as inconvenience, is for poor people in poor countries devastating.  A compelling must be made by those who argue for them. 

 

Agreed, that much of the data is messy and inconsistent and as I previously pointed out, likely getting worse here in the USA.  We should all be in favor of wanting it to be as clean and consistent as possible.  In the absence of that, we either have to (a) ignore or (b) adjust it.  In the case of China, I would argue that "ignore" is the right strategy.  What's your suggestion?

 

James, I wouldn't start by attempting to prove anything. That is a sure way to introduce confirmation bias. I would read peer-reviewed journal articles. I would understand the real world is messy and there is an enormous amount of uncertainty. It is unethical to use deadly viruses in experiments, so we will never have high quality data.

 

But you miss my main point. The economic costs weren't caused by the lockdown. They were caused by an uncontrolled epidemic of a deadly disease.  Countries that had uncontrolled epidemics and didn't have formal lockdowns are also facing staggering economic costs. Countries that controlled their epidemics (by luck or skill) minimized the economic costs.

 

Marten Bjellerup, chief economist at the debt office in Stockholm, said he thinks Sweden will fare “somewhat better” than others, but acknowledged “the difference is marginal.”

 

You don't believe that when governments want to implement a policy that will cost trillions of dollars and have a staggering human cost, that they need to prove they will work?  You are placing far too much trust in the competence and good intentions of government bureaucrats and their scientific and health advisors, who have done nothing to earn it in recent months.

 

And please, please stop with the belief in "peer reviewed" journals.  The Lancet and NEJM peer reviewed the crap they recently published on HCL and had to withdraw it within a couple of weeks.  Nowadays, it seems that "peer review" is shorthand for a study that confirms to current orthodoxy.

 

We will need to disagree on the source of the economic costs.  I believe that they were absolutely caused by the lockdowns. When all is said and done, Covid will end up having an IFR of somewhere between 0.1%- 0.5% for the entire population with a massive weighting towards the elderly and infirm.  It's not the disease, but the "cure" that's caused the suffering.