Investor20

Bad analogy. A vaccine is not inevitable. Sending bits between computers is. You misunderstand me. We already know that a vaccine has been developed. My point is that the development was inevitable without Trump's help, but credit him for speeding it along. Look at the context, I'm not generalizing that all vaccines are inevitable. Similarly, Marc Andreeson was on that NCSA Mosaic development team and then went on to Netscape where he brought it to the masses. And Al Gore's efforts brought the funding to MOSAIC's development. Then, in December 1991, the Gore Bill created and introduced by then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore was passed, which provided the funding for the Mosaic project. Development began in December 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser) Ok I get what you're saying, but the web isn't the internet, it is just one of many protocols that run on top of it. The internet itself can trace its roots back to the late 1960s snd TCP/IP was certainly being used by the mid 70s. Also if Trump claimed that he "created" a vaccine I would think that he was delusional as well. To many, or to most, "the Internet" was invented in the 1990s when a user interface was dumbed down enough for them to make use of it. That's when it took off and AOL Online, etc... That's what Gore was referencing. That was a mind-blowing transformation that didn't begin in the 1960s or 1970s. It began when a graphical user interface was built, and it was funded by "the Gore Bill". To your other comment: Trump Falsely Takes Credit For Pfizer Vaccine Success https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/11/10/trump-falsely-takes-credit-for-pfizer-vaccine-success-accuses-fda-and-democrats-of-stalling-news-until-after-election/?sh=7f8b0d1c5c8e Timing is everything for Coronavirus Vaccine. The shortest ever vaccine is in 4 years (Mumps). Average vaccine development in 10 years. Also private industry itself developing vaccine is easier said than done. There are regulatory aspects to begin with. Also, private investment in these is not easy. Either there will many vaccines, so moat is difficult to find or vaccine development fails as vaccine success is based a lot on human biology - vaccine is not inevitable. Warp speed was started in April - that is it took 8 months to launch assuming it will be launched in December. I can see why a private investor would fund a GUI development and what would happen if took an year or two more?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-billionaires-increased-wealth-845-183000701.html American Billionaires Have Increased Their Wealth by $845 Billion Since the Pandemic Hit https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-food-banks-thanksgiving-poverty-b1761426.html Americans join miles-long queues at food banks across the US as thousands face hunger during pandemic

:) https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapeutic-management/ The problem described by Dr. Mcculough is correct: For Patients with COVID-19 Who Are Not Hospitalized or Who Are Hospitalized With Moderate Disease but Do Not Require Supplemental Oxygen The Panel does not recommend any specific antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 in these patients. Patients are considered to have moderate disease if they have clinical or radiographic evidence of lower respiratory tract infection and a saturation of oxygen (SpO2) ≥94% on room air at sea level.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?478159-1/senate-hearing-covid-19-outpatient-treatment&live Senate Hearing on COVID-19 Outpatient Treatment The problem described Dr. Peter Mcculough I think is real. There is no early treatment protocol in US. Unfortunately virus is not waiting and unless the person has good immune response, the virus is replicating. To try to treat after the virus has replicated is not done for any infection says Dr. Peter Mcculough. And even if the doctors are succesfful in treating them in hospital, there is damage done by virus and we end up with long term symptoms. Medicines like Remdesivir even if they work, they can be given only in hospital and there are only so many hospital beds. And so much is about masks, with no clear study showing they work, while completely disregarding medicines for early treatment. I think this is something to listen to.

I checked and did not find confirmation that masks in surgery help. But may be I missed something. Could you let me know any study you know that masks in surgery helps reduce infections?

Shows a 20% reduction in transmission but the study wasn't large enough to get a significant result. Large enough sample : "4862 completed the study."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/health/coronavirus-masks-denmark.html Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers Masks prevent people from transmitting the coronavirus to others, scientists now agree. But a new trial failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers; A Randomized Controlled Trial "Remaining participants (group 2; n = 3029) were randomly assigned on 24 April 2020 and were followed from 2 to 4 May through 2 June 2020." Study recruiting done in June, and published in November 18. Similar time line to NEJM study. We should not forget this by CDC Radfield "I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine," Sep 16, 2020.

I agree with rb. Furthermore, Investor20 posted a link to an empirical study, where antibodies appeared to fade away within about a few months. The head of the Swedish Health Authority, Mr. Tegnell, yesterday publicly expressed concerns & second thoughts about the Swedish pandemic strategy, btw. [Ref. the Swedish situation has been touched recently in this topic.] Personally, I'm very happy today, that my ticket in the ovarial lottery turned out to be Danish. - - - o 0 o - - - In short : Don't challenge your own fate by trying to mess around with this sucker. [Also, I think that this is what Greg all the time has been expressing in his posts.] Dont overlook cellular immunity which is the better way to look at immunity. Just looking at antibodies gives an incomplete picture and if not all the great majority of people should have long term immunity regardless of IgM, IgG antibody counts. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html Wow we went from immunity may not last more then a couple months and you can get covid twice!!! to now immunity may last for decades. Wow things are coming around. 2 vaccines with >90% efficacy and all of sudden we have discovered this virus follows normal cellular immunity patterns. Rejoice! What a difference 3-4 weeks makes in the media and perception!!! This truely is an exceptional time as we coalesce post election. Who would have thought. Now we just need some more evidence that people who bitch about covid symptoms for months afterwards are babies and we will be on the home stretch!!!! CDC Director Dr. Redfield in senate hearing Sep 17 (words to remember for decades). "I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine," "Because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent and if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine's not going to protect me. This face mask will." Now NEJM study...two weeks after supervised mask wearing.. along with other mitigation efforts such as distancing... 2% infections in two weeks. 95% efficacious vaccine that will provide immunity for years. These guys are really good (sarcasm alert!).

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-a-covid-19-solution Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution Full Committee Hearing November 19, 2020 09:00 AM Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building and via Videoconference Witnesses Peter A. McCullough, M.D., M.P.H. Vice Chief of Internal Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Harvey Risch, M.D., PH.D. Professor of Epidemiology Yale University George C. Fareed, M.D. Medical Director and Family Medicine Specialist Pioneers Medical Center Ashish K. Jha, M.D., M.P.H. Dean of the School of Public Health Brown University

Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.? Yes there was ......and were posted before, including by myself. Sorry, I was looking for evidence not polling data. For example, you could do something like this: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.11.20192971v1.full.pdf That type studies are also being withdrawn: https://fee.org/articles/authors-retract-study-showing-efficacy-of-mask-mandates-as-biden-pushes-nationwide-requirement/ Authors Retract Study Showing Efficacy of Mask Mandates How many cases are there in areas that have mask mandates and high level of mask wearing such as Fr, Italy, UK, Spain is a good data point. Why not?

Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.? Yes there was ......and were posted before, including by myself. The four countries that wear masks most in Europe are Italy, France, UK, Spain as per yougov survey..check how these countries are doing with Covid please. In US below article by National Geographic 92 percent of 2,200 Americans polled say they wear a face mask when leaving their home, with 74 percent saying they “always” do. (In October). That “always” percentage is up nearly a quarter since July, according to the poll, which has a 2 percent margin of error. The positivity rate in july in US is around 6-7%. Now 12%. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/10/poll-increasing-bipartisan-majority-americans-support-mask-wearing/

Even Marine corps recruits under supervision?

I am not sure if this is sarcasm.... 2% of US population is 6 million + in two weeks....

Even a Military-Enforced Quarantine Can’t Stop the Virus, Study Reveals https://www.aier.org/article/even-a-military-enforced-quarantine-cant-stop-the-virus-study-reveals/ SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2029717 Conclusions "Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine." Published: November 11, 2020 "From May 12 to July 15, 2020, a total of 1848 of 3143 eligible recruits (58.8%) across nine recruit classes were enrolled in the CHARM study" .............................................. This is a study that looked into "During the supervised quarantine, public health measures were enforced to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission". This included wearing masks, hand washing, cleaning surfaces, distancing..regular testing. ............................................... What I dont understand is why would a study done in May-July on how the public health measures when strictly enforced with Marine corp recruits whom I believe would follow directions perfectly would be published on November 11th? Isnt this type of information policy makers and public need to know at the earliest?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2029717 We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections among U.S. Marine Corps recruits who underwent a 2-week quarantine at home followed by a second supervised 2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved mask wearing, social distancing, and daily temperature and symptom monitoring. Study volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab specimens obtained between the time of arrival and the second day of supervised quarantine and on days 7 and 14. Recruits who did not volunteer for the study underwent qPCR testing only on day 14, at the end of the quarantine period. We performed phylogenetic analysis of viral genomes obtained from infected study volunteers to identify clusters and to assess the epidemiologic features of infections. Results: A total of 1848 recruits volunteered to participate in the study; within 2 days after arrival on campus, 16 (0.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 15 of whom were asymptomatic. An additional 35 participants (1.9%) tested positive on day 7 or on day 14. Of the recruits who declined to participate in the study, 26 (1.7%) of the 1554 recruits with available qPCR results tested positive on day 14. ....................................... I suppose for Marine Corps the compliance of "2-week quarantine at a closed college campus that involved mask wearing, social distancing, and daily temperature and symptom monitoring" is almost perfect and had 1.9% positive cases. "Of the recruits who declined to participate in the study, 26 (1.7%) ....tested positive"

Or may be last time the temperatures are going up in Spring to Summer. This time the temperatures going down from Fall to Winter. https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-pro-mask-study-withdrawn-after-virus-spread-in-counties-analyzed-by-researchers Horowitz: Pro-mask study withdrawn after virus spread in counties analyzed by researchers

"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will." https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-robert-redfield-said-face-masks-may-be-more-effective-than-a-vaccine-in-preventing-individual-coronavirus-infections/ar-BB196I1M, Sep 16, 2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-12/covid-won-t-be-pandemic-for-long-thanks-to-vaccines-fauci-says Fauci Says End to Pandemic Is in Sight, Thanks to Vaccines November 12, 2020 https://globalnews.ca/news/7463018/quebec-covid-19-coronavirus-nov-14/ Quebec posts new one day record for COVID-19 cases with 1,448 in past 24 hours (Nov 15, 2020) Wasnt Quebec having huge fine for not wearing mask for past couple of months as per some post here? If they dont know..they shouldnt talk.

To use your own numbers, the 42.3% tax, just returns an investor back to the inflation adjusted equivalent. 235% * (1-.423 tax) = 136% - or about the 124% return with inflation adjustment. Point? The inflation tax is monetized when you sell. The example suggests that the trailing 20-25 year S&P 500 gain before inflation is the benchmark to be beaten. If your business is simply trading bits of paper - to get ahead, you must take on MORE risk than the S&P 500 Beta of 1.00. Pretty hard to argue against. SD What do you mean monetized? Monetized for govt? Yes the government reducing the value of my money with inflation and then taxing it as a gain! With 100$ invesment, after tax at 42% after 20 years, the net return is 136$ or 236$ total. This is not however real gain. From US inflation calculator, 100$ in year 2000 is 150$ in year 2020. So 136-50 = 86$ is your real gain after investing 100$ for 20 years. While government got 100$ in taxes (not counting the corporate taxes, dividend taxes, state taxes) You think that is a good game to be in?

With reference to 42.3% long term capital gains tax (plus any state taxes)? Please provide a link. I would like to read. Thanks

One area we have not discussed is the inflation effect on long term capital gains. To get a sense of what part of gains is due to inflation I used below calculator. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ For past 20 years (Sep 2000 to Sep 2020) for Total S&P 500 Return (Dividends Reinvested) without inflation adjustment: 235% Total S&P 500 Return (Dividends Reinvested) with inflation adjustment: 124% They say inflation is a hiden tax. This is not even considered in the previous discussion. When they say 42.3% tax, the tax is on the 235% gain before inflation, not 124% real gain after inflation adjustment.

Do you think highly driven people will let their money sit in a savings account and let inflation dwindle their relative wealth away because they're paying more in taxes? 9 out of 10 startups fail (source: Startup Genome - the 2019 report claims 11 out of 12 fail). 7.5 out of 10 venture-backed startups fail (source: Shikhar Ghosh). 2 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year of operations (source: Bureau of Labor). https://www.failory.com/blog/startup-failure-rate If a person such as in Shark Tank invests in 10 companies and looses in 9 companies and then the successful company, you pay 28% corporate tax + 44.3% capital gains (total 72.3%), it might be better to just invest that money in Berkshire or mutual fund and go and work. It is the start ups that really come up with new ideas and innovative products/services and it might not be the investor/enterpreneur who is loosing but it is the society. Wouldn't the person be taxed the same regardless if they invested in the start up, Berkshire or the fund? No..for successful product, I get the money as capital gains in one year or short period - may be after 20 years of effort after selling it to may be a Buffett. Take for example, you have land and that land appreciated considerably and when you sell, that year you make a lot and get into 1 million, while if you work, you may be making 200K over 20 years - lot more money but spread out over longer period. For berkshire or mutual fund (even better if I put it in 401k or IRA), I dont have to cash it at once. That doesn't really answer my question. Wouldn't they be taxed the same at the time of sale? I understand you can defer taxes and all but I'm looking at the actually taxation. The way I understand this tax works, the year you file if your income exceeds million dollars, then this 44.3% long term capital gains taxes. You would be just fine if you make 900K every year of your life, but would be in trouble if you make 1.1 million in one year of your life.

I am only including the federal taxes..not states taxes, not unemployment taxes, not social security taxes.....Yes Cardboard it is 100% taxes leading to zero revenue math.

Do you think highly driven people will let their money sit in a savings account and let inflation dwindle their relative wealth away because they're paying more in taxes? 9 out of 10 startups fail (source: Startup Genome - the 2019 report claims 11 out of 12 fail). 7.5 out of 10 venture-backed startups fail (source: Shikhar Ghosh). 2 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year of operations (source: Bureau of Labor). https://www.failory.com/blog/startup-failure-rate If a person such as in Shark Tank invests in 10 companies and looses in 9 companies and then the successful company, you pay 28% corporate tax + 44.3% capital gains (total 72.3%), it might be better to just invest that money in Berkshire or mutual fund and go and work. It is the start ups that really come up with new ideas and innovative products/services and it might not be the investor/enterpreneur who is loosing but it is the society. Wouldn't the person be taxed the same regardless if they invested in the start up, Berkshire or the fund? No..for successful product, I get the money as capital gains in one year or short period - may be after 20 years of effort after selling it to may be a Buffett. Take for example, you have dry cleaning shop and that shop appreciated considerably and when you sell, that year you make a lot and get into 1 million, while if you work, you may be making 200K over 20 years - lot more money but spread out over longer period. For berkshire or mutual fund (even better if I put it in 401k or IRA), I dont have to cash it at once.

Do you think highly driven people will let their money sit in a savings account and let inflation dwindle their relative wealth away because they're paying more in taxes? 9 out of 10 startups fail (source: Startup Genome - the 2019 report claims 11 out of 12 fail). 7.5 out of 10 venture-backed startups fail (source: Shikhar Ghosh). 2 out of 10 new businesses fail in the first year of operations (source: Bureau of Labor). https://www.failory.com/blog/startup-failure-rate If a person such as in Shark Tank invests in 10 companies and looses in 9 ideas/products/services and then the successful profitable idea/product/service, you pay 28% corporate tax + 44.3% capital gains (total 72.3%), it might be better to just invest that money and effort in Berkshire or mutual fund and go and work. It is the start ups that really come up with new ideas and innovative products/services and it might not be the investor/enterpreneur who is loosing but it is the society.

I added a rectangle to help see the data better. Between June 20 July 04: CDC reported 4 - 5.5 hospitalizations per 100,000 in July 18 Report CDC reported 4 - 6.0 hospitalizations per 100,000 in October Report. There are small corrections but not a major correction. Only the very last week they are off...ok....just look two weeks prior data till date. The main point that Covid like symptoms hospital visits from two surveillances and hospitalization rates have not ticked up till mid October. Your argument that CDC cannot produce such simple information with 10,000 employees and 7 billion budget if correct makes US having much bigger problem than Covid.