LC

no. covid is particularly dangerous in a population where many people have underlying conditions (obesity being an important one, leading to hypertension and heart disease, that I dare say Taiwan does not have as much of). the poor in US and in the outer boroughs of NYC are particularly at risk because of this, their lack of good nutrition generally, and failure to see a primary care physician on a regular basis. density causes transmission, but underlying conditions (the most prevalent one being poor) causes enhanced risk. Hospitalization i.e. symptom severity is most certainly best explained by age, not underlying conditions: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm Underlying health conditions is not a better predictor. Only 12% of observed patients had data showing an underlying condition. But let's play devil's advocate. Let's take obesity. Per CDC analysis, 5.75% of COVID hospitalizations exhibited obesity (12%*.483) Also per CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) in 2017-18: The prevalence of obesity was 40.0% among young adults aged 20 to 39 years, 44.8% among middle-aged adults aged 40 to 59 years, and 42.8% among older adults aged 60 and older If obesity were a good predictor of COVID hospitalizations, we would see (1) a much higher rate of COVID patients exhibiting obesity, and (2) more COVID patients in the 40-59 age group vs. other age groups. Yet there is zero evidence of either.

Taiwan was from January onwards recommending masks, washing/sanitizing hands and social distancing. NY, started in March for social distancing. Masks from two weeks back. Right - So we can conclude that population density (or its weak proxy: poverty) is not a great predictor Next, in terms of social policy response: Are you aware of other refuting cases, i.e where we have two areas with similar policy suggestions and timeframes, but very different viral infection patterns? Or does every city with a similar density to NYC, and similar March timeframe for masks/distancing, show the same viral pattern? I don't know the specifics for each city globally, but this is the analysis needed to show a causal relationship. The point I am driving at is that contagious respiratory illness is difficult to manage and there is a danger of setting unrealistic expectations by attributing viral spread solely to the factors which we are able to easily measure, while ignoring other factors mainly because they are too difficult to measure.

the strongest link between poverty and known factors of respiratory disease transmission is population density. and critics of that link will point to Taiwan which has one of the highest population densities in the world but a very low infection rate. how would you resolve this? perhaps you can argue there is a link between poverty and ability to get tested/go to a doctor if you present severe symptoms. however again critics would argue this has a low impact overall as (1) most cases are not severe and would not require a hospital visit; and (2) of these severe cases which would require a doctor, age is a much, much better predictor of outcome.

Frankly there are lots of unknowns to explain such divergent results. NYC has a tremendous casualty percentage, was this because they refused to wear masks while other areas (e.g. California) wore masks from the start? The evidence does not support that. Educated guesses would point to differences in population density. But even using pop.density is difficult. Look at Taiwan, for example. Extremely dense, very low casualties. There is most likely not one major factor. Rather a variety of factors (travel, density, masks, quarantine/social distancing, viral evolution, weather, demographics, etc.) that formed in deadly combinations in some areas rather than others. Knowing this is probably impossible. What is possible is to control what we are able to control - wearing facemasks, quarantine procedures, and such. We can debate how large the effect these factors play, but they are easier to control compared to the weather.

Let's not forget to add all the relevant data, particularly when the context is a comparison vs. the USA: From Worldometer Deaths/Million Taiwan: 0.3 Japan: 3 S. Korea: 5 Germany: 74 USA: 179

Oh the irony, this clip from back in 2001: https://youtu.be/rtnF5gIfhYQ?t=91

Loooooong indeed. Are you using them as a hedge against dropping rates i.e. duration trade?

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

If the docs can beam sunshine into your lungs and fry COVID with UV light or inject Lysol gel into your windpipe and wipe out coronavirus in one minute, Trump was right! If not, well...”he was just asking a question!” The problem is Trump is 100% double talk. Zero responsibility as it were. Those who engage in and enable this behavior are spineless.

I wouldn't characterize that as being smart. For example, the exact opposite can also be true: Buffett knows "so little" about tech and see a consistently high P/E of Microsoft as a signal - but really it is just noise as the company continues to outperform for decades. In both cases the problem is myopia. Of course, people have been incredibly successful despite a highly narrow vision, so maybe I am just playing devil's advocate.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/ He used to sound (speak) a lot smarter (read attached article for proof). It's either: an intentional change (appeal to lowest common denominator with plain speech) or he has dementia or he has a brain-eating parasite. Or perhaps a combo of all three. He's unfit. I gotta say, it’s pretty impressive how many ways he’s suggested that people kill themselves.

Carcinoma to COVID: "You must be new here, kid, but I run this block"

It doesn't - what happens is most commodity derivative pricing models assume a lognormal distribution; when your spot price is negative it blows up this assumption. The short term fix is a parallel shift to a slightly-above-zero amount but this may violate the lognormality assumption. Just to put it bluntly, a lognormal distribution is: e^(distribution). These values can only be positive, that is, e^(positive value) = positive value, and e^(negative value) = positive value

You guys are really fucked in US if this is the typical attitude of a non Trump supporter. Start a civil war, already. Just in case it needs to be said: Do not put household disinfectants into your body ;D

Some factual context, here is the most recent European mortality numbers Note on interpretation of data: The number of deaths shown for the three most recent weeks (shaded area) should be interpreted with caution as adjustments for delayed registrations may be imprecise.

Interestingly, on a prior year earnings basis, UNP trades at 18x and the utilities sector is trading at 20x. A 10x multiple for BNSF & MidAmerican would be quite a bargain in that context.

The best part is watching them squirm when their lack of knowledge is exposed. It's pretty hilarious, in a "laugh so you don't cry" sort of way.

An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the priest beside her, "Father, may I ask a favor?" "Of course child. What may I do for you?" "Well, I bought my mother an expensive hair dryer for her birthday. It is unopened but well over the customs limits and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through Customs for me? Hide it under your robes perhaps?" "I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you, I will not lie." "With your honest face, Father, no one will question you," she replied. When they got to Customs, she let the priest go first. The official asked, "Father, do you have anything to declare?" "From the top of my head down to my waist I have nothing to declare." The official thought this answer strange, so asked, "And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?" Father replied, "I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, which is, to date, unused." Roaring with laughter, the official said, "Go ahead, Father. Next please!"

I'm with you and I own LEAPs

FYI this lends more color here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-21/negative-oil-prices-are-literally-breaking-traders-risk-models CME Group Inc. said late Tuesday that the clearing house will switch the options pricing and valuation model to Bachelier -- a model named after the famous French mathematician -- to accommodate negative prices in the underlying futures and allow for listing of options contracts with negative strikes for a certain set of crude oil and energy products. The change is effective Wednesday and will remain in place until further notice. Holy cow--negative strikes. Bloomberg did some lazy reporting to only focus on BS/options pricing. The real problem is use of Gabillon model which is used as a commodities pricer, mainly for collateral purposes. It will throw collateral requirements out of whack.

It's really incredible how federally coordinated testing could have addressed these issues and still is not being done.

Few things: The question is buying when the market was down 25% from its high. I.e. SP500 at 2500 not 3300. And you have to go back pre-2003 for Berkshire to outperform Nasdaq. For any investments made 2003-date, your money would have been better in Nasdaq. That's 17 years of relative underperformance. And I say that with Brk as my #1 position. But criticism is necessary.

FYI this lends more color here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-21/negative-oil-prices-are-literally-breaking-traders-risk-models CME Group Inc. said late Tuesday that the clearing house will switch the options pricing and valuation model to Bachelier -- a model named after the famous French mathematician -- to accommodate negative prices in the underlying futures and allow for listing of options contracts with negative strikes for a certain set of crude oil and energy products. The change is effective Wednesday and will remain in place until further notice.

No need to be ignorant at all. Perform enough tests and you can make an educated decision. Tests cost $50/ea at the high end: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/mac-covid-19-test-pricing.pdf Let's call it another $20 for distribution. For $2.5B you can test 35 million people, which is frankly way more than enough from a statistical perspective. Obviously I am ignoring problems of lab capacity and getting 35 million people to take the test (if the gov't was smart they would use existing supply chains i.e. food delivery, USPS/Fedex/UPS, etc.), but I would think over 1 month they could make this happen. For a fraction of the stimulus packages already approved. And for even more billions in opportunity costs avoided by being able to re-open. Trump is an idiot for not doing so frankly as it is in his best interest to open the economy (unless you think he wants society closed to just pay poor people to vote for him). If the second quoted opinion turns out to be correct, a federally-coordinated national testing effort would cost a few billion and provide justification to re-open the economy and ultimately would have saved hundreds of billions. Why isn't Trump doing this right now and/or why didn't he do this 1-2 months ago?

To reopen you need representative sampling of the asymptomatic population to understand existing prevalence of the virus. If it’s highly prevalent I would then look at daily death rates to see if it has peaked and YOY all factor death rates to determine the marginal contribution of the coronavirus. If the first is trending flat or down and the second is “low” (insert your threshold here), you can make the argument for reopening. These steps do not cost 2trillion to implement, every day this doesn’t happen is a failure of the federal government to protect the people’s jobs and livelihoods, by gathering the relevant information needed to potentially reopen safely.