Coronavirus

[StubbleJumper]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households.

 

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-secondary-attack-rate/

It also estimated 32.5% (95% CI: 7.4 – 57.5%) of households with an index case had a secondary case. Spouses had statistically significant (P<0.001) increased secondary transmission (43.3% of spouses were infected) compared to other relatives of the index case (18.3%), and adult contacts had significant (P<0.001) increased transmission (31.0%) compared to children (15.7%).

 

 

Repeated studies have shown spouses of index case are infected less than 50%.  In two confirmed cases I know personally, in both families the spouse turned out to be negative.  In fact other family members got infected but not the spouse.

 

The explanation that is given for less than 50% of spouses of index case getting infected is that about 50% have built in immunity even before covid infection. You have to add the Covid antibody for seroprevalence studies to this to get the percent immune to Covid.

 

If you look at Florida, Texas, India.  All of them have turned around (India just starting) and in the seroprevalence studies in none of the places is it above 30%.

 

 

All of that is interesting, but none is particularly pertinent.

 

The study that Spekulatius quoted was conducted during July, but the authors could not specify a particular collection of dates.  In the absence of that, you need to assume that the data reflect mid-month, or July 16.  So, the study showed that on about July 16, 8.3% of 328 million people had antibodies, or about 27.2m people, IFF you believe that dialysis patients reasonably represent the general population (more on that later).  So if the sample were representative to the population, the study would suggest that 27m Americans had antibodies on July 16.  On July 16, there were 3.7m officially diagnosed cases of covid.  So, if the dialysis patients are representative of the general population, the true number of cases in the US would be 7.4:1 of the official number.

 

So, where are we today?  The US is now up to 7.3m official cases.  If you believe the 7.4x ratio that Spekulatius' study would suggest, that would suggest that ~54m people would have antibodies today.  So, that's a shade higher than 16% and herd immunity might be about 60%?  According to this particular study, that's the math.

 

Now, turning to representativeness of the dialysis group, we need to reflect on Spelulatius' assumption that these folks are representative.  Spek would suggest that the presence of visible minorities would make the group representative.  The countervailing behavioural assumption might be that any rational person with a comorbidity (dialysis requirement) would have been making extraordinary efforts to reduce their social circle to avoid covid.  What is more, one must also question the extent to which dialysis patients are employed, because workplaces are an important place of exposure.  If you are so sick that you require dialysis, are you sufficiently healthy to work.  I therefore question the representativeness.  The study is nonetheless valuable.  But, perhaps in your own mind you need to multiply the results by some sort of scalar to reflect the potential for lower contacts among the dialysis group.  So take the 16% antibody rate and gross it up as you see fit.  The "finish line" might be about 60%.

 

What is interesting about this study is that, if you believe that dialysis patients made a modicum of effort to reduce their personal contacts, a 10:1 ratio of antibodies to official cases might be supported by this study.  Unfortunately we won't know the truth of the situation for another couple of years.

 

 

SJ

[Investor20]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households.

 

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-secondary-attack-rate/

It also estimated 32.5% (95% CI: 7.4 – 57.5%) of households with an index case had a secondary case. Spouses had statistically significant (P<0.001) increased secondary transmission (43.3% of spouses were infected) compared to other relatives of the index case (18.3%), and adult contacts had significant (P<0.001) increased transmission (31.0%) compared to children (15.7%).

 

 

Repeated studies have shown spouses of index case are infected less than 50%.  In two confirmed cases I know personally, in both families the spouse turned out to be negative.  In fact other family members got infected but not the spouse.

 

The explanation that is given for less than 50% of spouses of index case getting infected is that about 50% have built in immunity even before covid infection. You have to add the Covid antibody for seroprevalence studies to this to get the percent immune to Covid.

 

If you look at Florida, Texas, India.  All of them have turned around (India just starting) and in the seroprevalence studies in none of the places is it above 30%.

 

 

All of that is interesting, but none is particularly pertinent. 

 

The study that Spekulatius quoted was conducted during July, but the authors could not specify a particular collection of dates.  In the absence of that, you need to assume that the data reflect mid-month, or July 16.  So, the study showed that on about July 16, 8.3% of 328 million people had antibodies, or about 27.2m people, IFF you believe that dialysis patients reasonably represent the general population (more on that later).  So if the sample were representative to the population, the study would suggest that 27m Americans had antibodies on July 16.  On July 16, there were 3.7m officially diagnosed cases of covid.  So, if the dialysis patients are representative of the general population, the true number of cases in the US would be 7.4:1 of the official number.

 

So, where are we today?  The US is now up to 7.3m official cases.  If you believe the 7.4x ratio that Spekulatius' study would suggest, that would suggest that ~54m people would have antibodies today.  So, that's a shade higher than 16% and herd immunity might be about 60%?  According to this particular study, that's the math.

 

Now, turning to representativeness of the dialysis group, we need to reflect on Spelulatius' assumption that these folks are representative.  Spek would suggest that the presence of visible minorities would make the group representative.  The countervailing behavioural assumption might be that any rational person with a comorbidity (dialysis requirement) would have been making extraordinary efforts to reduce their social circle to avoid covid.  What is more, one must also question the extent to which dialysis patients are employed, because workplaces are an important place of exposure.  If you are so sick that you require dialysis, are you sufficiently healthy to work.  I therefore question the representativeness.  The study is nonetheless valuable.  But, perhaps in your own mind you need to multiply the results by some sort of scalar to reflect the potential for lower contacts among the dialysis group.  So take the 16% antibody rate and gross it up as you see fit.  The "finish line" might be about 60%.

 

What is interesting about this study is that, if you believe that dialysis patients made a modicum of effort to reduce their personal contacts, a 10:1 ratio of antibodies to official cases might be supported by this study.  Unfortunately we won't know the truth of the situation for another couple of years.

 

 

SJ

 

To the question how many are still vulnerable, it is relevant how many are vulnerable with zero antibodies.

 

The most pertinent is that the weekly hospitalizations have dropped by 75% (8.2 on July 18 to 2.3 on Sep 19th per 100,000).

That is US in hospitalizations is about same in first week of March!

I still could not figure out how to include the image inside the post, but I attached the image.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

 

[StubbleJumper]

[

The most pertinent is that the weekly hospitalizations have dropped by 75% (8.2 on July 18 to 2.3 on Sep 19th per 100,000).

That is US in hospitalizations is about same in first week of March!

I still could not figure out how to include the image inside the post, but I attached the image.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

 

No, that's fair.  I was hasty in my response and I have struck it out.

 

 

SJ

[Cigarbutt]

...

To the question how many are still vulnerable, it is relevant how many are vulnerable with zero antibodies.

The most pertinent is that the weekly hospitalizations have dropped by 75% (8.2 on July 18 to 2.3 on Sep 19th per 100,000).

That is US in hospitalizations is about same in first week of March!

I still could not figure out how to include the image inside the post, but I attached the image.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

Why is it that herd immunity would be the only factor?

The household transmission rates are interesting. If herd immunity is the factor, how do you explain the following:

-These and similar studies show that transmission rates for COVID in the household are way higher than for MERS or SARS, does that mean that herd immunity had been reached for those previous viral episodes?

-Proximity seems to play a role (spouses vs others etc), so why not consider increased in-house basic precautions and basic distancing as relevant and important co-factors?

-The study mentioned that self-quarantine (behavior) made a huge difference in transmission outcomes, irrespective of any theoretical herd, natural or innate immunity, so how does that fit in the mono-factor immunity theory?

-Many places in the world have reached antibody levels higher than 30, 40, 50 or even 60%. If cell-mediated immunity is such a critical variable, why doesn't it prevent antibody levels from reaching such high levels?

Look at the following. The study has significant weaknesses but it was made in a relatively controlled environment where herd immunity took a while to kick in:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194787v1

Personal note: my area recorded one of the highest prevalence of disease last spring. And now the same area shows a significant rise in cases, although, for a variety of reasons and including also a partial level (IMO) of herd immunity, this "second" wave should result in less morbidity and mortality. But despite this higher herd immunity obtained due to previous institutional weakness and basic competence issues, it seems that my area will do worse (because of persistent and widespread community spread) than most parts of Canada who, it seems, made a conscious step to not bet on the herd.

[Investor20]

...

To the question how many are still vulnerable, it is relevant how many are vulnerable with zero antibodies.

The most pertinent is that the weekly hospitalizations have dropped by 75% (8.2 on July 18 to 2.3 on Sep 19th per 100,000).

That is US in hospitalizations is about same in first week of March!

I still could not figure out how to include the image inside the post, but I attached the image.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

Why is it that herd immunity would be the only factor?

The household transmission rates are interesting. If herd immunity is the factor, how do you explain the following:

-These and similar studies show that transmission rates for COVID in the household are way higher than for MERS or SARS, does that mean that herd immunity had been reached for those previous viral episodes?

-Proximity seems to play a role (spouses vs others etc), so why not consider increased in-house basic precautions and basic distancing as relevant and important co-factors?

-The study mentioned that self-quarantine (behavior) made a huge difference in transmission outcomes, irrespective of any theoretical herd, natural or innate immunity, so how does that fit in the mono-factor immunity theory?

-Many places in the world have reached antibody levels higher than 30, 40, 50 or even 60%. If cell-mediated immunity is such a critical variable, why doesn't it prevent antibody levels from reaching such high levels?

Look at the following. The study has significant weaknesses but it was made in a relatively controlled environment where herd immunity took a while to kick in:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194787v1

Personal note: my area recorded one of the highest prevalence of disease last spring. And now the same area shows a significant rise in cases, although, for a variety of reasons and including also a partial level (IMO) of herd immunity, this "second" wave should result in less morbidity and mortality. But despite this higher herd immunity obtained due to previous institutional weakness and basic competence issues, it seems that my area will do worse (because of persistent and widespread community spread) than most parts of Canada who, it seems, made a conscious step to not bet on the herd.

 

" The seroprevalence fell in July and August due to antibody waning. " states the article you posted.  The problem with seroprevalence studies are that antibodies are lasting only few months as seen in above study.

 

Bill Gates said, we probably will need two doses of vaccines and quoting Bill Gates regarding side effects "“some of that is not dramatic where it’s just super painful". Now if only antibodies confer immunity and antibodies after vaccination last only few months, we are in trouble right?

 

I always thought the vaccine development is also based on non-antibody immunity, but that applies to prior infected too.  The article you posted makes that clear.  The number of infected  and immunity is much more than the antibody study results.

 

We also see repeatedly cases fall once the seroprevalence reaches 20-30%. Sweden had 14% antibodies in July. Yet we dont see any second wave in Sweden. To take the seroprevalance of 14%in July and say Sweden has long way to go when we can also see the peak deaths in Sweden is in April!

We can agree July is after April?

https://www.thelocal.se/20200723/14-of-antibody-tests-positive-in-sweden

14% of coronavirus antibody tests positive in Sweden in July

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

 

The other corroborating evidence is the one I posted before, spouse secondary attack rate below 50%.

[Cigarbutt]

...

The number of infected  and immunity is much more than the antibody study results.

We also see repeatedly cases fall once the seroprevalence reaches 20-30%.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200723/14-of-antibody-tests-positive-in-sweden

...

i agree with you directionally. It's the extent we can rely on natural immunity that is risky (IMO).

Have you looked at the dialysis seroprevalence study that Spekulatius submitted? The study has limitations but the limitations are listed and discussed. It is a source of some powerful information. Relevant for this discussion:

-There was a remarkable variation in seroprevalence by state in the sampled participants, with early pandemic hotspots such as New York (33·6%, 95% CI 31·7–35·6), Louisiana (17·6%, 10·8–28·7), and Illinois (17·5%, 15·2–20·2) recording substantially higher seroprevalence than their respective neighbouring states of Pennsylvania (6·4%, 4·7–8·8), Arkansas (1·9%, 1·0–3·5), and Missouri (1·9%, 0·9–3·8).

-The study also estimated substantially higher seroprevalence in residents of predominantly Hispanic (11·3%, 95% CI 9·8–12·9), non-Hispanic Black (13·9%, 12·1–16·0), and Hispanic and Black (16·3%, 14·3–18·5) neighbourhoods compared with predominantly non-Hispanic white neighbourhoods (4·8%, 4·1–5·5), when standardised to the US adult population.

 

There are large segments in the population who have risk factors (including relative lower levels of innate or cell-mediated immunity) and who happen to live in crowded conditions with people living in the same household who can't simultaneously work at home and "protect". The remarkable variation in prevalence of antibody-mediated immunity and the heterogeneity of the population makes the concept of a unique % number of antibody levels relatively risky, in its application.

[mattee2264]

 

The other thing that gets forgotten is that a coronavirus vaccine may need to be as much as 70-80% effective before we can stop social distancing. So preliminary versions of the vaccine may not reduce the risk to an acceptable level and in the meantime social and economic costs continue to mount. So I think to some degree we do need to build up some natural immunity and learn to live with the virus while shielding as much as possible those for whom the virus could be deadly.

[Gregmal]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disney-cut-28-000-parks-205952547.html

 

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

[muscleman]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disney-cut-28-000-parks-205952547.html

 

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

 

This is sad.

I encountered a youtube video that I think describes these socialists well. They destroy a city by paying out insane amount of benefits. Then they move to the next good place.

 

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

[LC]

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

 

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

 

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"...

 

I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute.

 

Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ?

 

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

 

New york: 11th

Cali: 12th

Florida: 33rd

Texas: 34th

[Cardboard]

Have you ever compared populations LC??????

[patience_and_focus]

 

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

 

 

This is absolutely interesting in-depth deep dive report published by UnitedHealth group's foundation -

 

(a) Cannot claim its leftist - although for some here if its not Brietbart or Q then its not authentic.

(b) Almost all top 15 barring 2 are blue states, all bottom 15 barring 1 are red states.

© The most interesting aspect to me is not the current ranking but how ranking for each moved over time in the last 30 years from 1990 to 2019 (see page 12). Most (currently) blue states improved their ranking or stayed the same. Most (currently) red states got worse. E.g.: New Jersey moved from being 21 to 8, New York from 40 to 11, Iowa from 6 to 20, and North Dakota went from #1 in 1990 to being #14. There is definitely a time correlation between becoming blue over time and better health of its residents. Inverse is also true, becoming red over time and making its residents poor in health.

[LC]

Yes I agree it is very interesting to view results over time in the context of how the country has evolved (they have published the report for 30 years as of now)

 

It would be interesting to overlay these health indicators with COVID-responses from state officials.

[Cigarbutt]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disney-cut-28-000-parks-205952547.html

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

From a policy and data angle:

California and Florida are not that different although marginal differences tend to add up and some people like to focus on the (growing) differences.

What can we learn from each other?

 

California has been slow with guidelines for theme park re-opening as there was enough objective data (including Florida partially re-opening theirs, with no known material outbreaks) to justify it. Of note is that 2/3 of laid off employees were part-time and Google mobility reports comparing California to Florida only show marginal differences. The logical conclusion is that there will be a difference in economic output due to differential policies but the difference will only be marginal and should take into account the long term benefit of cost-effective policies on long term growth. There is a group of States that have tended to combine more convincing GDP per capita growth and more consistent growth in productivity with a healthier and living gradually longer population and there is a group of States that have tended to do the opposite. Those differences are slowly but surely crystalizing and polarizing and it seems the latter group of States are looking for extrinsic causes, rooted in resentment. Interestingly, strategies put in place to contain the virus (for the variables that can be controlled) are also correlated to this growing disparity.

 

Using basic numbers reported and simple calculations, here are would-be scenarios, assuming policy differentials explain the outcome differences when comparing California and Florida:

-number of lives saved in Florida with California-type policies in place: 5550, including 1000 aged less than 65

-number of extra-deaths in California with Florida-type policies in place: 10400, including 2800 aged less than 65

 

From a long term and high level perspective, the above mortality numbers are just a blip and the above does not describe the less-well seen costs of policies. This sets the stage for an interesting debate, if done respectfully and constructively, i continue to assume that it's possible to learn from each other.

 

Some contend that what happens outside one's borders is not relevant but i'll submit the following anyways (in the spirit of potential vicarious learning). California has 60% more deaths than Germany as a whole and half the population. Florida has 50% more deaths than Germany as a whole and a quarter of the population. These findings prompted me to read more about Rhine capitalism as i expect that more chickens will be coming home to roost.

 

@Muscleman

This is not central to the discussion and may, in fact, derail it but i submit that you mischaracterized the intended message in the Dinner for Few short movie. The movie includes stuff from Bertolt Brecht for whom food insecurity was a big theme. For example, Brecht could not understand why a worker (and related household) in a meat-packing plant would literally die of hunger. The movie is about greed and selfishness, themes which are not related to the right-left spectrum but related to injustices coming from inappropriate concentrations of power. In the case of the movie and along Brecht's lines, they were not referring to the same pigs that you suggested.

 

 

 

 

[muscleman]

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

 

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

 

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"...

 

I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute.

 

Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ?

 

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

 

New york: 11th

Cali: 12th

Florida: 33rd

Texas: 34th

 

Touting a state's success by GDP == Touting a company's success based on large revenue. It doesn't matter how much cash it is burning and how many employees want to leave the company. Look at the revenue! We are a huge success!

 

[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.

 

Looks like we got the bottom in. I am bullish again, especially seeing a bunch of investors selling in the last two weeks quoting concerns for election results dragging on etc.

 

"Don’t panic. The time to sell is before the crash, not after." - Sir John Templeton

[Cigarbutt]

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"...

I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute.

Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ?

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

New york: 11th

Cali: 12th

Florida: 33rd

Texas: 34th

Touting a state's success by GDP == Touting a company's success based on large revenue. It doesn't matter how much cash it is burning and how many employees want to leave the company. Look at the revenue! We are a huge success!

FL and TX's share of popn = 15%, share of GDP 14%

CA and NY's share of popn =18%, share of GDP 23%      and the divergence is growing despite the net population migration to the above 2.

 

GDP per capita and other related measures (education levels, health indicators etc) are correlated and are widely considered to be a reflection of overall quality of life.

http://gppreview.com/2020/02/21/growing-divide-red-states-vs-blue-states/

Advancing standards of living, on a net basis, come with increasing costs of living (housing etc) which has and will tend to cause a reversion to the mean, assuming no unusual resistance.

 

The evolution over time of GDP per capita in California compared to FL and TX is interesting:

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US12-0400000US06/Florida-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US48-0400000US06/Texas-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018#:~:text=GDPAPI&text=The%20last%20measured%20GDP%20per,Texas%20was%20%2459%2C674%20in%202018.

 

Capacity to grow GDP per capita and trends in NY indicate that policy decisions need to be competently made and based on a cost-effective rational process, irrespective of other ideological factors. The virus entered the NY State at the same time as on the West Coast. The relative performance has been largely negative for the NY area. The NY area has natural disadvantages (population density, high proportion of mass transit use, close to major international and high-volume airports, poorer and high risk-factors health segments, more unequal distribution of wealth and health coverage, relatively poor public hospital network) but the major issue were policy mistakes involving a delayed application of cost-effective measures and an initial mixed and confused message.

 

On a net basis, i would say there continues to be a lot to learn from California (wealth, quality of life, handling of coronavirus etc)..

[muscleman]

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"...

I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute.

Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ?

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

New york: 11th

Cali: 12th

Florida: 33rd

Texas: 34th

Touting a state's success by GDP == Touting a company's success based on large revenue. It doesn't matter how much cash it is burning and how many employees want to leave the company. Look at the revenue! We are a huge success!

FL and TX's share of popn = 15%, share of GDP 14%

CA and NY's share of popn =18%, share of GDP 23%      and the divergence is growing despite the net population migration to the above 2.

 

GDP per capita and other related measures (education levels, health indicators etc) are correlated and are widely considered to be a reflection of overall quality of life.

http://gppreview.com/2020/02/21/growing-divide-red-states-vs-blue-states/

Advancing standards of living, on a net basis, come with increasing costs of living (housing etc) which has and will tend to cause a reversion to the mean, assuming no unusual resistance.

 

The evolution over time of GDP per capita in California compared to FL and TX is interesting:

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US12-0400000US06/Florida-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US48-0400000US06/Texas-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018#:~:text=GDPAPI&text=The%20last%20measured%20GDP%20per,Texas%20was%20%2459%2C674%20in%202018.

 

Capacity to grow GDP per capita and trends in NY indicate that policy decisions need to be competently made and based on a cost-effective rational process, irrespective of other ideological factors. The virus entered the NY State at the same time as on the West Coast. The relative performance has been largely negative for the NY area. The NY area has natural disadvantages (population density, high proportion of mass transit use, close to major international and high-volume airports, poorer and high risk-factors health segments, more unequal distribution of wealth and health coverage, relatively poor public hospital network) but the major issue were policy mistakes involving a delayed application of cost-effective measures and an initial mixed and confused message.

 

On a net basis, i would say there continues to be a lot to learn from California (wealth, quality of life, handling of coronavirus etc)..

 

If CA is such a great place, why are there record amount of people leaving?

[Gregmal]

Speaking as a NJ resident....I absolutely love where I live. I have a good sized house, huge yard, live 20 minutes from major dining/shopping areas, great schools, am an hour from NYC, 40 minutes from Bergen County, tons of great fishing lakes around, hiking trails, golf courses, and an hour from the Poconos. I'd imagine many feel passionately about California or NY as well. But whats always pushing me towards the consideration of leaving? Government officials abuse the residents. These freeloading policies are a big part of it. Tax for this, tax for that. Got my registration renewals for the cars today? $73 each annually. Same for my boat. Same for the trailer. Property taxes jump 3% annually. I pay nearly 4% of my home value in taxes every year. This on top of state income tax as a 1099. It literally doesnt matter how much they take from you, they are always looking to take more and regardless of if its warranted, they do it anyway. And for what? The roads are shit. The DMVs are 2-4 hour nightmares, if you are lucky. I give leeway because my local schools are excellent and my town one of the safest in the country...so it s an easier blow to take. But for most of the state, the schools suck a big one, and they certainly arent safe yet they get clobbered with all the same taxes and burdens. People can only take so much abuse. The system won't be fixed because the politicians continue to promise and incentivize the losers reliant on the freebies to keep voting for them...who doesnt like something for nothing? Eventually though, as you've seen with some of the more high profile people, they leave. Then the upper middle class does as well. And then the middle class get thrown to the wolfs to feed the bottom feeders. A bad cycle and the state level debt just becomes a bigger time bomb.

[KCLarkin]

If CA is such a great place, why are there record amount of people leaving?

 

One observation. California has the three most expensive housing markets in the U.S.

 

1. People are willing to pay $$$$$ to live in California. "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

2. Some people want to live in California, but can't afford it.

 

WTF this has to do with COVID. Dunno.

 

 

[Gregmal]

Abuse of government had to do with the original post about Disney axing tons of jobs largely because California refused to let them open. This isn't exactly occurring in Florida and Texas. Only certain states...which all seem to have the same problems.

[stahleyp]

Chickens are coming home to roost for these failed socialist cities/states.

(CA, NY people moving to FL, TX and turning them from red to purple. Will they turn blue some day?)

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"...

I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute.

Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ?

UNH State health ranking:

https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf

New york: 11th

Cali: 12th

Florida: 33rd

Texas: 34th

Touting a state's success by GDP == Touting a company's success based on large revenue. It doesn't matter how much cash it is burning and how many employees want to leave the company. Look at the revenue! We are a huge success!

FL and TX's share of popn = 15%, share of GDP 14%

CA and NY's share of popn =18%, share of GDP 23%      and the divergence is growing despite the net population migration to the above 2.

 

GDP per capita and other related measures (education levels, health indicators etc) are correlated and are widely considered to be a reflection of overall quality of life.

http://gppreview.com/2020/02/21/growing-divide-red-states-vs-blue-states/

Advancing standards of living, on a net basis, come with increasing costs of living (housing etc) which has and will tend to cause a reversion to the mean, assuming no unusual resistance.

 

The evolution over time of GDP per capita in California compared to FL and TX is interesting:

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US12-0400000US06/Florida-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018

https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/0400000US48-0400000US06/Texas-California/economy.gdp.per_capita_gdp?year=2018#:~:text=GDPAPI&text=The%20last%20measured%20GDP%20per,Texas%20was%20%2459%2C674%20in%202018.

 

Capacity to grow GDP per capita and trends in NY indicate that policy decisions need to be competently made and based on a cost-effective rational process, irrespective of other ideological factors. The virus entered the NY State at the same time as on the West Coast. The relative performance has been largely negative for the NY area. The NY area has natural disadvantages (population density, high proportion of mass transit use, close to major international and high-volume airports, poorer and high risk-factors health segments, more unequal distribution of wealth and health coverage, relatively poor public hospital network) but the major issue were policy mistakes involving a delayed application of cost-effective measures and an initial mixed and confused message.

 

On a net basis, i would say there continues to be a lot to learn from California (wealth, quality of life, handling of coronavirus etc)..

 

If CA is such a great place, why are there record amount of people leaving?

 

To be fair, a lot (most?) of NY and CA's gdp is thanks to market manipulation. Since so much of their economies is tied to finance and technology, guess what benefits hugely with zero interest rates? If we normalized rate, the stock market would crash and we would have much, much lower valuations (and therefore venture capital) in technology too.

[Spekulatius]

 

If CA is such a great place, why are there record amount of people leaving?

 

The people leaving tend to be poorer and get replaced by immigrants. That’s why CA’s population doesn’t shrink, despite outmigration..

That’s also why the often cited cost of Uhauls outbound CA is do much higher than inbound ones because immigrants ( and richer people) don’t use Uhauls for moving.

[muscleman]

 

If CA is such a great place, why are there record amount of people leaving?

 

The people leaving tend to be poorer and get replaced by immigrants. That’s why CA’s population doesn’t shrink, despite outmigration..

That’s also why the often cited cost of Uhauls outbound CA is do much higher than inbound ones because immigrants ( and richer people) don’t use Uhauls for moving.

 

 

Really? I saw a lot of articles regarding rich people leaving CA because they can afford to but poor people don't easily find a new job in other states so they are stuck. I don't want to paste a bunch of links here but if you just Google Rich leaving CA, you'll find a lot.

 

 

This is incredible:

"Why would rich people come to CA if they know you are gonna tax like that?"

"Because it is California!"

 

This law maker must think CA is the center of the universe!

[LC]

The vast, vast majority of those leaving CA earn <$50k and do not have a bachelors degree.

 

There is some immigration into CA, these are earning $50k+ and have at least a bachelors.

 

https://next10.org/sites/default/files/california-migration.pdf

 

This above study is only thru 2016 so perhaps there has been a stark change in the past 3-4 years, but I couldn't find a breakdown with demographics (but these are structural forces - immigrants entering and leaving - so I doubt much has changed).