Peregrine

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%. Yup. So 0.4% IFR for symptomatic and 35% asymmptomatic mix gets u 0.27%.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc. Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu. I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x. I'm always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. If you believe that the IFR of Covid is precisely 0.27%, then why shouldn't you believe that Covid is precisely 9.76x as deadly as the flu? I didn't say that - it's the newest estimate provided by the CDC.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc. Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu. I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x. You're confusing IFR with CFR. I'm really not. Most estimates of flu IFR I've seen hold it at 0.1%. Since most flu cases aren't confirmed or identified, these are necessarily estimates.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc. Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu. I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x.

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"? I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten. My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics. She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery". She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling. Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well. Any scheduled surgery is elective. Cancer surgery is elective because it is scheduled. They were all banned in order to make room for the surge that never came close to occurring. Meanwhile, the elective surgeries are the bread-and-butter cash cow for the company. Cancelling surgeries was supposed to free up staff, but instead they had to lay off staff. Mistakes were made in what was locked down, but it would look different if the surge really did come. That makes sense - thanks. I'm surprised by that because wouldn't some people who really needed surgeries were denied then?

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc.

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"? I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten. My wife is in HR at a large healthcare company that owns and operates hospitals and clinics. She was telling me that some organ transplants didn't happen because they were classified as "elective surgery". She works from home so I hear a lot on the conference calls about the red ink spilling. Yeah, just sad. What demarcates the line between elective and non-elective? It also seems like an arbitrary line that hospitals are unsure of as well.

Would it not have been more informative to tweet "Emergency Rooms still open!" than "Liberate Michigan!"? I sympathize with the difficulty in public messaging during a time of panic and confusion. But I don't think public figures have devoted enough attention to nor sounded the alarm enough about the huge public health collateral damage. The media hasn't helped either. That treatments for all these afflictions that are many times as deadly as COVID have been forgone can only be charitably viewed as a failure by public health officials. Moreover, we won't see the effects immediately - they'll only surface over time at which point they'll surely be another data point and forgotten.

The prior article on the suicides suggested that lifting the lockdown will reduce the suicide rate. Those new articles you offer are suggesting that COVID-19 is scaring them from coming in to the hospital or clinic, which were never locked down for heart attack and stroke patients. They will vaccinate your children. Lifting a lockdown may scare these people even more if it led to an increase in the numbers of people infected with COVID-19. If a major part of the rationale for a lockdown was its practicality, then I think that public health officials were very impractical in not sufficiently considering the second order effects from the lockdown. Yes, emergency care was never stopped but how many people would really know that? Can you expect the vast majority to distinguish between what's considered an emergency and what's not? Can you expect the majority to properly weigh health risks and think rationally when everywhere they look they're reminded of COVID? I think the answer is a clear no given the data in the articles and I think it's a leap too far to assume that the majority of the populace will make rational decisions when the public health messaging on this topic has been ambiguous at best yet extremely black and white on lockdowns.

The article is based on one doctor's testimonial. There's no data at all. One person squashed by a UFO landing on his head would also be 'unprecedented'. What kind of numbers are we talking about here? Prior to COVID-19, there were more auto-accident fatalities than suicides in the US. I imagine that relationship has flipped and will revert when things open up again. I wouldn't be surprised if the experience in that one hospital is fairly consistent in a lot of other places. And it's not just suicides, but there's been growing evidence of collateral damage in a lot of other areas in public health. Here are a few other examples: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/18/nation/major-boston-hospital-finds-dramatic-drop-stroke-heart-attack-cancer-patients-during-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22/who-routine-childhood-vaccinations-disrupted-coronavirus/?utm_content=buffer1f412&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic

CDC just came out with their new estimate for the infection fatality ratio (IFR) - 0.27%. Are we just dealing with something as deadly as the flu but since it's novel, it's far more easily spread?

I hate Trump in that intentionally or unintentionally he has politicized everything. Even discourse on the coronavirus has devolved along strict partisan lines. Makes discussing policy with a balanced and objective mindset basically impossible. If you even question the rationale about the lockdowns, you're immediately called a Trump-lover by many on the left - even if you yourself identify more with the left.

One thing that doesn't get much mention about Berkshire's massive cash hoard is the fact that they have a massive reinsurance operation. Who knows the kind of claims that come out of this pandemic and Berkshire's first obligation above all is to ensure that they have the capital to withstand even the most dire of scenarios. That the market as a whole isn't cheap? I think most of us can agree on that. The spike down was swift and didn't stay there long.

He compares Berkshire's stock with all the other opportunities out there, so not surprised that he hasn't bought back stock meaningfully. As for the virus, it seems to me that he's a lot more apprehensive about people's reaction to the virus than the virus itself.

What does the demographic distribution of Singapore's confirmed cases look like?

The thing about Sweden...they readily admitted that their death count per capita will be higher than Scandinavian neighbors as a result of their strategy because of a higher rate of infections. But they're also going to see a steeper rise and steeper drop off (like NYC is now). Hard to come to firm conclusions that their deaths per capita will be far worse than their neighbors when it's all said and done. Sweden also has more large nursing homes than other Scandinavian countries and higher population density in its major city, which will figure into the stats as well.

It seems a bit harsh to constantly review Sweden on the number of deaths compared to their neighbours as their policy was never aimed at less corona death in the first place and they were upfront about this. If someone wants to compare, you have to look at the broader picture (economic growth, quality of life), which you cannot do until much later. Despite what many predicted, their IC capacity seems to be holding. I think it's useful to look at what this approach does vs different approach. I don't see anything harsh or unfair here. I also saw some numbers somewhere that it's not because things arent officially closed that they aren't basically closed.. saw numbers on Swedish restaurants and theaters being basically zero, but don't remember where. Probably same for any big events, travel, etc. Regarding Sweden -- here is an answer from their former state epidemiologist. "I think we should wait a year when comparing the deaths in different countries." The same epidemiologist said in another interview that compared to their neighbors Sweden has a lot more old people living in nursing homes, which have been locked down but nonetheless seem to be petri dishes for the virus to spread. And I think well more than half of COVID-related deaths in Sweden so far have come from nursing homes.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-prisons-testing-in/in-four-us-state-prisons-nearly-3300-inmates-test-positive-for-coronavirus-96-without-symptoms-idUSKCN2270RX Incredible how transmissible this virus is. In one prison, 2028 out of a total of 2,300 tested positive for the virus and close to 95% of those who tested positive had no symptoms.

Very limited liquidity for the May contract as far as I'm aware.

Not sure how worldometer counts. This is from Sweden's own public health website: COVID ICU admissions: COVID daily deaths:

I don't know the mechanics of how/why, but warm weather seems true (when it's been questioned whether it will be so) and 'viral dose' seems to matter. Healthcare workers are getting disproportionately sick and they might be skewing bad outcomes in younger brackets. That would certainly be encouraging for the broader population (that it's not as bad, to your points on what you see). I don't know. We'll see what data shows. HC worker data is from CDC. I'll dig up the article later. Warm and humid weather has been shown to wear off the fatty layer of other viruses, making it more difficult to attach to cells and transmit.

So it coincides with the data from the countries who have been in lockdown? Interesting. As I originally said, probably to the delight of many, Trump fucked up and panicked because it came time to either make a decision, or pass the buck. Allowing the shutdown was catastrophically stupid. Just use common sense. "Every 1% increase in unemployment means 40,000 people die". We just increased unemployment, 100% willingly, by a gazillion million percent, because a low 5 figure number of old people and folks with conditions might die... Donald Trump.... "I'm not responsible for that" To be fair, Sweden is a low density country with a fairly homogenous citizenry who believes in individual responsibility to society. So they're doing some social distancing themselves without the draconian lockdown orders in place. The US saw what happened to NYC and extrapolated that to everywhere else in the country which is an assumption that is showing to be misguided with growing evidence.

Interesting data coming out of Sweden. No lockdown policy (though citizens are being extra careful) yet ICU admissions have been flat for a month and COVID deaths have been on the decline.

I don't get why people think his comments are such a contradiction. Berkshire emerged from 08 with a ton of liquidity as well. Yes, Munger plunged a lot of excess cash into stocks at the Daily Journal in 09, but that's not a vast conglomerate with massive insurance operations.

Still mind-boggling how off some of these models were.