Coronavirus and its Impact on the Markets

[Javier 99]

5 minutes ago, mccoyb53 said:

Hi @EdSeba. Do you have a link for that chart. I am in New Zealand right now and they are doing very well along with Australia. It will be interesting when the post mortem is done as to which countries took the right decisions and which didn't. No hiding place then.

Without waiting too long, I can tell You the worse of them all. Try and guess,  South Europe with a filo-communist-bolivarian Goverment. And waiting for the finantial consecuences. Thinking to emigrate somewhere.

[dmilo 3]

The Inevitable Coronavirus Censorship Crisis is Here

As the Covid-19 crisis progresses, censorship programs advance, amid calls for China-style control of the Internet

Matt Taibbi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/temporary-coronavirus-censorship

 

[Jjapp 88]

 

Log deaths by day in King County (Seattle) and New York.  I have no idea why the curves are so different but it is interesting.  You seem to see this across the board when you compare areas.    I think both started shelter in place relatively early but I have seen some recent stuff on the cases in NY coming from Europe so maybe NY miscoded some early deaths and actually started lock downs later than Seattle?  Population density probably plays a role too. 

[Val 3]

I’m currently working in Automotive Industry in Europe. What I can tell you is that we are not going to have anything like a V shape recovery as US WH claims. The truth is that the orders for the next months are going down every day, so the forecast is that the Auto Industry will get to an output similar to January 2020 only sometime in 2022. So tighten your belts for a rough ride ahead.

[Kim 7,943]

$FB $TSLA

* Zuckerberg: Keep shelter-in-place rules
(Btw, FB traffic at all time highs)

* Musk: End shelter-in-place rules
(Btw, TSLA factories shut so can't make cars)

Still think this is a disagreement on the virus?

They agree - make money; the rest is conversation.

— Ophir Gottlieb (@OphirGottlieb) April 30, 2020

[RapperT 336]

Consumer spending MoM

 

 

[Kim 7,943]

This is why the #coronavirus death rates double every 10 days.. pic.twitter.com/PARzjQOzg1

— Kim Klaiman (@SteadyOptions_) April 29, 2020

[agsb 44]

21 minutes ago, ykotowitz said:

Theory appears to be debunked.

see:https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200423/Link-between-BCG-and-lower-COVID-19-mortality-disproved-by-new-analysis.aspx

From the abstract of the actual study:

Quote

In the present study, although some results showed statistically significant
differences among BCG vaccination policies, they may be affected by the
impact of various other factors, such as national infection-control policies,
social distancing, behavioral changes of people, possible previous local
epidemics of closely related viruses, or inter-population differences in ACE2
or other genetic polymorphism. Further research is needed to better
understand the underlying cause of the observed differences in infection and
mortality of the disease among nations. Nevertheless, our results show that
the effect of BCG vaccination, if any, can be masked by many other factors.
Therefore, the possible effect might be relatively small. In fact, in Japan,
where almost all citizens have been vaccinated, COVID-19 cases are
constantly increasing. Given the importance of people’s behavior in
preventing viral propagation, the spread of optimism triggered by this
hypothesis would be harmful to BCG vaccination nations.

I suspect just a hint of bias here. But it's great to have more studies that analyze various contributing factors.

[Mattatut 24]

On 4/29/2020 at 7:01 PM, pintodave said:

@Yowster you hit the nail on the head, University of Miami has been doing this in S FL and is finding exactly that. I think factoring that in, it worked out to the same or slightly less than .5% mortality rate. I think this virus has been spreading a lot longer than we were aware of, I'm thinking at least 3rd quarter of last year if not longer. 

 

I am in no way a Covid denier, yes it is serious, but a lot of these numbers are not adding up. Yes we need to be careful, yes large gatherings like sports, concerts, etc should not be happening right now. But I do believe there has been a tremendous amount of number fluffing going on - I am sure some of it is just heat of the battle and will get sorted out later, but I can't help but think some of it is nefarious. You can take that to the bank. Look at NY - oh, if you died at home, clearly you couldn't get to a Dr, so it must have been Covid. No proof, no autopsy, just increase the death count by 3k or 4k or whatever it was. There is financial incentive for hospitals to mark people as covid patients, and more money if they get on a ventilator. "Follow the money". With respect to hospital workers, of course they are not furloughing the front line, but all we heard about for weeks was how every hospital would be overflowing and there would not be enough capacity, not enough medical staff, not enough ventilators, etc etc. That simply is not the case. I'm glad they were wrong, but as a Floridian who has to deal with hurricane season and the media hype that "we will most certainly die this time", I try to strip the fanatical hype from factual data. All I am saying is the data does not match the fear. I am not sure where the saying originated, but it goes something like "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Interesting time to be on this floating Petri dish called planet earth. 

 

Rant over and sorry for completely derailing the Uber thread, but too I agree this cannot be good for Uber LOL

Pinto, it’s not a bunch of BS. Had we not gone into lockdown here in the US, we’d be absolutely screwed right now. Everyone would be like NY. And to open things back up, and I don’t know how we don’t, as our economy will be crippled for years as it is to pay off this debt, is going to cause a second wave. 
 

I have been a hospital CEO for 15 years and we are dealing with Covid 19 patients aplenty. Yet we still can’t get our NORMAL supply of gowns, gloves, masks, etc. We are running with about a 20 day supply and if we have another major surge, we will be in about the worst position I could imagine for our hospital. We do have about 15 hospitals within an hour of us, so it’s spread out some, but we are the second largest and with our resources, we’ll get hit hard. I urge everyone to take this 100% serious and not to think it’s just overblown by the news. 
 

And as for the “herd immunity” in Sweden? Their situation isn’t even remotely close to ours and had we attempted this, our death count right now would be in the hundreds of thousands with many hospitals collapsing. 

[Kim 7,943]

7 minutes ago, Mattatut said:

Pinto, it’s not a bunch of BS. Had we not gone into lockdown here in the US, we’d be absolutely screwed right now. Everyone would be like NY. And to open things back up, and I don’t know how we don’t, as our economy will be crippled for years as it is to pay off this debt, is going to cause a second wave. 
 

I have been a hospital CEO for 15 years and we are dealing with Covid 19 patients aplenty. Yet we still can’t get our NORMAL supply of gowns, gloves, masks, etc. We are running with about a 20 day supply and if we have another major surge, we will be in about the worst position I could imagine for our hospital. We do have about 15 hospitals within an hour of us, so it’s spread out some, but we are the second largest and with our resources, we’ll get hit hard. I urge everyone to take this 100% serious and not to think it’s just overblown by the news. 
 

And as for the “herd immunity” in Sweden? Their situation isn’t even remotely close to ours and had we attempted this, our death count right now would be in the hundreds of thousands with many hospitals collapsing. 

Thanks @Mattatut very helpful input from first source.

According to this data both number of cases and number of deaths in your state is among the lowest in the US - and yet you are saying you are overwhelmed. I can only imagine what's happening in states with higher number of cases.

How in your opinion the situation in Sweden is different and why their model wouldn't work in the US?

[Mattatut 24]

This question was asked of me and I’ll answer....

 

Would be very interested to hear your opinion. Specifically, how would you handle it? If re opening now is not the solution, then what? 

One of the opinions that I heard (from several sources) is that the final outcome is known: 50-70% of the population will be infected anyway. They just don't want everyone to be infected at the same time not to overwhelm the healthcare system. So there will be several re openings and re closing spread over many months in order to spread the number of cases over longer period of time. 
 

Here is my opinion, do phased reopenings. Continue to deny high population events, such as concerts, sports, church, etc. Continue to allow many who can, to work from home. You must do strict adherence to social distancing until we have slowed this to a crawl. Meaning restaurants, while I’d prefer to see stay curbside pickup, if they open, distance tables and all staff should wear masks and be tested daily when they come to work through a screening. Meaning temp, and questions about loss of sense/smell, travel, contact with any positive patient, etc. (The issue with that is will people be honest?) 
 

Most importantly, RAMP UP TESTING. We have to know who has this and test frequently. Labcorp, Qwest, and most state labs are running well behind because, guess what, the swabs that are used to do the nasopharyngeal testing are made in....yep, Italy! Expand the antibody testing ASAP. One bad thing about that is that people can become positive again, which we still don’t understand. 
 

Retrovirals may play a large part in getting us over the hump, Remdesivir may be a game changer based on the research I have seen and from talking to other doctors.  Hydroxycloroquine is a major no go. Causes too many arrhythmias at the levels you need for it to be successful. 
 

Folks, this may last for years! We talk about a vaccine...well, there are seven coronavirus types, the standard 4 you see on a respiratory panel, which are all common colds, MERS, SARS and now Covid 19. Guess how many vaccines were produced for the first 6? ZERO. We may be able to come up with something resembling the flu vaccine, but depending on whether Covid 19 mutates like the flu, that would be hit and miss. We are going to have a changed world for the next few years in my opinion. Good luck to all and please stay safe! 

 

[Mattatut 24]

19 minutes ago, Kim said:

Thanks @Mattatut very helpful input from first source.

According to this data both number of cases and number of deaths in your state is among the lowest in the US - and yet you are saying you are overwhelmed. I can only imagine what's happening in states with higher number of cases.

How in your opinion the situation in Sweden is different and why their model wouldn't work in the US?

Sweden is so densely populated, and like others said, not a major travel hub like the US. I also see that they have a very high mortality rate. One thing to remember is that I personally think our death numbers will go up as people who are on vents will finally succumb. However, the mortality rate will actually drop as you see more widespread testing and see how many asymptomatic patients there are in the communities. We need better tracking to see who these people are and who they come in contact with and also to put them in quarantine. 
 

Our state has been hit much less than others because our governor was smart and started lockdowns relatively early. However, we have 50% of our ventilators utilized right now with Covid patients. Imagine it we started opening things up and grandma and grandpa got exposed? They are the ones who are most susceptible. And one more interesting fact, we started doing pre admission testing for elective surgeries this week. By close of business yesterday, we had 2 patients already who has tested positive but were completely asymptomatic. Who have then been in contact with? Grandma and grandpa don’t need this. 
 

One last thing to mention...you have to continue to eliminate visitors in nursing homes. They are a major breeding ground and all it takes is one to get it and you could have 60, 70 or more easily. And these are the ones who die without much chance of success. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Mattatut

[agsb 44]

The next challenge for the folks who believe that we should have all gone into a lockdown in January is to explain why there are no piles of dead bodies on the streets in Belarus. The Belarusian president refused to shut down the country and pretty much everything is still open there. (Not long ago he was called Europe's last dictator. Oh the irony!) Even the soccer championship is not suspended. They play every weekend. On the other hand, Russia locked down its population hard. People in Moscow need an electronic pass to go more than 100 meters away from their houses. The subway card has to be linked to the electronic pass if you want to use public transportation. Yet, there's no difference between the death rates from COVID in these countries. And it's not because Belarus doesn't test its people. They test people more aggressively than France, the UK, the Netherlands. Even more testing is going on in Russia.

Edited May 2, 2020 by agsb

[Mattatut 24]

56 minutes ago, agsb said:

The next challenge for the folks who believe that we should have all gone into a lockdown in January is to explain why there are no piles of dead bodies on the streets in Belarus. The Belarusian president refused to shut down the country and pretty much everything is still open there. (Not long ago he was called Europe's last dictator. Oh the irony!) Even the soccer championship is not suspended. They play every weekend. On the other hand, Russia locked down its population hard. People in Moscow need an electronic pass to go more than 100 meters away from their houses. The subway card has to be linked to the electronic pass if you want to use public transportation. Yet, there's no difference between the death rates from COVID in these countries. And it's not because Belarus doesn't test its people. They test people more aggressively than France, the UK, the Netherlands. Even more testing is going on in Russia.

Perhaps because Belarus is a tiny country that’s also one of the least densely populated countries in the world.....

[agsb 44]

1 hour ago, Mattatut said:

Perhaps because Belarus is a tiny country that’s also one of the least densely populated countries in the world.....

Too bad that the push to lock down people happened even in the states where it was not needed. That's where the federal system in the US could have shined but it didn't. Too many governors moved in lockstep cancelling elective procedures in the hospitals that are now on the verge of bankruptcy. Though there were a few terrific exceptions like South Dakota and everybody is praising the wisdom of its governor. Oh wait...

[Christof+ 274]

9 hours ago, agsb said:

The next challenge for the folks who believe that we should have all gone into a lockdown in January is to explain why there are no piles of dead bodies on the streets in Belarus. The Belarusian president refused to shut down the country and pretty much everything is still open there. (Not long ago he was called Europe's last dictator. Oh the irony!) Even the soccer championship is not suspended. They play every weekend. On the other hand, Russia locked down its population hard. People in Moscow need an electronic pass to go more than 100 meters away from their houses. The subway card has to be linked to the electronic pass if you want to use public transportation. Yet, there's no difference between the death rates from COVID in these countries. And it's not because Belarus doesn't test its people. They test people more aggressively than France, the UK, the Netherlands. Even more testing is going on in Russia.

I try to stay out of such discussions because they seem mostly useless to me since it is more about opinion than facts. That way no one will convince anyone, no benefit.

 

But some things I cannot let go uncommented. My parents-in-law and parts of my family live in Minsk, Belarus. The reason the country is not shutting down is not deeper wisdom of the government. But the simple fact that there is simply no way how it economically could afford a shutdown. Lukaschenko himself has stated that.

 

 

Fact is that there is enormous pressure on the health system (why f.e. some medical students have been ordered to work in hospitals). It is not that no one dies. It is just that the majority of victims is not counted as Covid-19 victims but officially died of pneumonia, bronchitis etc. of which numbers seem to be soaring. In fact, there are too little test kits available to properly assess that. At least this is what I hear and also read. Also Belarus is comparably late in the cycle, even official numbers have been growing recently percentage-wise, as you can see above. The weeks now will be decisive. From my own talks with people living there I cannot confirm that they test people extensively, quite the opposite.

 

 

What the government is saying and doing are different things. F.e. Belarus currently employs restrictions for travelers arriving in Minsk. Germany f.e. is a 'risk country' since 25. March and there are special checks for people arriving from Germany, including being asked to self-quarantine after arrival. Also officials do indeed try to help the situations in hospitals with protective gear etc. at least as much as they can.

 

 

Remarkable from what I hear is the formation and self-organisation of civil help. Private people, NGOs and businesses alike crowdfund and source protective equipment and organize help for risk groups. Many people do take it seriously. They do self-quarantane as good as they can, avoid cafes and gatherings etc. If there are no 'piles of dead bodies in the streets' it is because of that.

 

 

 

[agsb 44]

12 hours ago, Christof+ said:

But some things I cannot let go uncommented. My parents-in-law and parts of my family live in Minsk, Belarus. The reason the country is not shutting down is not deeper wisdom of the government. But the simple fact that there is simply no way how it economically could afford a shutdown. Lukaschenko himself has stated that.

Given that all other countries cannot afford prolonged shutdowns either and yet they still did them, Lukashenko deserves some appreciation for figuring this out.

But it's not about him, it's about having a clear cut control group that sooner or later will let us see whether widespread shutdowns of businesses and stay at home orders imposed by the governments were right or wrong.

By the way, Russian medical students are forced to work in the hospitals as well--despite the government-imposed lockdowns. Russia and Belarus remain strikingly similar in their experience with COVID-19 when the policies implemented by their governments could not be more different.

Edited May 3, 2020 by agsb

[dmilo 3]

This is the second interview with Professor Knut Wittkowski that Martin Armstrong has posted, https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/professor-knut-wittkowski-update-interview/. 

I really like Wittkowski. He comes off as extremely credible, and he states unequivocally and with support that the shelter-in-place was unnecessary, and has made things worse. YouTube will probably ban this soon, but it will be posted by others, so if interested but this link is broken, search for it. 

[sbriand 20]

My only comment on this thread is that biology hasn't changed since the last pandemic. Only our understanding which is not complete. This time is unlikely to be different than previous pandemics with multiple waves.

Reopening is highly appealing, but can result in forced shutdowns due to conditions on the ground. 

https://time.com/5830265/1918-flu-reopening-coronavirus/

Only an effective treatment or vaccine is likely to change things. My hope is that before the end of the year there will be something to provide an early light at the end of the tunnel.

[Yowster 9,174]

It's been very interesting to read perspectives from many people in this thread who are living in different parts of the world.   One thing stands out to me is where the USA appears to be different from everywhere else - the rest of the world seems to want to report stats and mortalities in the best possible light with some being as honest as they can and seemingly others understating COVID-related cases and deaths.   The USA seems to be alone in that it tends to report on things in the worst possible light, maximizing COVID cases and mortality rates.  Some of this may be related to hostipals having a finacial reason to report things as COVID-related, but I believe most of it is simply political with a largely liberal media seeing this as an opportunity to vote out a conservative administration in November.   People who just want to know COVID news and statistics suffer because of this, and  have to wade through all the political viewpoints to try and form their own viewpoints.   I came across this article today, I don't want to get too political and actualy though twice about posting it here because the author is obvously coming from a conservative viewpoint - but I found it a very good discussion of how the media is doing a disservice to the public in the way things are being reported....

 

The media keeps unnecessarily escalating coronavirus panic The coronavirus crisis has been real, and it has been awful. We have lost nearly 70,000 people in America. It's tragic, and scary. So there's really no reason why many forces in the media have to unnecessarily escalate the panic even further - using incomplete or inaccurate positioning to avoid giving the full, real picture of this crisis. It started earlier today with many media outlets, like the Washington Post, reporting "Coronavirus deaths in U.S. will rise to 3,000 daily by June 1," citing a "draft government report." Draft, being crucial, because the leak showed information that was not reviewed or approved by the Coronavirus Task Force, Dr. Fauci or Dr. Birx. It was fear-mongering, and irresponsible. By the end of the day, we got more accurate data. Yes, the IHME model nearly doubled, to 134,000 projected deaths total. But the June 1 daily projection would be less than one-third the earlier reported figure, at 890. It should also be noted the IHME data has consistently over-estimated deaths throughout this crisis. Then there's the continued geographic bias against non-East Coast states - despite New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts having the four highest per capita COVID-19 death totals. Two weeks ago I wrote about CNN's false "heartland hotspots" report, predicting states like Oklahoma and South Dakota as the next big hotspots for coronavirus cases and deaths. The reality, now? By every metric, this never materialized. Washington D.C. now has more deaths than the entire state of Oklahoma, with Oklahoma having five times the population. I don't blame people like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for lashing out at the wrong predictions, stemming from a bias in the media. "We were told over and over again Florida is going to be just like New York when it came to coronavirus," said Gov. DeSantis, sharing this chart which shows New York and other states compared to Florida in per capita coronavirus deaths.

The media has the opportunity to continue to educate the public. To stay focused and serve the needs of a population eager for the truth.  Let's dig into real solutions as states begin strategically easing lockdown restrictions. Look at Ohio, for example. Ohio makes it very clear to see the age of the coronavirus deaths in its state. 1% of all deaths are below the age of 40. 2% of all deaths are below the age of 50. 7.7% of all deaths are below the age of 60. Meanwhile 77% of deaths are over 70, and 50% of deaths are over 80. And this is based on 1,056 total COVID-19 deaths. These are stunning numbers, that tell a story not seen in the media. What does this knowledge tell us about how we should open the country back up? Instead, the instinct of the media is to criticize anything other than panic-driven lockdown only. America needs a competent press more than ever. As we enter May and a new coronavirus phase, we need the media to stay focused and open their minds so they can serve their audience.

 

[Kim 7,943]

Thanks for posting @Yowster

As someone who is observing from the outside and not involved in the US politics, I'm shocked how biased the mainstream media has been against Trump from the beginning. I know it's a sensitive issue, and I'm not taking sides (although I have a very strong political opinion, but this is obviously not the place, especially considering I'm not a US citizen). But the media bias was very clear from the first day of Trump administration, and it's not surprising that during the election year it became much stronger.   

I believe a LOT of the COVID-19 related coverage is political and not medical, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Expecting from the media to be objective, not biased, and act for the "public best interest" is not realistic and naive. It's like expecting from CNBC to help the small investor, while we know that their first priority is to increase ratings to sell more advertising. 

[VT3 26]

2 minutes ago, Kim said:

As someone who is observing from the outside and not involved in the US politics, I'm shocked how biased the mainstream media has been against Trump from the beginning. I know it's a sensitive issue, and I'm not taking sides (although I have a very strong political opinion, but this is obviously not the place, especially considering I'm not a US citizen). But the media bias was very clear from the first day of Trump administration, and it's not surprising that during the election year it became much stronger.   

It totally depends on media. CNN and Washington Post would never say anything good about Trump.

Fox News is pro-Trump and would never say anything bad about Trump.

So much for "Independed" media in USA.

[Kim 7,943]

Here is a VERY bearish case by SA contributor James A. Kostohryz:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4334820-next-leg-down-another-massive-decline-is-coming

"My current “base case” scenario (my working hypothesis) is that the current bear market will ultimately fall into the “severe” category. In this particular analysis, this would imply a trough for the current bear market cycle in the range (S&P 500 index) of 1876 to 1463."

[agsb 44]

Dr. Neil M. Ferguson, a British epidemiologist who is regarded as one of the best disease modelers in the world, produced a sophisticated model with a worst case of 2.2 million deaths in the United States. That happened in mid-March and most of us went into the lockdown after it. That was THE MODEL.

 

Today

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

Prof Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing

 

The 51-year-old [Prof Ferguson] had only just finished a two-week spell self-isolating after testing positive for coronavirus.

The first of Ms Staat's visits, on Monday March 30, coincided with a public warning by Prof Ferguson that the one-week-old lockdown measures would have to remain until June.

Ms Staats, a left-wing campaigner, made a second visit on April 8 despite telling friends she suspected that her husband, an academic in his 30s, had symptoms of coronavirus.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by agsb

[Mattatut 24]

56 minutes ago, agsb said:

Dr. Neil M. Ferguson, a British epidemiologist who is regarded as one of the best disease modelers in the world, produced a sophisticated model with a worst case of 2.2 million deaths in the United States. That happened in mid-March and most of us went into the lockdown after it. That was THE MODEL.

 

Today

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

Prof Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing

 

The 51-year-old [Prof Ferguson] had only just finished a two-week spell self-isolating after testing positive for coronavirus.

The first of Ms Staat's visits, on Monday March 30, coincided with a public warning by Prof Ferguson that the one-week-old lockdown measures would have to remain until June.

Ms Staats, a left-wing campaigner, made a second visit on April 8 despite telling friends she suspected that her husband, an academic in his 30s, had symptoms of coronavirus.

 

 

Who cares FFS? You know so little about this, that I don’t even want to respond to your messages anymore, but had to for this one. 
 

What this guy did doesn’t change what’s actually happening. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Mattatut

[dmilo 3]

25 minutes ago, Mattatut said:

Who cares FFS?

 

I found the article interesting. Especially interesting was the graph near the bottom showing this guy has been horribly wrong in all his disease predictions for 20 years, and always in the same way - always predicting catastrophe. Why does he have any credibility at all? Why does anybody consult him?

 

When it comes to what his view may be, your question is relevant: who cares FFS?

 

Yet he is presented as an 'eminent virologist'.

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by dmilo

[RapperT 336]

Is there any evidence anywhere that Neil Ferguson’s models were used for US policy decisions?

 

He was pretty widely ridiculed after advocating for a herd immunity approach in the UK early on in this whole mess.

[agsb 44]

7 minutes ago, RapperT said:

Is there any evidence anywhere that Neil Ferguson’s models were used for US policy decisions?

 

He was pretty widely ridiculed after advocating for a herd immunity approach in the UK early on in this whole mess.

 

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The White House based much of its decision to urge social distancing—limiting people to small gatherings, shutting businesses and schools and ensuring people keep 6 feet apart—on the Imperial College London report this month that estimated 2.2 million deaths would occur without it, in addition to isolation of infected people and quarantines of their family members.

Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist who worked on the report, now is infected with coronavirus."

 

[RapperT 336]

seems like an example of biased media reports others were referencing.  It’s bad on both sides in my opinion.
 

They explicitly said in one of their press briefings that no one model was used for decision making.  If you google right now you will find reference to various models over the last 6 weeks.
 

These guys also changed their model over and over and based the initial one on data from viral pneumonia.  If In fact it was basis for policy making ( it wasn’t), it’s interesting that the White House and Downing Street came to completely different conclusions from the same model. 
 

somone recently told me that all models are wrong, some are useful.  I think that’s a good Mindset with which to approach  these things.

 

that said, we have no idea what the impact would be without any social distancing.  People want to boil a complicated multi variate unknown risk down to simple factors based on politics.  It’s silly. 

 

[agsb 44]

2 minutes ago, RapperT said:

 If In fact it was basis for policy making ( it wasn’t), it’s interesting that the White House and Downing Street came to completely different conclusions from the same model. 
 

I'm not sure I'm following you. The White House and Downing Street came to the same conclusion in mid-March: to implement social distancing policies in their respective countries. Also, I don't recall that Ferguson was associated with promoting herd immunity. At least in the US his name is firmly associated with the 2.2 million number, while some people are aware that he drastically revised his projection a few days later. Are you talking about the same expert?

[RapperT 336]

UK initially announced they were taking herd immunity approach based on the model from imperial college despite the model calling for 260k ( acceptable apparently) deaths.

 

they backed off this after about a week.  You didn’t see that?

[Kim 7,943]

Speaking of politics, James A. Kostohryz just posted the following comment:

"the response of state government and citizens to COVID-19 has been incredibly politicized. People's views on this are almost entirely driven by politics. Now, just to a thought experiment. Imagine that Trump had rung the alarm bells early on and stopped all in-bound flights from foreign nations and implemented extremely tight lock-downs like they did in New Zealand and other places. What would things look like now? Republicans would be praising Trump and emphasizing the existential threats and Democrats would be saying that Trump is being too extreme. This really COULD have happened. It is not at all hard for me to imagine a scenario, that Trump could have been convinced by somebody that his best shot at re-election was to take a "heroic" and authoritative stand against COVID-19. Just for fun, imagine if that had happened; just as a thought experiment."

So true.

btw, personally I believe that stopping all in-bound flights from foreign nations as early as possible would be one of the most important steps in reducing the spread. Look at Israel - they banned all flights around mid March, and they basically defeated the virus as of now. But then again, politics played a huge role in all steps. Canada never officially banned flights from China, which to me is unthinkable.

[lrfsdad 10]

3 hours ago, Kim said:

Here is a VERY bearish case by SA contributor James A. Kostohryz:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4334820-next-leg-down-another-massive-decline-is-coming

"My current “base case” scenario (my working hypothesis) is that the current bear market will ultimately fall into the “severe” category. In this particular analysis, this would imply a trough for the current bear market cycle in the range (S&P 500 index) of 1876 to 1463."

Luckily I saw a webinar where @Ophir Gottlieb said financial media is a self serving industry.  The guy could be wright or wrong.  All i know is I believed every article like this one on zero hedge as we crawled out of the last decline in 08-09 and didn't participate in the recovery as much I would have had I just ignored it and stuck my long term investment plan.

Listening to local radio stations, there is such a sense of community and supporting the small businesses that are impacted the largest.  The message isn't doom and gloom, but lets get through this together.  Today I ran to a home improvement store that is now mandating masks.  I felt a bit silly doing it, but I had work to get done and lived through it.  If commerce can continue with a few extra safety measures I think people will go along with it to come out of this sooner.

If the airline industry slows down, is it safe to say oh well?  We are proving right now how much can get done meeting "virtually".  Can the same be said for amusement parks and cruise lines, sports entertainment & concerts?  I personally rarely patronize either, if they go away I can only assume another business will come out as the successor. 

[RapperT 336]

Disclaimer:  I didn’t vote for either major party candidate last election.

 

i might get blasted for saying this but I think Trump has actually taken a pretty measured approach to a very complicated problem with no clear right answers.  People are criticizing him for stuff folks on the fringe are doing without his endorsement in most cases.  
 

a good example is the Georgia governor reopening early.  People on social media have been using that as fodder against trump ( and things like it) but even he said Kemp is being dumb. 
 

not saying he’s been perfect...

[agsb 44]

21 minutes ago, RapperT said:

UK initially announced they were taking herd immunity approach based on the model from imperial college despite the model calling for 260k ( acceptable apparently) deaths.

 

they backed off this after about a week.  You didn’t see that?

I don't live in the UK, so I didn't follow their policy changes that closely. The version of the Imperial College model that made an impact in the US had these numbers: 2.2 million for the US and half a million for the UK.

 

From the New York Times:

"That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus.

American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."

It does not appear to be any disagreement in the US media about the influence of Ferguson and the 2.2 million number on the US policy decisions.

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by agsb

[RapperT 336]

My point is, that if in fact the imperial college model drove US policy ( I don’t believe this to be the case based on what WH has said), I find it interesting that one country adopted a herd immunity approach and one adopted social distancing approach based on the same model(s).

 

yes Johnson and Vallance walked that back after getting intense heat from rest of scientific community.   That’s it. Just interesting.

 

edit:  here’s an article on the topic https://amp.ft.com/content/249daf9a-67c3-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3?__twitter_impression=true

[Jjapp 88]

I think there is a problem with some of these models in that people in the science community use them one way and the media reports on them like they're forecasts.  Usually these types of models are very sensitive to initial conditions and parameter estimates.  From my experience they're generally used to get an idea of what the tail risk of certain policies could be.  I get the impression reading most of the arguing in the media that people are cherry picking the output they want for whatever tribe they belong to (worst case) or best case are assuming that some mean output is a forecast when it isn't. 

[agsb 44]

15 minutes ago, RapperT said:

My point is, that if in fact the imperial college model drove US policy ( I don’t believe this to be the case based on what WH has said), I find it interesting that one country adopted a herd immunity approach and one adopted social distancing approach based on the same model(s).

 

yes Johnson and Vallance walked that back after getting intense heat from rest of scientific community.   That’s it. Just interesting.

 

edit:  here’s an article on the topic https://amp.ft.com/content/249daf9a-67c3-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3?__twitter_impression=true

Your link is paywalled.

The herd immunity approach is used by default with all new respiratory infections. Until Italy started locking down people in the north of the country, it was reasonable to expect that all Western countries would deal with the new virus without unprecedented stay-at-home/close non-essential businesses measures.

Nonetheless, I'd like to see the evidence that Neil Ferguson was promoting herd immunity with high mortality numbers in early March. The Telegraph article that I linked earlier says that he was pushing for extreme social distancing in late March.

[RapperT 336]

You can literally just google and there are all sorts of results...

 

heres one of the first ones that popped:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/16/905285/uk-dropping-coronavirus-herd-immunity-strategy-250000-dead/amp/

[traveller 4]

15 minutes ago, agsb said:

Your link is paywalled.

The herd immunity approach is used by default with all new respiratory infections. Until Italy started locking down people in the north of the country, it was reasonable to expect that all Western countries would deal with the new virus without unprecedented stay-at-home/close non-essential businesses measures.

Nonetheless, I'd like to see the evidence that Neil Ferguson was promoting herd immunity with high mortality numbers in early March. The Telegraph article that I linked earlier says that he was pushing for extreme social distancing in late March.

reasonable?! that sounds a little off considering that in 1918 non essential businesses were closed and see the contrast between Philly and St Louis in 1918. From what I have read it seemed to be standard practice.

Herd immunity as I understand it can only work if society is ready to accept healthcare being overwhelmed and all of its repercussions. Of course, it is also assuming that one cannot get reinfected which no authoritative source is ready to say.

I find this thread to be incredibly informative both the dialogue and identifying some of the media and governmental biases. 

 

 

[agsb 44]

28 minutes ago, RapperT said:

You can literally just google and there are all sorts of results...

 

heres one of the first ones that popped:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/16/905285/uk-dropping-coronavirus-herd-immunity-strategy-250000-dead/amp/

 

According to your link, Ferguson was pushing for isolation and social distancing based on the findings in his report. That's what I was saying all along, the complete opposite of what you claimed. Yes, the British government initially wanted to pursue the herd immunity approach but then the epidemiologists at Imperial College came up with very high projected death numbers and the government changed its course.

Quote

 

“The aim now is not to slow the rate of growth of cases, but pull the epidemic in reverse,” Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College, told reporters Monday. “Hopefully there will [only] be tens of thousands of deaths. Maybe just a few thousand.”

Unfortunately, the report also suggests that isolation and social distancing might have to remain in effect until a viable coronavirus vaccine is produced, which could take as long as 18 months. “The only exit strategy is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology,” Ferguson.

 

 

[agsb 44]

33 minutes ago, traveller said:

reasonable?! that sounds a little off considering that in 1918 non essential businesses were closed and see the contrast between Philly and St Louis in 1918. From what I have read it seemed to be standard practice.

Herd immunity as I understand it can only work if society is ready to accept healthcare being overwhelmed and all of its repercussions. Of course, it is also assuming that one cannot get reinfected which no authoritative source is ready to say.

I find this thread to be incredibly informative both the dialogue and identifying some of the media and governmental biases. 

 

 

Given that nothing even remotely similar was implemented by the government in the last hundred years, that was indeed an absolutely reasonable expectation that it wouldn't be done in 2020.

That's what happened during the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968-69.

"In my lifetime, there was another deadly flu epidemic in the United States. The flu spread from Hong Kong to the United States, arriving December 1968 and peaking a year later. It ultimately killed 100,000 people in the U.S., mostly over the age of 65, and one million worldwide.

...

 

Nothing closed. Schools stayed open. All businesses did too. You could go to the movies. You could go to bars and restaurants. John Fund has a friend who reports having attended a Grateful Dead concert. In fact, people have no memory or awareness that the famous Woodstock concert of August 1969 – planned in January during the worse period of death – actually occurred during a deadly American flu pandemic that only peaked globally six months later. There was no thought given to the virus which, like ours today, was dangerous mainly for a non-concert-going demographic.

Stock markets didn’t crash. Congress passed no legislation. The Federal Reserve did nothing. Not a single governor acted to enforce social distancing, curve flattening (even though hundreds of thousands of people were hospitalized), or banning of crowds. No mothers were arrested for taking their kids to other homes. No surfers were arrested. No daycares were shut even though there were more infant deaths with this virus than the one we are experiencing now. There were no suicides, no unemployment, no drug overdoses. 

Media covered the pandemic but it never became a big issue."

 

In the last twenty years we had swine flu, SARS, MERS. And the life didn't stop. So, yes, the reaction to the coronavirus was unprecedented. 

 

[RapperT 336]

His quote in the piece is AFTER they switched their approach.  

this ( randomly chose) article highlights the fact that the UK adopted a herd immunity approach based on the model from imperial college.  That’s all I ever said.  Sounds like your mind is made up though, no worries. 

 

[RapperT 336]

 

Sharp realizations: That strategy was met with fierce criticism over the weekend. The Covid-19 Response Team based at Imperial College in London revealed on Monday that the government’s experts realized only over the last few days that its policy would “likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths”—potentially 250,000—and that the burden on health systems would exceed their capacities and resources by as much as eight times.

“We were expecting herd immunity to build,” Azra Ghani, head of infectious disease epidemiology at Imperial College, told reporters Monday. “We now realize it’s not possible to cope with that.”

 

 

scientific community got pissed at the outrageous plan after it was announced:  “http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia/UK_scientists_statement_on_coronavirus_measures.pdf”

 

[agsb 44]

26 minutes ago, RapperT said:

 

Sharp realizations: That strategy was met with fierce criticism over the weekend. The Covid-19 Response Team based at Imperial College in London revealed on Monday that the government’s experts realized only over the last few days that its policy would “likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths”—potentially 250,000—and that the burden on health systems would exceed their capacities and resources by as much as eight times.

“We were expecting herd immunity to build,” Azra Ghani, head of infectious disease epidemiology at Imperial College, told reporters Monday. “We now realize it’s not possible to cope with that.”

 

 

scientific community got pissed at the outrageous plan after it was announced:  “http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia/UK_scientists_statement_on_coronavirus_measures.pdf”

 

At this point I see no reason to continue this exchange. Whoever bothered to read it will come (or came long ago) to their own conclusions.

[Kim 7,943]

After reading some of the responses and the articles, I would like to ask a simple question.

Except for very few countries (Sweden, Belarus, maybe couple more) that did not follow the rest (and the impact of their policy is still not clear), 95%+ of the countries followed the path of the lockdown. I'm sure the leaders had a pretty good idea about the impact of their decisions on the economy, the businesses and people's lives.

So why did they do it? Did anyone force them? In case of Trump, it might actually cost him the elections if the economy does not improve dramatically by November. And still he and other leaders made this decision. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they knew that the alternative is much worse?

Again, I'm not a medical expert and not pretending to understand all the models and the statistics. But I really would like to know how this can be explained.

I'm sure many countries could handle it better, and nobody is perfect. But as @RapperTmentioned, this is a very complicated problem with no clear right answers. It's easy to criticize from the sidelines when you have zero responsibility and accountability (this applies to all of us). But when you have to make decisions that will impact millions of lives, things look a bit different.

So I repeat my question: why they decided to implement the lockdowns, knowing the devastating impact it will have? 

[DubMcDub 123]

51 minutes ago, Kim said:

After reading some of the responses and the articles, I would like to ask a simple question.

Except for very few countries (Sweden, Belarus, maybe couple more) that did not follow the rest (and the impact of their policy is still not clear), 95%+ of the countries followed the path of the lockdown. I'm sure the leaders had a pretty good idea about the impact of their decisions on the economy, the businesses and people's lives.

So why did they do it? Did anyone force them? In case of Trump, it might actually cost him the elections if the economy does not improve dramatically by November. And still he and other leaders made this decision. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they knew that the alternative is much worse?

Again, I'm not a medical expert and not pretending to understand all the models and the statistics. But I really would like to know how this can be explained.

I'm sure many countries could handle it better, and nobody is perfect. But as @RapperTmentioned, this is a very complicated problem with no clear right answers. It's easy to criticize from the sidelines when you have zero responsibility and accountability (this applies to all of us). But when you have to make decisions that will impact millions of lives, things look a bit different.

So I repeat my question: why they decided to implement the lockdowns, knowing the devastating impact it will have? 

I'm no expert, but I suspect that much of the decisionmaking came down to simply a logical weighing of the relative hypothetical worst-case scenarios depending on which path you choose: 

• If you shut things down aggressively and it turns out that hey, maybe this virus isn't so bad after all, the hypothetical worst-case scenario is a bad economy, a protracted recession or depression, and some specific industries that either need a bail out or never recover. The economy and parts of the populace will suffer for awhile, but we've recovered economically from much worse things than a voluntary shutdown of certain industries, and we'll recover from this too. And in the meantime, developed governments have plenty of stopgap measures they can take to somewhat ease that economic pain. 
• On the flip side, if you don't shut things down and that turns out to be wrong, the hypothetical worst-case scenario is devastating and completely irreparable. Hospitals overrun. Hundreds of thousands or millions dead, including critical personnel who we need to keep functioning as a society. Potential for widespread panic and civil unrest. The list goes on. And with most of these things, there's nothing the government can do. The government can't resurrect the dead. It can't infuse our healthcare system with thousands of new doctors and nurses if the current ones get sick or die en masse. (And by the way, at some point this outcome has just as bad or worse of an impact on the economy. An economy is made up of people. People have to be healthy to work productively. The whole "save lives" versus "save the economy" thing has always been a false choice.)

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by DubMcDub

[rick 49]

4 hours ago, Kim said:

After reading some of the responses and the articles, I would like to ask a simple question.

Except for very few countries (Sweden, Belarus, maybe couple more) that did not follow the rest (and the impact of their policy is still not clear), 95%+ of the countries followed the path of the lockdown. I'm sure the leaders had a pretty good idea about the impact of their decisions on the economy, the businesses and people's lives.

So why did they do it? Did anyone force them? In case of Trump, it might actually cost him the elections if the economy does not improve dramatically by November. And still he and other leaders made this decision. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they knew that the alternative is much worse?

Again, I'm not a medical expert and not pretending to understand all the models and the statistics. But I really would like to know how this can be explained.

I'm sure many countries could handle it better, and nobody is perfect. But as @RapperTmentioned, this is a very complicated problem with no clear right answers. It's easy to criticize from the sidelines when you have zero responsibility and accountability (this applies to all of us). But when you have to make decisions that will impact millions of lives, things look a bit different.

So I repeat my question: why they decided to implement the lockdowns, knowing the devastating impact it will have? 

Well guess what, in America the administration listened to experts after realising the cost of not doing so and being wrong was untenable. Experts who cringe in the background whilst a president suggest disinfectant as a cure - beyond stupid. A whole lot of opinions on google or the media don't matter much.The numbers don't lie, America came late to the party and isn't doing a good job and can't until the testing numbers get much higher.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

[TrustyJules 3,212]

4 hours ago, Kim said:

So why did they do it? Did anyone force them? In case of Trump, it might actually cost him the elections if the economy does not improve dramatically by November. And still he and other leaders made this decision. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they knew that the alternative is much worse?

Been trying to keep a little out of this because one my main clients is a vaccine manufacturer. However the 'why' be summarised in one word 'Italy'.

All the hypothetical discussions on herd immunity are intellectually stimulating and have a high degree of scientific plausibility. UK and Netherlands originally opted for this approach based on the first advice of the scientists. In The Netherlands at the time that advice was couched in very posh terms: "We really ONLY approach this scientifically." The mathematical models will indeed show that herd immunity could be achieved based on the rapid spread of the virus. However it did not take into account practical realities that were not included in the original models namely the ability of healthcare to cope with the flow of patients and the disruption from sick workforce as well as more lateral issues like: what are the neighbours doing.

When the reality of what was happening in Northern Italy filtered through and specifically Bergamo all of that nice hypothetical: yeah we will have a few unavoidable deaths but it will be better to get through the worst of it quickly went out the door. You have to realise Northern Italy is highly developed, its infrastructure is on par with Germany or any developed nation it is quite different from middle or southern Italy where there are structural weaknesses in the fabric of their organisation.

In this modern centre of the world people were left to die in the halls of hospitals, waiting in ambulances because the health services were completely overwhelmed. Doctors and nurses had to do triple shifts and even then they could not care for everyone. Those who are arguing that we should have opted for herd immunity have to take into account that their loved or themselves might be the ones left to die alone as the sacrifice to obtain herd immunity. It also became clear that China had been economical with the truth on the infection rate and the fatalities as they vastly exceeded the ones reported from China. This threw a spanner in the 'scientific' decision to opt for herd immunity and try with limited means to reduce the spread of the virus to a lower level than 1:15 ratio that is its natural state.

In the Netherlands in Brabant - a major province and again far from some underdeveloped backwater - saw the healthcare system bend (but not break) within days and even the most optimistic projections showed that the country as a whole was unable to absorb the amount of patients. This is a human tragedy we are talking about, you can say that it would be better for those few 100,000 to die so that the rest of us can get on with our lives, but who will do this choosing? It also showed that this was NOT like the flu outbreak which also kills quite a few people but - barring peaks - doesnt stress the healthcare system for more than a week a year or so.

All of this happened very quickly, the Dutch decision to go for herd immunity was reversed the same day practically when the reality of Italy and what was happening in the South of the Netherlands filtered through. As Napoleon said: "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

[Topcat 7]

 

Good question:  The answer I think has partially to with modeling and advertising.

 

Other questions:  I think the other question that needs to be asked is why isn’t credence being given to other deaths caused by the shutdown?  

 

Not an either  deaths vs $s :

Not only does the shutdown create the hardships you mentioned but it kills. Suicides are already the #10 leading cause of death in the U.S., almost 48,000.  Every 1% increase in unemployment results in .9% increase in suicide and thousands more committing suicide. ( medical journal Lancet) and the increases tend to be chronic lingering for years. For a concise analysis see the following  that estimates an increase from suicide and drugs of 70,000. These don’t count?   https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/13/shutdown_could_kill_more_americans_than_covid-19_142934.html

According to OC Register there has been an 8,000 % increase to suicide prevention calls. Normally one center that gets 22 calls a month last month got 1,800 calls, and sadly an increase in calls does correlate to an increase in suicide  https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/19/suicide-help-hotline-calls-soar-in-southern-california-over-coronavirus-anxieties/

 

Advertsing pays.  In advertising there is a measure called GRP, gross rating points, it measure the breadth and depth of advertising. Marketers can predict with uncanny accuracy that if you increase the GRPs on an item it increase awareness an sales, just test yourself with some advertising slogans,  The point is simple increase the GRPs and the GRPs on Covid-19 have been off the charts, more on any single day than the football on Superbowl Sunday.

 

Modeling in Medical Field vs Facts: My background is in data analytics,  but over 30  years  I have met with friends in the health profession and we would discuss how poor the health field is with data analytics and computer science in general. Many studies done in the medical field fail to establish what the baseline vs incremental are and what the health field calls meta -studies have sample sizes that are so small that they would be laughed off the table by a consumer company.  I could access AC Nielsen's 60,000 person database on any food item  to check trends and had baseline numbers of over 1 million. I could distinguish the difference between baseline and incremental. The health field cannot easily do this To fill this void, the health field uses models. The problems with models is there is a high degree of supposition. You just change a number or two in a spreadsheet. And you can prove bumble bees cannot fly.

Dr Faucci , who btw has never practiced a day of medicine, said as late as a Feb. 29, 2020, interview, Dr. Fauci said that at that time and under the circumstances pertaining to that date, “Americans didn't need to change their behavior patterns.” Then on March 31^st  he reversed course and cited models that said we could have 1.5 to 2 million deaths (not cases but deaths). This was widely repeated again and again without any allowed challenges to the model.  

 

What the baseline might be:  Those of us in data analytics have been saying for some time either the infection rate , the basic reproduction Number (R0) is wrong or the fatality rate is wrong.  Otherwise millions would be dead already. Remember the double a penny every day question, well in 34 days a penny  ends up being worth over $ 160 million and the (R0)  factor was stated at over 2x.   It looks like the fatality rate is much much lower. This will only create cognitive dissonance  for some people who are running with the emotion of the constant message, GRPs,  but these are the facts on the ground. I know emotion almost always wins over logic but for a fact based study/analysis see comments by MD Dan Erickson, who with his partner has done half of the test in Kern County , over 5,200 hundred at last count.  He has done 5,213 COVID-19 tests at its five Bakersfield locations, Erickson said — which is more than half the 9,197 tests done so far in Kern County. Of those, 340 were positive (6% of those tested) , according to Erickson. He says that If that percentage of positive cases (65) were assumed to represent the entire population of Kern County, which is roughly 900,000, it would mean about 58,000 people in Kern have had the virus, far more than the nearly 700 official confirmed, Erickson said.

Using the same calculation, Erickson estimates 12 percent of the population statewide, or some 4.7 million Californians, have already had COVID-19. "Well we have 39.5 million people, if we just take a basic calculation and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 4.7 million cases throughout the state of California. Which means this thing is widespread, that's the good news. We've seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible incidents or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California," said Dr. Erickson.

Dr. Erickson asked if numbers that low necessitated people sheltering in place, shutting down medical systems and putting people out of work.

"I also wanted to mention that 96 percent of people in California who get COVID recover," he said. He has been censored for even asking these questions, if you want to see it I think you can still see it here:  https://www.kget.com/video/local-doctor-from-accelerated-urgent-care-gives-take-on-covid-19-in-kern-county/5416469/

 

And to try and understand the censorship I understand them to say yes, but he hasn’t tested everyone in the US, extrapolating isn’t right but bear in mind he wasn’t advocating running around but essentially asked the same questions Kim did

 

 

But this is the 5th study that confirms this, much lower fatality rate  1) First Iceland that randomly tested people in the population then 2) Stanford study of Santa Cruz, 3) USC Study (numbers similar to Kern County) and  even 4) NY. Governor Andrew Cuomo Cumo said a preliminary survey of New York state residents found that nearly 14% of those tested had antibodies against the novel coronavirus, suggesting that some 2.7 million may already have been infected.
And even Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said of the USC study, "the study suggests that 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of people infected by the virus will die, which would make COVID-19 only somewhat more deadly than the seasonal flu". That finding is consistent with the results of an earlier antibody study in Santa Clara County. "The mortality rate now has dropped a lot," Ferrer conceded.

 

I’m not suggesting anyone does anything different right now as we will find out more as more studies come in but it is interesting to see the resistance  to any questioning of  this shutdown and after this long post I have more questions than answers.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Topcat
grammer