orthopa

FnF have to pay MBS investors, but have less than the usual amount of money coming in due to the forbearance. The difference depletes their capital cushion of $23B combined, and if the difference exceeds that then technically FnF are insolvent and would have to draw from Treasury to make up the difference. Calabria might be able to trigger a shareholder wipeout at that point, though I don't know if he would have to invoke receivership to do so. The court cases do help, because without the NWS the seniors would still be intact but FnF would have an extra $125B in capital. If FnF end up blowing through $150B (due perhaps to the crisis lasting a long time and/or a huge takeup rate for forbearances), though, us shareholders might be wiped out after all, regardless of the court cases. This is exactly the specter that mortgage servicers face because they don't have direct contractual Treasury support to draw on, by the way. If by "the last time govt screwed shareholders" you mean the NWS, I don't think this would be that ugly because the forbearances are authorized by law. FnF shareholders might end up having to bear the brunt of Congress's not accounting for who bears the brunt of the forbearances. And if you meant anything from 2008, that stuff is all going to stand anyway. Sure anything is possible. To have come this far in the plan and to have a black swan-ish event possibly blow up the housing system seems less then likely. In all honesty I think its more likely that a final PSPA amendment is done in a hurry to save FnF then to let them go belly up (insert confirmation/position bias). It would be pretty rich for the Treasury to stand by idle and watch FnF fail out of stubbornness over timing of a final amendment instead of recapping them and monetizing either via the Sr Preferred or warrants or FHFA provisioning an accounting measure as discussed by cherzeca to get them through the crisis . Similarly Calabria said today public offering in 2021. To me that means that is the plan and that plan necessitates a resolution of the Senior Preferred and over payments if any etc. Whats the motivation for letting them fail if that means moving up an agreement by a couple months? Principle? Then you have a failed housing system model during a crisis, likely then in receivership on the govs balance sheet. Thats a big 180 from the recapping them in 2021. Not to mention this is stress from an external source caused by a government mandated option to forebear mortgages. I guess if the gov really did wanted to end FnF the way to do it would be by a law that puts them in a helpless position. Im not arguing its impossible but I fail to see the motivation to let the MBS payments bleed FnF dry without coming up with a solution at this point. And I get current shareholders can get wiped out but again the same argument as before applies. Who is going to pony up money in the future when another virus/black swan event comes along when the outcome is shareholders get wiped out. The path of least resistance is to see this forward and fix the system then go the other route. As much as this investment has been blind trust of MC and SM it maybe even more so now. As far as what do now with shares at 20% of par after holding for multiple years why sell now? I say F-it and let it ride.

thanks. fairly large disconnect between current price and that interview imo. Big time disconnect. I just added to my position by 10%. The man came out and said capital raise in 2021. As hashed out many times you cant have a capital raise without a settlement, final determination of preferred etc. This whole scenario highlights the importance of FnF and it seems even in a worst case scenario FnF will take a minimal hit.

1) Given the post just above mine, I don't think the current environment will affect the timeline much if at all. Calabria tweeted a link to his Bloomberg interview titled "Fannie, Freddie Conservatorship Exit Not Impacted by Virus"; I'm going to consider that a big tell. https://twitter.com/MarkCalabria/status/1242953955447013376 2) Some clowns on iHub seem to think that Pagliara was not referring to a pref-for-common share exchange when he mentioned a 10-15% haircut, but that's really the only thing he could have been talking about; FnF don't have the capital to do a subpar redemption. I do believe an exchange is quite likely, for reasons outlined in the post you replied to. Or were you not referring to a share exchange? 3) I believe there are three things we must have before any share exchange and re-IPO: seniors gone (either cancelled or converted to commons; this also kills the NWS), remaining lawsuits where FnF are liable settled (I think this is only Perry, please correct me if I'm wrong; also, killing the NWS should moot many of the cases), and a finalized capital rule. No I wasn't so much referring to the share exchange. I do think that will happen also. Was just more or less talking about the rapid resolution Pagliara was referring to via a PSPA to get rid of the seniors and an exchange before the finalization of the capital rule, capital plan, etc. Although that would be a nice surprise I still don't see that happening at this point. There obviously has been a plan and cadence to all of this ever since the president requested a plan for the GSEs a year ago. Although it certainly seems to have been delayed multiple times I still feel like all parties involved follow the path they have plotted out unless there is a highly unusual set of circumstances that arises(yes I know there is a worldwide pandemic going on LOL. ) That being said some preferred issues allowing 4-5xs returns at near par. I will continue adding.

Am I wrong thinking the following on this? This is gold. Any new warrants the gov't issues will be exercised in calendar year 2020, guaranteed. This does not explicitly include GSE's, but it would be very, very odd for the gov't to make profits by exercising warrants in other companies and not the GSE's. Might as well exercise all warrants the gov't holds, make money for the taxpayers, and use that in the month or two leading up to the election to get re-elected. Leads me to believe this is going to happen this year, and probably in the Summer at the latest. See attached for screenshot from the CARESAct. As cherzeca said I dont necessarily think your wrong or right but it does look a little hypocritical to afford another bailed out entity quick resolution with the warrants while the GSEs fester. As I believe mnuchin has said before the Govt made significant investment in the GSEs and continues to backstop them effectively. As much as I dont like it I wonder if GSEs would be thrown into a "this is different" category. The bailouts are of different vintages. Anger and hate of the 2008 bank/GSE bailouts and this one which was induced by a mandated shutdown. Technically the investment activities are identical but the flavor is different. In the end though if rule of law and property rights are to be respected then hopefully exercise timing is similar. Hopefully in the end as you mention just another reason why this can/will happen in the back half of the year.

Clearly I am a simpleton. Are people now looking at low reported results (i.e. low death count) then using that fact to conclude that the response taken (that resulted in the low number) was overdone? So we have a virus. If we do nothing we know we get Wuhan, Iran or Italy. If we test like hell early we get South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore. If we screw up the initial response (so we have widespread community transfer on a large scale) we know we have to resort to some sort of lock down like China, Western Europe, US and Canada. (India too?) Lock down slows the spread but takes about 2 weeks to start to impact the numbers. And even so, it likely takes another couple of weeks to see total confirmed case numbers really start to decline. For example, are people suggesting that as we see the numbers in Washington State start to turn down in the next couple of weeks (and the death count does not mushroom higher) that that is proof that the lock down as implemented was way overdone and the issue was ‘blown way out of proportion’? I would say your last sentence is incorrect, numbers are expected to go up according to this guy, same one predicting 81,000 US deaths. He sees 1429 deaths in washington state even with the lock down. So if numbers come down as you say it isn't due to the lock down, something else was off. https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/uw-study-estimates-81000-us-deaths-from-coronavirus-1429-in-wash-state

Clearly I am a simpleton. Are people now looking at low reported results (i.e. low death count) then using that fact to conclude that the response taken (that resulted in the low number) was overdone? So we have a virus. If we do nothing we know we get Wuhan, Iran or Italy. If we test like hell early we get South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore. If we screw up the initial response (so we have widespread community transfer on a large scale) we know we have to resort to some sort of lock down like China, Western Europe, US and Canada. (India too?) Lock down slows the spread but takes about 2 weeks to start to impact the numbers. And even so, it likely takes another couple of weeks to see total confirmed case numbers really start to decline. For example, are people suggesting that as we see the numbers in Washington State start to turn down in the next couple of weeks (and the death count does not mushroom higher) that that is proof that the lock down as implemented was way overdone and the issue was ‘blown way out of proportion’? I think a better way to look at it is that social distancing/lockdown started 6 days ago in Washington and the deaths went from 52 on 3/14 to 175 total now. Stay at home order was on 3/22 and essential services was on March 15, as a result we should just be seeing the results now and the growth should slow down ever more so now. I would have expected much much more by now. Wouldnt you? 52 to 175 deaths total over a period of 2 weeks? And according to this estimate the death numbers should turn up not down (change state to Washington). Your expecting them to decrease? https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Thats only 40% and 15%, project that world wide 675 million people as of 2018 and we have 41 million dead old folks. Looks like that death rate in that population is a bit inflated or we just haven't had enough time yet.

Well isn't that counter intuitive? Why do you need to isolate and expend a lot of effort if it is no longer a high consequence infectious disease? This seems like a pretty serious determination. "In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria: acute infectious disease typically has a high case-fatality rate may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment often difficult to recognize and detect rapidly ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely" The UK is sticking their neck out early with this one for sure.

I hear you, your probably still have trouble sleeping with the latest opioid death data huh? That came out of no where quick too. Horrible exponential growth. overdose-death-rates.html overdose-death-rates.html

We know the numbers are going to increase don't we? Did anyone say they wont? Whats the point where numbers increased way more then expected? Earlier in the thread when compared to the flu some links posted posited millions of deaths as "this is not the flu." Whats a reasonable cut off in your mind to determine whether or not this was all overblown or underestimated? Personally, I don't think it is overblown at all. I do think it will be easier to answer your question later on as there is more data. I'd want to know the case fatality rate when hospitals are experiencing normal load & when they are full, and a hypothetical R0 where people are behaving normally like it was "just the flu." At the end of this, I think we'll be able to know those numbers. If acting like any other flu projects to 80k-160k deaths when all is said and done then I'd say it was blown way out of proportion. 80k flu deaths in 2018 was the worst year in four decades. And life carried on. I dunno. Choose your proportion. We will be able to plug in the numbers at some point. At the end of this I think we will get to 80k deaths with the entire nation locked down for several months. Italy has 90k confirmed cases and 9k deaths. I think the USA ratio will look similar at the end of this. Our health care quality is nothing special. Currently, we are tacking on 15-20k confirmed cases a day. That should stabilize and go down, but over the next 60-90 days I think it's pretty likely we'll get to 800k cases and 80k deaths all the while under a soft-lockdown scenario. To me that is not overblown, because if we weren't in soft lockdown you could be looking at 10s of millions of cases and single digit millions deaths. For example, here are annual flu numbers. Estimated that 9-45 million people a year get it. > CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010. I would ask you Orthopa the same question, what would you need to see to say that it's NOT overblown? I think using the flu as your measuring stick is good. What else do we have? Unfortunately we dont have a a soft lock down flu season to compare although you would have to assume the deaths would be lower. Another variable is the flu deaths you cite above are 12,000-61,000 deaths a year WITH a vaccine as well as tamiflu, xofluza. https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections this link guesses 81k deaths with corona. So we have: Flu with 12,000-61,000 deaths with a readily available cheap vaccine, 2 prescription medications, 15 minute rapidly available tests, and no social cooperation vs 81,000 deaths predicted with no vaccine, no medications, an ill prepared healthcare system, incomplete insufficient testing, nationwide shortages of PPE, sloppy public policy, and a soft lockdown. So its vaccine, 2 medications, and rapidly available testing vs a soft lockdown? At first glance looks like the flu could be way more deadly then it is and we have made progress there for sure. EDIT I guess I punt this back to you. It looks reasonable to assume that with an equally effective vaccine and 2 meds we should be on par with the flu right?

To pull this thread back on the rails it maybe the market has priced in the negatives of economic shut down, offset by the stimulus at this level. I do not think it has priced in the real world recession that may come with a stubborn level of unemployment as the dominoes fall down the line. I think many economists are predicting a strong economy again in Q420 or Q121. That maybe a bit optimistic at this point. My concern and I think we saw this with the extended benefits from the Obama administration is that people are going to stay on employment for the enhanced benefits. In New York if I read right its ~$400 plus $600 more? A grand a week is peanuts in NYC but not a bad gig in Syracuse or Rochester. How do you hire someone back to a server, waitress, hostess job that paid $16 an hour when they are getting $1000 a week on unemployment?

The whole COVID 19 discussion has become very polarizing rather than scientific, (at some point it becomes boring to keep saying, "we don't know for sure, we need more time/data, etc."). So rather than throw my own opinions out there and get dumped into Camp A or Camp B, rather let people make up their own mind. At least it gets people thinking. As you mention, the weekly mortality monitors are probably one of the strongest resources we have at his point in time to detect an incremental impact of COVID 19. Ok Ill bite. Every year/day people die and no one notices or cares. One could draw the conclusion that this pandemic will do little to change the yearly death rate that the area displayed above has experienced over the past couple of years. So looking a weekly mortality monitors we have had years with a large spike in the number of deaths and no one noticed. Is this all an overreaction? Even better question, unless these people croaked at home, how did the hospitals handle his volume of sick/dying people?

It is, everyone is panicking, acting irrational, credit markets freezing etc. My point wasnt to derail the thread but in society they are alot of panicked people now. The markets reflect this.

We know the numbers are going to increase don't we? Did anyone say they wont? Whats the point where numbers increased way more then expected? Earlier in the thread when compared to the flu some links posted posited millions of deaths as "this is not the flu." Whats a reasonable cut off in your mind to determine whether or not this was all overblown or underestimated?

wow... As far as I can find it is the only timely mortality data we have. CDC publishes a weekly report but I cannot find underlying data for USA (that is recent - public datasets only go through 2018). I have not checked for Asian countries. As to the European data itself, I won't make any conclusions, just presenting the evidence. Draw from it what you will. Seems everybody completely ignores the link when you don't draw any conclusions from it and that would be a huge waste, so I'll go anyway. Because the link, http://www.euromomo.eu/index.html, is really worth a click. No anecdotes or opinions, just stats. What the hell happened in January of 2017 and January of 2018 that all those people died (that, by these graphs, so obviously are not dying now; most European countries appear to have BELOW average mortality currently)? I'm guessing it was the flu, but I don't want to be a flu-bro, so I'll keep my mouth shut on that. Why didn't we shut the economy down here in Europe then, we could have saved so many lives! Oh, yeah, I forgot, nobody knew so nobody cared. Goes to show a corona death is worth at least a thousand other deaths. Also goes to show any doomsday scenario must be based on what this virus could do in the future, not what it is doing now (because as you can see in the link, on a grand scale, it isn't doing much). Also goes to show the well meant but unintended hypocrisy of mourning the dead you see, and ignoring the much, much larger numbers you don't. And then a question to this board, looking at these stats again, shouldn't we close the economy down every winter? We care about saving lives don't we? I tried going after the bolded part above earlier. It doesn't work. I was going to comment on the link but all I would do is dig myself a bigger hole so I'm glad you did. You have some great questions and for some reason no one else replied. Anybody want to chime in? This is no doubt a moving target but I think a good question is what is the death number supposed to be? What are those such as Jurgis, Dalal, alwaysdrawing expecting death wise? There are a lot of told you so's but we know the deaths are going to go up right? What are we looking for? Can you guys throw some numbers out? Whats your rough guesstimate timeline/death wise for expected/unexpected?

I have watched some TV at night this past week and it will scare the shit out of you. Some things I have seen this past week.... 1.Discussion of number of ventilators in the country and possibility that there maybe not one for you. 2. Constant up to date coverage on death counts. 3. Constant coverage that there are not enough masks to protect healthcare workers and normal people. 4. Discussions that the people in charge are making mistakes 5. Scary music leading in and out of segments 6. Bright bold lettering highlighting words and phrases like "NOT ENOUGH", "TOO LATE", "MORE TIME", etc on CNBC markets in turmoil (the name alone my god) 7. Highlighting a break in agreement between those in charge and the medical experts, and saying they may not listen. 8. Questioning the CDC decision making and highlighting their failures and their refusal to listen to other experts. 9. Showing multiple curves, including best case, but then saying its too late for that..... 10. Discussing possible food chain disruptions and best times to go to the grocery store and what products run out first 11. Having survival experts on to discuss at home options during a pandemic if you lose electricity and have no water. 12. Day to day coverage and discussion that if the recent bill didnt pass, millions would be out of work with no options. 13. There are not enough tests for you and your family. 14. Constant discussion that the worst is to come, any day now. 15. on and on and on. Im all for a free media, and my point is not partisan. Fox is likely very guilty of it too, but MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc are not nearly as conservative as FOX and have a lot of viewership right now. You really believe content such as that above is not exacerbating panic in the every day american? This is no different then the green, yellow, orange, red scale about terrorist threats that was on TV during the Bush administration. We heard about terrorists 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, and saw planes flying into buildings over, and over, and over. No different.

Thanks, Do you have an opinion on whether or not the current environment changes for better or worse the expected path out of conservatorship? and if what Pagliara is suggesting could happen or likely? It sounds like all we need is a PSPA amendment this summer right?

I think no question this is largely media driven. I don't have a strong opinion on whether which party is right or wrong but the media typically is very liberal so if democrats are taking it more seriously, and more afraid its not surprising the nation is a shaking mess as that's whats on when you turn on the TV. I think you made a good point spekulatius a while back when you posted a picture out of your back yard. Your level of fear would be way lower I believe if facebook/twitter/TV wasn't in your face 24/7. I also think it makes people feel better when they are "woke" and aware of worst case scenarios so naturally as humans we are drawn to this. Better to mentally model out a worst case scenario and get a joyful surprise then a terrible downside surprise! Its self preservation, aware of present danger stuff. Your at risk of dying if your not in the know. Remember, "winter is coming. " For those that have read the book Sapiens there are a lot of parallels to what is going on today to what allowed us to survive hundreds of thousands of years ago. If you were not aware of present danger, or preparing for upcoming danger you died. Those that did prepare learned and passed those genes down. If everyone else is scared, you feel weird that you are not too. I recently talked to an intelligent coworker of mine who bought very large amount of paper products on a trip to the store for food. When I asked why he said bc everyone else was even though he had an abundant supply at home. Not the most rational reason. People are scared. Scared people don't spend money. I don't think there will or is a direct correlation to the number of deaths as much as these traumatic events we experience as a nation change peoples behaviors. There is no question peoples behaviors will be changed going forward. Those recent missed paychecks will hurt and be remembered for a while. Cruise ships/airplanes/travel will suffer due to stigma. Those who venture out early after the all clear will be called naive, stupid, and ignorant of the risks. There are those who will never trust "_____" again. These precautionary attitudes will limit spending going forward, risk taking, etc. For the economy's sake I hope this all over sooner then later but I fear it wont be, and these behavior changes will be more cemented every day.

Some notes from the Pagliara call. Grant (don't know last name) was also on call. He works with Tim and interestingly worked at Fairholme for >9 years and was intimately involved in litigation between Treasury and Fairholme, as well as working on the GSE purchase proposal that Fairholme and others offered back in 2013-2014. -All can be done very quickly and provides Fed additional relief. -Could be done in 60-90 days or less, just make the calls and put in place with the help of Houlihan Lokey -I know the BOD's at F&F are chomping at the bit to get back to work -We've had decisions in place for awhile, just this is the threshold moment that forces those actions. -We can respond to the issue because the plans and work for many years has been done, so not panic to try to plan it, work has already been done. Just hit the button. -Election impact the urgency "no," basically enough incentive to get this done for both political parties -We have all the info we need to get this done now. -Virus impact: beyond 90 days, beyond 180 days, what it does to all aspects of economy... book of biz will offset losses they'll have to help refinance homes. They are in good positions, but need capital from the private sector. -Longer the virus crisis goes the more and more important GSE's become. (my thought: so maybe odds of getting this done quickly increase the longer the virus economic crisis continues). -I think it could happen very quickly. Biggest challenge in this situation is inertia. -This is a glass more than half full situation, not glass half empty. -We and dozens of other stakeholders ready to provide capital and support. -The solution is more impactful and helpful now than ever before. -At 12:15 of video, Tim also mentioned everybody taking a haircut. Prefs 10-15% haircut from stated value (par), so that's 85%-90% of par. Thanks, it seems with investing just the opposite of what you expect to happen, happens. I do see the angle of the GSEs needing to be recapped as an urgent matter but this soon? Maybe its because its been pounded into our heads but I expect just the opposite. Looking at it now I say, wait we still need the capital rule, the recap plans, a PSPA amendement. At what point does Mnuchin have to say uncle? Is he really just waiting on a palatable political climate due to the election? I would love this to be a sooner then later thing but what makes him give in? Isnt the fed backstopping all of this and letting everything run as is? I guess another way to look at it is what has made this so damn difficult to do and why has it taken so long? Has that changed in the last couple of weeks? If we are to believe the this really was a priority for this administration, and they were going to act without legislation then any avenue to get this done should be taken if it opens.

When patients "code" in the hospital, it is usually due to an abnormal heart rhythm that often leads to mortality. The underlying cause does not have to be cardiac (though if you have preexisting cardiac disease you are at increased risk). For example--a virus that causes ARDS can cause severe hypoxia. Severe hypoxia can cause pulmonary hypertension (increased load for the right side of the heart to pump against) and cause cardiac ischemia/infarction, cardiac arrest, V-fib, etc. Certain viral infections are also known direct cardiomyopathy and as your article notes, that could be a factor with this but obviously lots of uncertainty at this point. Or another example: taking Trump's favorite drug Hydroxychloroquine can prolong what's called the QT interval and lead to Torsades de Pointes which is often fatal. In that case, the drug should be blamed as the culprit, not the heart. Yep definitely a psychiatrist. Didn't do to well on match day did you? So when you have no arguments left, attack individuals. Got it. No just analyzed the quality of the "data" in your post. I'm data driven yo! And your right, you haven't attacked my intellectual capacity, my analytical skills, questioned my profession, etc. What the fuck is wrong me.

Definitely going to be watching this. Do you know by chance is this an independent company? What is driving this goverment? His profile is lackluster.

When patients "code" in the hospital, it is usually due to an abnormal heart rhythm that often leads to mortality. The underlying cause does not have to be cardiac (though if you have preexisting cardiac disease you are at increased risk). For example--a virus that causes ARDS can cause severe hypoxia. Severe hypoxia can cause pulmonary hypertension (increased load for the right side of the heart to pump against) and cause cardiac ischemia/infarction, cardiac arrest, V-fib, etc. Certain viral infections are also known direct cardiomyopathy and as your article notes, that could be a factor with this but obviously lots of uncertainty at this point. Or another example: taking Trump's favorite drug Hydroxychloroquine can prolong what's called the QT interval and lead to Torsades de Pointes which is often fatal. In that case, the drug should be blamed as the culprit, not the heart. Yep definitely a psychiatrist. Didn't do to well on match day did you?

You forgot to post this part: CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination. Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC? This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable. In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way. And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents. Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them. And this sums it up perfectly: We will see what the serologic tests say. Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground? You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments. I didn't ask that it be used to support your arguments. You questioned me a while back and noticed you said you were an M.D. and your uncle went to MIT. Based on your response and the fact you deleted the post it sounds like you lied. Just wondering. You repeatedly use your credentials in the ED to bolster your arguments--someone else asked you whether you were an ortho pa based on your posts. And LOL about the uncle quip. I was mocking our genius President, but whoosh. No I use my credentials to give some perspective from what I see/think. Take it or leave it I don't give a fuck. I would feel the same based on your background if it was medical. I just think its weird you would state your an MD in a condescending response to someone else then erase the post thats all.

You forgot to post this part: CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination. Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC? This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable. In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way. And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents. Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them. And this sums it up perfectly: We will see what the serologic tests say. Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground? You can judge my posts based on their content. After all, I presume when I come here that this is a place for analytical people who can interpret data (though my faith in that is stretched very often). I do not need to use my degrees/what I do for a living to support my arguments. I didn't ask that it be used to support your arguments. You questioned me a while back and noticed you said you were an M.D. and your uncle went to MIT. Based on your response and the fact you deleted the post it sounds like you lied. Just wondering.

You forgot to post this part: CAUTION: Syndromic surveillance data can be hard to interpret. Any increases above expected could be due to changes in healthcare seeking behavior (people might be more likely to go to the ED now with less severe symptoms because they are aware of the COVID-19 epidemic), or it could be due to actual viral illness, or a combination. Maybe your eyes are better then mine but when did COVID testing starting start in NYC? This is again the argument for data bias. It is possible, but since this explanation was first posited to dismiss non-confirming evidence (about 50 pages back on this thread, by my estimate), it has become less and less probable. In other words, every day that passes where we do not see numbers subside, it becomes less and less likely that "they are all blowing this out of proportion". But ultimately given poor testing and heightened political implications, retrospective YoY morbidity rates will be the confirming evidence either way. And every single day that passes, it become less and less worthwhile to spend time addressing such flawed logic. The burden of proof is clearly on one side here and existing evidence to support that side is non-existent, but you wouldn't know it based on the level of confidence coming from its proponents. Again, this has played out all over the world now in a very specific way. We are just among the last to experience it. And even then people refuse to learn/acknowledge what is now right in front of them. And this sums it up perfectly: We will see what the serologic tests say. Hey, I saw in a quote a little ways back you said you were an MD (looks like you deleted the post), but find that odd as you heavily criticized my analytical skills due to med school training. I have divulged so I feel compelled to ask as your name doesnt say "MD on the internet talking about corona virus". Whats your back ground?