KCLarkin

I don't understand why these futures contracts are allowed to trade negative, especially the cash settled ones. I understand why the price of Oil might go negative. But why not set the floor at $0 for the exchange traded futures? Someone might get stuck with physical delivery of oil they don't want, but that's the risk in playing the game. If you allow negative futures, brokers can't require adequate margin. If you want to buy a June contract at $12, what is a safe level of margin? 500%? Should brokers require $60 in cash to buy $12 of oil? Even $60 doesn't seem safe right now. Maybe $100 or $1000?

Did you actually read any of these "reports"? (WHO means published research studies not popular press clippings. Posting multiple articles that discuss the same case doesn't bolster your argument.) Referencing a Chinese case (edit: this is actually the same case as the german case below): Referencing a German case: Referencing a Taiwan case: So most of the cases mentioned were actually mildly symptomatic or presymptomatic, not "truly asymptomatic". In that bulletin, WHO clearly stated that presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission was possible.

APRIL 2 WHO report: "There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission." https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf Why is WHO so wrong on everything? Can I suggest that the problem isn't WHO, but your inability to read or think for yourself? The WHO bulletin you posted says: They are summarizing the reports that were available on April 2nd. Most of the studies showing asymptomatics were published after April 2nd. The author likely didn't read the reuters article from April 24th because time machines are so expensive. -- This is probably too subtle for you to comprehend, but few of the reports you are referring (including this prisons report) are even capable of determining whether someone is truly asymptomatic (as defined in that WHO bulletin). The researchers would need to monitor for 14 days to determine whether symptoms later develop. There are a couple studies that have done this, but most, if not all, published after April 2nd. There are really three categories of "silent spreaders": Presymptomatic - no symptoms at time of test, but will go on to develop symptoms. Subclinical - symptoms are so mild or atypical, that patient or doctor doesn't notice them or consider them COVID symptoms (perhaps a slight change in pulse or breathing). Truly asymptomatic There isn't any clear answer on what the relative proportions are. Even some people who think they have no symptoms show significant lung damage on CT scans.

I won't go through all the reasons why you are wrong, but this is a pretty blatant falsehood. They weren't even able to test all the dying and dead in NY, let alone test people who had mild symptoms.

Here is a pre-print journal article that helps give some more context on why that WHO quote is accurate: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article In this outbreak in SK, only 4% of COVID-positive patients were "truly asymptomatic". And they were only laboratory-confirmed as part of an aggressive test-and-trace regime. In most countries where testing is rationed, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic is probably a rounding error. Likely you are confusing presymptomatic with asymptomatic. Which is understandable since you are a layperson. But don't blame the experts for your lack of knowledge!

Investor20, the full context of that WHO article is: “ There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission. This does not exclude the possibility that it may occur. Asymptomatic cases have been reported as part of contact tracing efforts in some countries.”

If you kept to opinions, then this would be perfectly acceptable. You can say: lockdowns are a bad economic policy. That personal freedoms trump public health. That more people will die due to an economic depression. Fine. Those are all reasonable arguments. Instead, you post bullshit and claim it is the truth. I just made a post, using your numbers for "mortality rate", that showed that the epidemiological models were surprisingly accurate. And you turn around and say that the models were wildly inaccurate. You show that the "mortality rate" for COVID in NYC is 0.67% and so it "just like the flu". When we point out that this actually means that it is ~10 times more deadly than the flu, you move on to your next bullshit "fact". Unfortunately, viruses don't play politics and they don't respect "alternative facts".

Okay, this is the last time I will correct you for a few weeks. The experts prediction of both mild/asymptomatic cases and IFR are accurate. Maybe it is your lack of expertise that is the issue (for example not knowing the difference between IFR and CFR)? The original model presented by the White House estimated 1.5M-2.2M deaths, if there was no mitigation. Guess how many deaths there would be assuming your 0.67% "mortality rate" and an attack rate of 70% (rough estimate of infection rate needed for herd immunity)? 328M * 0.7 * .0067 = 1.5M Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the experts know more about this pandemic than Cerzeca?

Nobody ever had a 3-4% IFR estimate. You are conflating CFR with IFR. The estimated IFR was always around 0.65%.

No, this is horrible! The estimated IFR has been 0.65-1% since at least early March. 0.67%* is devastatingly high. If we want herd immunity (say 70% infected), that would be over 1.5M deaths in the U.S.

Dalal, I don't think he is smart enough to know the difference between CFR and IFR. So he might actually believe this B.S.

What is your denominator for those 80,000 regular flu deaths? You make a back-of-the-envelope estimate for COVID IFR and then announce that it is "just like the flu" without having the intellectual curiosity to actually calculate the IFR for "just the flu"? No expert thinks that "the flu" has an IFR anywhere near 0.67%*. The estimates I've seen are around 0.1%. But if you factor in asymptomatic cases, it is likely even lower. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html So Covid is at least 7 times more deadly than "just the flu". -- * even if your Covid denominator is right, your numerator is wrong due to the lag between infection and death.

I love the confidence! Even though you are so consistently proven wrong, you still post with gusto! What is the Infection Fatality Rate of the flu? Nobody actually believes it is 0.67%, do they? This comprehensive review shows ~10 deaths per 100,000 H1N1infections: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/ So comparing your bogus numbers for CV to these bogus numbers for H1N1, CV is 67 times more deadly than the flu! Edit to add: your bogus "mortality rate" also ignores the significant delay between infection and death. So your numerator is significantly understated.

This is BS, CZ. People have tried closing down nursing homes. It doesn't work, particularly when the President prevents testing. Your repeated assertions that it would work are silly. More BS from you RG. No visitors to nursing homes instituted by the industry late march. should have been late January. This whole theory is absolutely nuts! People are in nursing homes because they are no longer independent. You can lock all the olds up in a home and they won’t get the virus. But as soon as you have a worker come into the home, they are exposed to the virus. You have aircraft carriers in the middle of the ocean with massive outbreaks and you think you can somehow only isolate the vulnerable when they are 100% dependent on the outside world. Certifiably nuts.

That's par for the course of what you get out of doctor Trump. How many doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine just cause they were afraid they would get sued by trumpers if they didn't because the dude shot his mouth? Without control for who was prescribed which drug, the study is meaningless. I wonder if the bright bulbs who were arguing against controlled studies because it was unethical to withhold hydroxychloroquine will suddenly agree that this study is meaningless because there it is no random control? Or the MAGA crowd who fell in love with a small, uncontrolled French study? Also, should be noted that the remdisivir study that caused the market to spike was not controlled. Maybe we should just listen to Fauci?

Anyone else think it is insane that oil is down more than 100% in one day and the S&P 500 is basically unchanged? Well, I guess the fact that oil is down 100% is crazy enough. But why is stock market ignoring this?

Using unemployment rate to define "worst recession", the worst recession since the great depression is 1980-1982. The S&P 500 lost 27.8%. Your "base rate" on this crisis should be -30 to -50. We already hit -35%, so we are in the range. It is probably 50/50 that we have already bottomed.

I'm married to a clinical trials manager, so I am biased to actual medical ethics rather than Cherzeca's personal code of ethics. The point of a clinical trial is to see if a medical intervention is safe and effective. The best way to do that is through a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. If you use anecdotal studies (like the infamous French plaq study), you can only ever have low confidence that an intervention is safe or effective. The blinding is to remove bias from the study. Cherzeca's code of ethics is wrong in this specific instance because there are no known safe and effective treatments for COVID-19. Patient care/choice comes when they choose to enroll or not enroll in the study. If a doctor/patient thinks Plaq is safe and effective, they can prescribe it off label. If a doctor/patient wants to use an experimental drug (Remdisivir), they can apply for compassionate use. No need to taint the study to meet a doctor or patient's personal biases.

I'm assuming this is a typo. But obviously if a patient can select between two experimental drugs, it isn't a blind or random study! Plaq/z-pack isn't standard of care, so it wouldn't be the control. The patient enrols in trial knowing they get 50/50 chance at Remdisivir. This is informed consent. Any clinical trial needs to be approved by multiple ethics boards, so don't waste too much time thinking about the ethics.

Only 0.6% in a random sample currently had the infection. Interestingly, 11.9% of the random sample had symptoms! So in Iceland, more people had symptoms than had the disease! Add that to your file of random anecdotes, Orthopa.

Yes, the mainstream media should be all over a silly spat between China and an Australia newspaper. That should distract us from the mass graves being dug in NYC: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-giant-trench-getting-built-nyc-s-hart-island-n1181056

One of the studies linked in that Arstechnica article Liberty posted showed that flu-like illnesses INCREASED if health care workers wore cloth masks. And cloth masks were only 3% effective in reducing virus. So the downside is actually negative (not zero). https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

Two points: - Scientists and doctors rely on evidence. There is little evidence that masks protect the wearer in low-risk situations. There are two reasons why there is little evidence. One, they probably are less effective than you think (see below). But mostly, ethics boards tend not to approve research studies where you intentionally expose someone to an infectious disease. - Common sense is that masks droplets coming in and out. So they should provide equal protection in either case. But if you think about it, you will see that Fauci is right. Let's say a homemade mask reduces 50% of the droplets you inhale. But you can also get infected through the eyes, so let's say that reduces your protection by 1/3. You can also get infected by fiddling with an infected mask or improper washing. So maybe a mask is 25% effective. But respiratory droplets are probably not the primary transmission mechanism. Infection also occurs when you touch an infected person or item. Let's say that is 50% of transmissions. So a mask only reduces your odds of infection by 12.5%. (all numbers made up but roughly based on the limited research I have seen) But what happens if you put that mask on the infected person? The mask basically eliminates the airborne virus. Any droplets are unlikely to be expelled with enough force to enter your eyes, mouth, or nose. It will also reduce the number of droplets on nearby items. So a mask on an infected person might be 75% effective. Imagine you are in a crowded grocery store. There are 99 susceptible people and 1 infected person. If you put a mask only on the 99 susceptible people, the infected person will be walking around shedding virus on the shopping cart, breathing out droplets and aerosols, breathing on the veggies, touching the boxes, coughing on the checkout counter, touching the PIN pad.... So you can see why the Fauci and the CDC recommended masks for the infected people only! Now the problem was underestimating asymptomatic transmission and the lack of testing. The CDC advice is correct, but only if you can tell who is infected! KCL using your numbers... --masks worn by non-infected persons are 12.5% effective in preventing infection --masks worn by infected persons are 75% effective in eliminating transmission Have you not just made the case for everyone wearing a mask? And that is just to assist with lowering the spread of the corona virus let alone the impact on assisting with lowering the spread of other infections/ diseases. I was #maskforall but that arstechnica article that Liberty posted is pretty strong evidence against masks. Especially homemade masks. However, Austria and Czech are seeing a flattened curve. I wonder if the effect is social, not physical. If young people believe they are helping vulnerable people by wearing masks, maybe they are changing behaviour in other ways that are actually more effective.

Not to feed the trolls, but I go back to my comment from a couple weeks ago. They are already using these drugs in Fance and Italy. The CFR in Italy and Italy is over 10%! It seems obvious that if these drugs are effective, they are only minimally effective (so any effect would only be seen in large, well-designed trials). I understand the desire for a miracle drug, but there are much more promising candidates.

EDIT: BASED ON THE ARSTECHNICA ARTICLE POSTED BY LIBERTY LATER IN THIS THREAD, I NOW DOUBT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.