Investor20

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.

I watch Shark Tank regularly. I believe such innovativeness and enterpreneurship is very important for not only employment generation but new and innovative products or services to be introduced in market. Now we are telling these investors and enterpreneurs that there will be 28% tax on profit and 44.3% long term capital gains when they cash out, in a situation the failure rate in a start up is very high. 28+44.3 = 72.3%. Will there be anything left for inheritance with this type of taxes on startups?

No, no...i just mean to say that they use a different method and i offer the opinion that the Covid-tracking method is more reliable and timely. For the CDC, they use a COVID-NET framework which is based on sampling. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html It's like if you analyze a company and obtain a summary from an analyst who had access to a sample of a few pages of a few of their 10-Ks. You may get a fair idea about the company. The Covid-tracking people suggested early on that the data was imprecise and not timely. They have tried to put in place a way to obtain directly the data from all states and to aggregate the data sytematically. And they've noted obstacles. https://covidtracking.com/blog/whats-going-on-with-covid-19-hospitalization-data Many others have tried to do the same and have come up with similar results but the Covid-tracking team seems to be the group that gained the widest recognition. It's like if you analyze a company and obtain a summary from an analyst who went deeper and in more details. It's not enough but it's a good starting point. "Come on man" i wonder if you watch too much of a certain kind of entertainment: This is not an endorsement or opportunity to mock; it's simply an attempt at humor given the very poor opportunity set. CDC and Covid tracking are reporting two different numbers. CDC is reporting NEW hospitalizations (hospitalization rates). One of the Covid-net data is date admitted. Covid tracking is reporting Currently hospitalized. CDC is sampling through a network of "over 250 acute-care hospitals in 14 states". But it is still actual admissions data of Covid positive patients. Not clear where Covidtracking is getting their numbers but they repeatedly say its erratic in their own blog. CDC is also sampling ILI and CLI (Influenza like and Covid like symptoms hospital visit). Even this does not show uptick. "Two syndromic surveillance systems, the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) and the National Syndromic Surveillance Project (NSSP), are being used to monitor trends in outpatient and emergency department (ED) visits that may be associated with COVID-19 illness. Each system monitors activity in a slightly different set of providers/facilities. ILINet provides information about visits to outpatient providers or emergency departments for influenza-like illness (ILI; fever plus cough and/or sore throat) and NSSP provides information about visits to EDs for ILI and COVID-like illness (CLI; fever plus cough and/or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing). " Every one of the below reporting from CDC, there is substantial improvement. It was a light hearted comment. But to tell after 7 billion dollars spent on CDC, paying highly qualified people (averaging over 100K) for 10,000 employees at CDC, you are telling that we need to go to a volunteer based Covid tracking system and ignore CLI-net, ILI-net, NSSP, Covid-net by CDC.

CDC budget is about 6-7 billion dollars. In addition they are given in April another Billion for Covid. They have 10,000+ employees. You mean to say they cannot add 50 states hospitalization data? https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/02/29/10600-cdc-employees-earn-11-billion-annually/?sh=2d5ca15724da 10,600 CDC Employees Earn $1.1 Billion Annually Come on man.

---The attenuating theory is possible but does not fit with present data for the following reasons: -coronaviruses are not recognized for unusually high mutation rates -genomic follow-up studies have not consistently shown changes in correlation with significant changes in contagiousness or virulence -the Italian studies published around June that suggested this phenomenon were of poor quality and confounded improved levels of care and seasonality with virus attenuation (present trends also discredit those theories) -the extent of survival rates and time frame (just a few weeks) simply don't fit with an attenuating virus: From the NY Langone team study ---The self-inoculation theory is possible but very unlikely and, even if 'right', unlikely to be significant. The reasons are numerous and include coherence, disease transmission mechanisms etc. ----- @Investor20 Thank you for the ideas that can be (IMO) characterized as unconventional. i feel that the communication between us is sometimes deficient and i take full responsibility for it. The ideas that you suggest make me consider alternative theories. When reading your posts, i'm reminded of what happened with the inoculation controversy that happened in Boston in the early 1720s when a group (mostly led by religious characters) were pushing for self-inoculation of the smallpox virus in order to decrease individual and population harm. This group was resisted by various scientific and established dogma groups. There were even unconstructive personal attacks and of course, the tribal crowd got involved, making matters even more complicated. Still, in that specific case, the group pushing for self-inoculation was right and even if there were risks with their approach which included unnecessary deaths, they had the most solid experimental thought process and were eventually proven right. Even decades later when Mr. Jenner 'invented' vaccines (from a cow related disease, cow=vacca--)vaccine), the initial reactions from the establishment were negative and even derisive. Contrarians are not always wrong. :) Edit: for spelling mistakes Cigar...its just not the recovery in hospitals improved. The hospitalizations themselves reduced. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/why-coronavirus-hospitalization-rates-are-lower-so-far-in-the-second-wave/ar-BB1ayhlb?parent-subcat=foodnews Why coronavirus hospitalization rates are lower so far in the second wave CDC is also not showing increasing hospitalizations.

Frank, I agree with the sentiment here. If we are aware that many of these dont have good research to back up and we are cautious about it, we are better off IMO. Personally I like the below Korean guidelines, but dont want to say I ask anyone else to do the same. I feel ventilation and distancing has better research so, the way they put it I like it better. One addition is (Koreans when they use a mask, they mostly use K95 mask), when I go to a shop or indoors with little ventilation, I use K95 mask because I dont believe that cloth masks do the job with small particles in the air indoors. But K95 masks are difficult to wear all the time, so I do that mostly indoors only such as shops and minimize my time there. Also, I feel indoor clusters are more important as discussed earlier in this thread. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/south-korea-office-coronavirus-covid19-work-enviroment/ Provide a well-ventilated, spacious area for the meeting and be sure to ventilate before the meeting. Take a break every hour to ventilate the space by opening doors and windows. Maintain a distance of two meters between every attendee (minimum one meter). If this cannot be met, refrain from meeting in person. If the meeting is still necessary, ensure every attendee wears a mask, even when speaking. Masks are up to personal discretion if ventilation and distancing can be followed.

@Investor20 What's your opinion about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons? Are you a member? ... ----- This whole discussion about masks as a potential variable among many variables is seeing parallel developments in severe Covid survival data. There have been recent works published (solid data, peer-reviewed etc) from the New York (Langone) and UK experiences. If one accepts the three sub-waves definition, results from people reaching hospitals in the second wave were better (better survival) and it looks like this trend is continuing into the third wave although it is still too early to tell for this last one. This article covers the basics and i've looked at the underlying data: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/death-rates-have-dropped-for-seriously-ill-covid-patients/ar-BB1avfbY?ocid=msedgntp The data shows that the improvement is only partially explained by the younger cohorts affected after the first phase. The data supports the hypothesis that there were no silver bullets. In the UK, the data reflects the introduction of 'new' treatments (as part of the Recovery Trial) and the NY data suggests a similar phenomenon but most of the improvement came from a better assembly of many small things (timely interventions, protocols based on sequential and shared learning, liberal use of steroids at the right stage (dexamethasone has been known for ages in the use against inflammatory respiratory distress), more dedicated use of blood thinners etc). Singling out how a specific aspect of the treatment improvements would be very difficult to delineate at this point and it may take a while to figure out but the improvement in survival has been impressive (clearly, we are on the right track). But the wheel has not been reinvented here, people have just learned to make it roll better. Some suggest (hypothesis) that people survive better because of the use of masks because a coherent link can be made between using masks and viral loads which have been clearly shown to be significant for disease severity. It's an interesting hypothesis and, frankly, wearing a mask is more comfortable than having a breathing tube down one's throat. A relatively negative aspect of this development is that there are more people fighting harder and longer for survival and, in some centers, that is resulting in longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, with obvious consequences for those waiting for care unrelated to Covid and this can be an acute problem when hospital capacity becomes a limiting factor. It's been shown (for Covid and other ailments) that acute episodes of excessive hospital disease burden can result in poorer results for all involved. Somehow, the Graham concept of margin of safety applies elsewhere also. Yes CFR has gone down. That could be because of virus itself attenuating. I dont have citation but the concept I read is the virus mutation that causes less severe disease spreads more than the virus mutation that causes more severe disease since the person who has more severe symptoms would quarantine irrespective of any mandates and it is the asymptomatic person who would go around more spreading the virus. Yes it may be because of better treatments except not many clinical studies I am aware showing positive results of treatment of hospitalized patients (except Dexamethasone may be). Regarding the inoculation level, I posted an article by several doctors from many top medical schools across US and world saying it works other way round. That the masks increase inoculation of infection at early stages. This is disputed area of research. Please see below 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.15 In patients who are hospitalized, negative pressure is applied to the room air largely to reduce spread outside of the room. 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.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext#seccesectitle0005

I would add to the dry cleaner and PG stock, the start ups. What about the start up with a new technology (lets say a new vaccine technology - a real example) who takes risk, develops a new vaccine technology that helps may be Covid or other future infections? Why should government take 43.4% from that person? I have developed interest in investing in start ups and actually put in a little money in two start ups. But now I have to worry what ambition the founders would have to develop with these type of taxes when they cash out. Also the idea behind start up investment is you put little bit money in many startups and hopefully few become facebook or uber. But if I loose no one will pay me. If I hit my lottery, the government will take atleast 43.4%. Heads I loose.. Tails I loose too a lot. I am afraid this will kill the start up industry. Which will kill technology development.

Because some were very sure if only everyone wears masks, the covid 19 will disappear. They say its our ""best defense" against Covid. I am only pointing out that even after over 90% are wearing the mask, masks being mandated in Europe and Ontario, big spikes and lockdowns are still there. I just hope masks are not in fact our best defense.

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.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-capital-gains-joe-biden-is-no-jack-kennedy-11597006775 "Then long-term capital gains and qualified dividends would be taxed at the ordinary income-tax rate of 39.6% on incomes above $1 million plus an investment-income surtax of 3.8%, bringing the total to 43.4% Finally, the step-up in basis for capital-gains taxation at death would be eliminated." I feel stock market at least in short term will take a hit. Long term as the article points out is not good for economy as it will lock up gains in sectors that are not most efficient. Also it will reduce start up investment since a start up if successful, the investors hope to make more than 1 million. When most start up investments fail and the few that are winners get 43% (plus states taxes depending on location) would kill start ups, IMO. I am not sure how it works for Berkshire, how their equity sales are taxed.

Per capita, Ontario has 1/3 the daily cases compared to the U.S. But I fail to see your point. You asked whether cases growing meant that masks didn't work. I gave you simple math that proved cases could grow even if masks are extremely effective. This is like saying a cancer drug is very effective except that the cancer will grow.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/sfu-mms100620.php You are citing a study in Ontario. Most of Ontario as of August has mask mandates. https://voxeu.org/article/face-mask-mandates-slowed-spread-covid-19-canada https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-sets-new-record-as-covid-19-cases-spike-to-unprecedented-levels-1.5159260 Ontario sets new record as COVID-19 cases spike to unprecedented levels Tried mask mandate. Got "unprecedented levels" of Covid cases. Whats your plan?

Sorry, not sure if you are serious or not with your question? Masks are one of the most effective tools to slow the spread of the virus. There are other tools as well. There are also lots of behaviours that accelerate the spread of the virus. The White House Supreme Court Party that became a super spreader event is one example. Now my guess is every participant in that White House event would say they ‘wear a mask every time they leave the house’. If people do stupid things then the virus will spread. The more stupid the faster the spread. Not rocket science. But the REAL problem the US has right now is Trump has, in his usual style, thrown gasoline all over the efforts and communication from virus experts and health care professionals. There is no unified approach. The US is learning that having an arsonist in charge can be lethal. PS: mistakes will be made along the way. They need to be owned, with the learnings becoming part of future actions. But that is not possible under Trump because he refuses to admit he has made any errors; if fact, he ‘double downs’ on errors compounding them further. PS2: Europe has also messed up. The pressure to open the economy up/let families live normal lives is real. So rational politicians/people push the limits. How do you know when you have gone too far? Case counts spike. Then you go the other way. Just what was anticipated back in March in the Hammer and the Dance article. How do you know masks work in real life? What data you have? I posted this earlier "People in Italy, Spain, France and the UK wear face masks in public more than the other countries. (YouGov)" https://uk.news.yahoo.com/face-masks-europe-face-coverings-uk-laws-144339504.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8_cT1tb3N0K21hc2srdXNlZCt5b3Vnb3YrZXVyb3BlJnQ9ZmZzYiZhdGI9djE1OC0xJmlhPXdlYg&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA967tI-RUSlkFB8G-qWhz6eCQgl3EL7_D2v6dK3wIG7tu0MigQixlPIV3vrfmaR6lLjdUPVuvtyqxCtJRmsq5CcVTzMOVxXPnPfLc5t1WIijM3g99bGf1nZZFiFlQrAY-y3OFCCnGbyxMk3a6NSLpj1xrTYmBcvQN0b26FLd2IV We know these four countries (Italy, Spain, France and UK) now are in lockdown with spike in cases. How do you know beyond your pronouncements without presenting any data to back yourself that masks in real life work to reduce the virus spread? You say if only people wear masks. According to National Georgraphic 92% are already wearing masks in US. Are you saying instead of 92%, if 98% wear masks, it would make dramatic difference? Is there any data for such a statement?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/10/poll-increasing-bipartisan-majority-americans-support-mask-wearing/ "92 percent of 2,200 Americans polled say they wear a face mask when leaving their home, with 74 percent saying they “always” do. That “always” percentage is up nearly a quarter since July, according to the poll, which has a 2 percent margin of error." October 5th article Already 92% are wearing masks in US. Cases are going up. Does it tell us masks work?

The data in this website is not correlating with other websites. https://covidactnow.org/us/south_dakota-sd?s=1200292 is giving south dakota positivity rate with 15.4% Also the website is giving Florida positivity rate 16.3%. But the Florida state website report is giving 4.71% as of Oct 24 and ranged from 3.6 to 6.7 in last two weeks. http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/cases-monitoring-and-pui-information/county-report/county_reports_latest.pdf

People in Italy, Spain, France and the UK wear face masks in public more than the other countries. (YouGov) https://uk.news.yahoo.com/face-masks-europe-face-coverings-uk-laws-144339504.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8_dD1mZmFiJnE9ZXVyb3BlYW4rY291bnRyaWVzK3dpdGgrbW9zdCttYXNrcyZhdGI9djE1OC0xJmlhPXdlYg&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADuh45v5cwQ5dQGosUDLChX7rm8QCLyY5rDD7nbJGlPVX0gznKZ6afAMg95fs1pZ6hXXCFHWrQRSbxnbo2UjxiXZB4QFrYBltPpBMCQTB56-Lk5B8_pxWUO1_B1t3FkeNWU4zEYKzsgBrYeLukbFsVg0_FI3bd2gfXeJfl3sdwRR Italy to Join France and U.K. With Curbs as Cases Hit Record https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/london-paris-steel-curbs-check-122938393.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFdifskhnHJnrm7_vNlWQjIuQ8VMlJKtpwpKyNj4HlEdZg8Rgd640R5MEoaW_SUIdM5rcE6iPMsm7DYVSoCCkFYQ51xLcAZHWq8FLUqVm9oKvYwpeJ4EbgO6t9ZVcZKLSIGpZiaaqxW6N7U_BLF5Gmn9IW-9JsGsdE3pyhokqKDP https://uk.yahoo.com/news/spain-declares-coronavirus-state-emergency-163849051.html Spain declares coronavirus state of emergency There are two things I believe have lot more scientific background to mitigate the pandemic. 1) Ventilation 2) Vitamin D In addition to distancing.

If you look at hospitalizations, they are around mid March in US. As mentioned in earlier posts, the infections will be there...even twenty years later, similar to flu. That is my understanding from Barrington declaration. However, progressively it will becomes less severe.

Yes....I agree....that is what is meant by "Herd immunity" according to Barrington declaration....not lack of infections but the disease becoming slowly less severe. We are already seeing this. Below is the CDC updated hospitalizations this week. Early introduction of vaccine, especially for vulnerable along with therapeutics would help.

Below is not a treatment advise. Just for discussion. I am puzzled at Remdesivir approval by FDA. Looking at the label, the clinical studies they cited from Page 19: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/214787Orig1s000lbl.pdf NIAID ACTT-1 Study in Subjects with Mild/Moderate and Severe COVID-19: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-1, NCT04280705) of hospitalized adult subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 compared treatment with VEKLURY for 10 days (n=541) with placebo .......... Overall, 29-day mortality was 11% for the VEKLURY group vs 15% for the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.03]). Study GS-US-540-5773in Subjects with Severe COVID-19 A randomized, open-label multi-center clinical trial (Study 5773, NCT04292899) in adult subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, an SpO2of ≤94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia compared 200 subjects who received VEKLURY for 5 days with 197 subjects who received VEKLURY for 10 days. Study GS-US-540-5774 in Subjects with Moderate COVID-19 A randomized, open-label multi-center clinical trial (Study 5774, NCT04292730) of hospitalized adult subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SpO2 >94% and radiological evidence of pneumonia compared treatment with VEKLURY for 5 days (n=191) and treatment with VEKLURY for 10 days (n=193) with standard of care (n=200). ..................... Overall, the odds of improvement in the ordinal scale were higher in the 5-day VEKLURY group at Day 11 when compared to those receiving only standard of care (odds ratio 1.65 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.48], p=0.017). The odds of improvement in clinical status with the 10-day treatment group when compared to those receiving only standard of care were not statistically significant (odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.95]). All-cause mortality at Day 28 was ≤2% in all treatment groups. .................................... Question: Where is the statistically significant improvement in mortality? Afterall this is an expensive drug that requires five days of hospitalization. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-remdesivir-who/who-nations-mulling-gileads-covid-drug-should-consider-trial-flop-too-idUSKBN27829Z WHO: Nations mulling Gilead's COVID drug should consider trial flop, too Again...not meant to be medical advise which is between the patient and doctor only. This is just for discussion.

With Sweden's cases spiking, I think my initial herd immunity hypothesis is broken. The antibodies are lasting only few months. I early posted NYC antibody data and some here wouldnt agree that present 20% seroprevalence does not mean only 20% got infected. Instead the infection rate was much higher than present seroprevalence numbers indicate. Now there is Mumbai seroprevalence also showing waning: "The second serosurvey revealed that the prevalence of the novel coronavirus in slum areas had reduced to 45 per cent from the 57 per cent reported in the first round." https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/coronavirus-in-mumbai-antibodies-up-2-among-residents-of-housing-societies The antibodies are waning in few months for many people. The other immunity is T Cell immunity but my understanding is T Cell immunity only reduces severity of the disease. "The authors say that memory T cell responses generated by natural exposure to or infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) -- the virus that causes COVID-19 -- may be a significant immune component to prevent recurrent episodes of severe disease." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200817132331.htm As I understand from the Barrington declaration, the herd immunity is not meant to be zero infections, rather Covid will become an endemic like a flu. Even with vaccine, the flu has not disappeared. The Covid 19 along with flu vaccine beginning of winter will prevent infections for sometime and our T Cell immunity will make it less severe. This is my understanding till now....that herd immunity for Covid only means endemic Covid 19. See below interview with Dr. Bhattacharya way back in July 30. "They got unimmune, is that a word, unimmune at different times. And so you’ll start to see like this endemic thing. And I mean, that’s what herd immunity looks like. It doesn’t look like zero infections. It looks like this thing. That’s just sort of, endemics floating around all the time. And that’s why you’d have to protect the older population for a long time." https://techpolicyinstitute.org/2020/07/30/jay-bhattacharya-on-health-economics-and-coronavirus-two-think-minimum/