Peregrine

I don't really get this talk about NYC fading. Urbanization has been a global trend ever since human civilization began and has outlasted basically everything. Now, some may decamp for cheaper and smaller cities or suburbs but there will be others who make up the gap. There's a reason why people (especially the young) have always gravitated towards the largest cities.

I think what Munger said about Ma and Ant is on the money. Ant was doing loan originations while offloading 100% of the credit risk to other banks - there's a big moral hazard and misalignment of incentives in that kind of lending model. And it was becoming larger and larger with no checks and balances on its growth. The Chinese government is right to be nervous about seeing something like that outside of its regulatory purview. Not sure if I agree on his view on business travel and offices though. Perhaps it'll be depressed in the near to medium-term but teleconferencing has been around for a long, long time and it never replaced in-person meetings. In China, things have more or less returned to the way things were pre-pandemic.

This is the big factor IMO. NIMBYism exists everywhere. I don't think the situations in Toronto and Vancouver are all that different from other cities that's 1) attracting a lot of net migration; and 2) experience chronic obstacles to increase housing supply.

A good and balanced article on COVID politics: https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/23/put-straw-man-pandemic-denial-out-of-its-misery/ Hopeful that slowly and surely more balance is being brought to the public discussion.

I'm not so sure that their lockdown is entirely responsible for their low case count. Australia is in summer right now and it's becoming increasingly clear that this virus is highly seasonal. We didn't hit zero in the US during summer. The numbers actually went UP as we entered summer coincident with lifting restrictions. The summer increase in the US was almost entirely relegated to the sunbelt stats, where it was so hot that people had to gather indoors. Perhaps seasonal isn't the right word but rather the conditions that force people to gather in enclosed settings.

I'm not so sure that their lockdown is entirely responsible for their low case count. Australia is in summer right now and it's becoming increasingly clear that this virus is highly seasonal.

Not to mention several politicians who got caught breaking their own rules to have Thanksgiving gatherings. I don't blame the public for becoming increasingly jaded by political leadership.

First, a bulk thank-you for the well-wishers. We continue to not get any worse. All of my stepson's friends appear to be well and their families too. So maybe I got it at Costco where I wore a mask and spoke to nobody except from behind a window at checkout. Maybe my wife caught it ordering at the counter the one time in a restaurant in El Dorado Hills that prior weekend. But my stepson says he was showing symptoms all week, but then again my wife says he's a hypochondriac. I really don't care. Anyhow, we should have immunities for a while and we've booked ourselves six days on Oahu in late December -- we'll need to be tested again (ouch!) before the flight per travel restrictions. I seldom know how I get colds...it just happens I guess. There are times when I get sick despite not knowing anyone around me who is and other times when I don't get sick when the people I live with are. Anyway, hope you enjoy your trip!

Good to hear you're feeling better. Were there any differences between how you felt with this versus previous experiences with the cold or flu?

Vaccines will go to med staff first, but regardless remember two doses per person. I know that's the plan to prioritize the med staff, but I'm not in agreement that it's the right approach. If one were to take the 70+ age group out of the equation, what would be the load on the hospitals today? That's how the pressure comes off the hospitals, and the rational for the curfews and shutdowns is that the spread of the virus is risking our hospitals being overrun. Anyways... The thinking I think is that front-line workers are vectors of spread to the elderly. Though I agree with you that the elderly should be vaccinated first.

The flu mutates frequently. All viruses mutate.

Thanks. I'm guessing the last number is the estimate for your IFR?

It is not objecting to masks Frank. But pro-maskers were saying if only every one wears masks Covid disappears. Even CDC director said that - masks are more important than vaccine. CDC director said "masks are our best defence". If masks are our best defence and are better than vaccine, we are doomed. Because mask mandates have been tried in many places and masks are worn by above 90% people and yet there are big spikes in infections. The best defense is not working. Coming back to whether masks are better than not wearing, not everyone agrees on this. For example as per this article Reduction of Self-Reinoculation It is well-recognized that COVID-19 exists outside the human body in a bioaerosol of airborne particles and droplets. Because exhaled air in an infected person is considered to be “loaded” with inoculum, each exhalation and inhalation is effectively reinoculation..... We propose that fresh air could reduce reinoculation and potentially reduce the severity of illness and possibly reduce household spread during quarantine. This calls for open windows, fans for aeration, or spending long periods of time outdoors away from others with no face covering to disperse and not reinhale the viral bioaerosol. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7410805/ This article is written by some of the top doctors including Baylor, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Yale....and many more.... There is one randomized study that is cited by anti-maskers which is https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.short This study does not have an arm of not wearing mask and it is not with Covid 19. It compares "Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks." What we need are proper studies which are lacking. That is why I keep asking what is your evidence? There is no evidence. Only arguments and pronouncements. Now I am not going to tell you whether CDC director is correct (Masks are our best defence in which case we already lost because our best defence has been tried many places) or all these doctors are correct that re-innoculation of virus is bad and will lead to more severe disease. What we should demand from CDC is evidence, not pronouncements. Yes, I'm aware that the clinical evidence of mask effectiveness has not been particularly strong yet. But practically speaking, it's a minor inconvenience with low trade-offs - which is one reason why I think the public health messaging has shifted from lockdowns to masking. I don't think it's particularly helpful to get into the righteousness of all this stuff when people's lives have been upended to such a degree - we should be focusing on practicality.

I think anti-masking has become ideological just like how much of this debate has evolved. I think it's rather silly to object too much - it's a fairly small inconvenience with some possible benefits (if not reducing transmission then maybe reducing viral load) and none of the massive collateral damage that comes with lockdowns. I think the consensus gradually focusing on masking and moving away from lockdowns is a good thing on balance.

Have you considered the possibility that the difference between a)spontaneous individual actions, b)how people react to recommendations and c)how people react to rules may not be different in the extreme? Also, do you think that 'measures' (whatever the origin) improved, had not effect or worsened virus-related health outcomes (let's forget about the costs for this part of the argument)? Also, how do you explain the divergent evolution between the US and Sweden after the first phase (percent positive rates, excess mortality)? Do you actually think that 'extreme measures' are explaining the wide and persistent difference? BTW, i agree that costs have been (and will be) significant. But i wonder if you can help clarify the benefits, if any. Good point on the voluntary measures. But Sweden's google mobility data are fairly close to 2019 baseline levels now. The US is a much bigger country and the outbreaks right now are concentrated in the places that were spared in the spring. My guess is that higher level of population immunity is a big reason for the current more benign experiences in places that were hit hard in the spring.

I don't think there has been much trading of VIX futures to move it right now. It's mainly used as a hedge for SPX exposure and apparently there's a lot of money on the sidelines at the moment.

Oh, and more on Sweden's economy: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/swedish-gdp-set-to-trounce-euro-zone-u-s-and-even-top-nordics?sref=79DyzZ1p

Of course it's real, just not nearly as bad as many make it out to be and certainly not worth the collateral damage of the extreme measures taken so far in an attempt to counteract it.

About Sweden....

So across Europe where cases have been rising, positivity rates among the old have remained low whereas those of younger age groups have shot up which in my view shows that the more vulnerable are shielding themselves while the less vulnerable are going back to more normal lives. Despite the vitriolic mainstream reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration, society is more or less going that route anyway.

It appears that the increased infections are taking place in areas in the country that weren't hit hard in the first place. For example, the increased infections in the UK are taking place in northern UK and not in London and the South. Similar trends happening in other places seeing "second waves".

I think the reason is because this is difficult to implement. First, what is the cutoff? 30 years old let's say? Sounds reasonable, maybe +/- 5 or so years. Now even with a threshold, not many aspects of society are so cleanly segmented by age. Schools would be the most obvious one, but even those are filled with teachers and administrators. In theory it makes sense but I think implementation is the challenge. I'm glad that a discussion can be reasonable, and why should it not be? As for practicality, should it be more difficult to implement than striving to suppress the virus among the entire population? I don't think it should necessarily be that difficult. We can start with the elderly homes - increase funding and staffing, which has been a chronic problem with elderly homes that finally blew up in the open. In schools, those who are older or with pre-existing conditions may teach virtually or assist in other aspects, such as grading and marking papers or helping to plan lessons for teachers in class. Allot specific times for businesses to open specifically for the elderly. Older people living in multi-generational households can be given the option for temporary stays in the many hotels that are sitting empty right now (what's ironic is that the lockdown strategy has actually increased multi-generational mixing). These are all things that can be practically done, especially considering the immense resources being devoted to this.

Though I disagree with the policy prescription, I think that's fair. See and that's also my own bias. I live a comfortable life and I am young in the context of COVID. I can afford social distancing. There's an old line from that Dirty Jobs show, where the host (Mike Rowe) questions the whole, "safety first" attitude. Sometimes, he argues, it's "safety second, or third". And that was in the context of the working class / paycheck-to-paycheck individuals. To say nothing of age ranges for which this virus has disparate impacts. So how do we both protect people and allow people to work and live? Well first, what do we know? There was a violent initial spike, a somewhat extended but less-deadly second wave, and now we are entering flu season. OK - so then what is the optimal response here? I think it is reasonable to plan for something closer to the "second wave". This is a compromise between both extremes: the initial violent spike on one end, and a situation where COVID has essentially run its course on the other end. So then I would argue the optimal response would be continued mask wearing, some social distancing in high-exposure cities and events, and statewide-tailored responses with federal support for things like medical resources, unemployment resources, if needed. Thanks for being objective. I agree with much of what you said. I think anti-masking is silly - I think even anti-maskers can concede that it is a minor inconvenience for most with little drawback. I also think that people are naturally social distancing and that the enormous resources deployed so far could find far better uses (i.e. more funding to elderly homes). Where we may differ a bit is in the question of whether younger people should live more normal lives. I think that there has been enough evidence that shows that the risk to the young is similar to or even below that of the flu. And compounded with the fact that the young recover faster and are thus infectious for shorter windows of time, chains of transmission are broken quicker, thereby reducing the possibility of increased transmission in more vulnerable groups. I think given the immense age-stratification in the risk of this disease we should be deploying an age-stratified strategy, unfortunately, we haven't yet been using this well-established knowledge to our advantage.

Though I disagree with the policy prescription, I think that's fair.

How is that having it both ways? Read what you quoted again. The first statement is true - that is how epidemics have historically ended. Spanish Flu (H1N1) never disappeared but it reached a balanced state where it became endemic in the population. This will happen with SARS-COV-2 as well - the only question is when. I think we can all agree that at some point the epidemic will end, it's just a question of when. I'm of the belief that the hardest hit areas are a lot further along on that timeline.