Dalal.Holdings

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-hospitals.html

The only plausible refutation is a data sampling or reporting issue. Which, is still possible. But this possibility grows less likely every day. Yes and you have to somehow have to believe that months ago people were dying/being admitted to ICUs without having a known diagnosis, just ARDS without known cause and Flu negative... Seems like a bit of a stretch, no?

Deaths from COVID are already exponential in USA. A graph of heart disease deaths would be a straight line with no change in slope day to day (i.e. a linear plot, not an exponential). I am concerned about it more than cancer or heart disease. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”. -MT More: USA COVID deaths from March 16-17: 23 USA COVID deaths from March 17-18: 41 USA COVID deaths from March 18-19: 57 So, a 39% increase in # of daily deaths over past 2 days. Do heart disease, cancer, and auto accidents ever show similar trends? Are heart disease or cancer or auto accident deaths known to rise 39% or more from day after day like this? Do people have 39% more heart attacks nationwide on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday? Over three days, for sure. You could find many death causes that showed exponential growth in a 3-day period (of course, by chance). Not arguing the potential exponential growth in the death numbers due to COVID-19, but I find it funny how you show these three numbers as concrete evidence that there is an exponential trend. ??? I posted a plot over weeks but it was too complex for some to understand so I whittled it down to 3 numbers. Attached it here for u. The trend continues for much longer than 3d. For those who have some quantitative training, the trend looks awfully like an exponential one. Remember, the derivative of an exponential is...still an exponential. What would the plot for cumulative auto accidents or cardiovascular deaths look like? What is the derivative of such a curve? If you think auto accidents can rise 39% in a day, go talk to an actuary at GEICO.

Deaths from COVID are already exponential in USA. A graph of heart disease deaths would be a straight line with no change in slope day to day (i.e. a linear plot, not an exponential). I am concerned about it more than cancer or heart disease. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”. -MT More: USA COVID deaths from March 16-17: 23 USA COVID deaths from March 17-18: 41 USA COVID deaths from March 18-19: 57 So, a 39% increase in # of daily deaths over past 2 days. Do heart disease, cancer, and auto accidents ever show similar trends? Are heart disease or cancer or auto accident deaths known to rise 39% or more from day after day like this? Do people have 39% more heart attacks nationwide on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday? For those who believe so, please for your own sake never ever decide to invest in the insurance industry. For the umpteenth time, is a big difference between systemic, multiplicative processes and those that are not. Oh, and there goes the thesis about this having infected millions months ago in the U.S...

Deaths from COVID are already exponential in USA. A graph of heart disease deaths would be a straight line with no change in slope day to day (i.e. a linear plot, not an exponential). I am concerned about it more than cancer or heart disease. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”. -MT

Not surprising since that was pretty much the case on places like this website as well. It's all hysteria until it hits home. Just ask Sean Hannity.

Since you folks love anecdotes, here is a cautionary tale on the importance of social distancing (and avoiding large family gatherings for now--FYI none of these people fall into the 80 year old+ demographic whose actuarial tables you guys seem to consult often): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family-coronavirus.html Where did the infection come from? So the man who died on March 10 likely spread it to this family in late February/early March and it is only now (March 18) when the matriarch of the family passed away...consistent with several week incubation + delay to severe symptoms/death. Very very unfortunate that intelligent people continue to dismiss this. This family has been incredibly and suddenly hit by this SYSTEMIC, MULTIPLICATIVE cause of death. Compare that to cancer or accidents or heart disease at your own peril.

Yes I want to follow S Korea. Italy did not do a good job of testing. USA is beyond where Japan ever was. This is an infection where it takes ~1 week to show symptoms from catching the virus and maybe ~2 weeks to severe symptoms and mortality. As the U.S. is early in this processes, as I have repeated on here (though some claim it has infected "millions for months" here), the fear is that the deaths are yet to come. S Korea is likely on the tail end so their deaths are probably going to level off. See the exponential mortality graph of U.S. I posted on here a few posts back.

According to a key part of your thesis, the virus has infected millions for months here. Strange why deaths are just now rising, then. Unless you propose that people died in January but we had no idea what the true cause of death was. Strange too that ICUs in NYC are just now starting to get loaded... Attached is a graph of U.S. mortality thus far from COVID. If I saw such a trend for cancer deaths, cardiovascular disease, or accidental deaths, I WOULD be concerned about those things. Not to mention the fact that none of these things that you mention that cause deaths are systemic, multiplicative (i.e. none of them are contagious) processes. A BIG difference.

This is correct IMO. The rate of spread ought to be higher amongst the young as well (think malls, night clubs, and party party party). So it stands to reason there are simply far more cases amongst the young because of rate of spread. CDC on clinical criteria for testing... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-criteria.html This testing recommendation from CDC effectively biases those who get tests to older folks or people with preexisting medical problems (again, more likely to be older folks). Furthermore, it also depends on symptom severity and generally we know younger folks (based on data from China) show mild/no symptoms hence they are unlikely to get approved for a test in the United States. The older folks are more likely to throw a fever and develop shortness of breath. This leads one to conclude that the younger people who test positive for this illness must be the sicker younger folks who have this (because they were not denied a test) and we are excluding younger people with mild/no symptoms (who are denied testing). So the overall mortality/ICU stay skews higher since we are only looking at younger patients who are sicker to begin with. Again, for the 100th time explains the downside of being limited on testing. The U.S., being among the last developed nation to get this outbreak is among the most unprepared. A travesty of leadership. "The U.S., being among the last developed nation to get this outbreak is among the most unprepared." US has lot of travel both to Europe and China. Why do you think they are last in getting this outbreak? May be the policies are better that US held it off longer than any one else? May be everyone start date (outside China) is same. Why would Europe or Korea have earlier exposer than US? If you check deaths, they are lowest for US of most developed countries on per capita basis (worldometer numbers). For example US has 170 vs Korea with 90 for total deaths. But US population is 6.7 times more, making it much, much better. Korea adjusted for population to US would be 603 deaths. Even for "New Deaths", US has 21 vs S. Korea 7. That makes adjusted for population, S. Korea 46, well above US 21. Sweden with population of 10 million has total deaths of 11, adjusted to US population, it is 374. Norway with population of 5.4 million has total deaths of 7, adjusted to US population, it is 476. IMO all countries outside China got exposed around same time. If anything US having so much trade with China, probably has lot more travel with China and had more exposer. Yet in deaths, after four months (first case in Nov), US is doing better than any other nation in west or S Korea. Now, if you really want to follow, it is Japan. They controlled it pretty well. Japan with population of 127 million has total deaths of 32 and new deaths of 3, adjusted for US population, total deaths of 86 and new deaths of 8, better than US. But Japan didn't test much or have lock downs....now figure that out! It is clear from every global tracking system that U.S. was among the last places (after Europe, after Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc) to get this outbreak. A lot has to do with the travel ban to China which, IMO was the only good early measure this administration took. This administration only understands measures like travel bans, tariffs, and tax cuts, while everything else is beyond its comprehension, so not difficult to see why this occurred. To compare U.S. today to S Korea today is laughable. S Korea is way ahead of U.S. and has now flattened its curve. U.S. still in early stages of rapid exponential growth. I guess this is what happens when you look at numbers too closely without considering broader context of things...

some random dude on twitter wrote some interesting (and very bullish) comments on the French study I linked here yesterday: https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1240630279301033986 and posts below that. It's just one person's thoughts so who cares, but I found them interesting, and I'd like to be an optimist these days and tweets like these help. what I and others had missed yesterday in this study was that it might have been remarkably succesful because of the combo of two seperate drugs working together, not just the hydroxychlorquine. SMH at people who think azithromycin, an antibiotic that works against bacteria and hydroxychlorquine, an agent that works against a parasite, is likely to fight a virus. Same as anti-HIV drugs for this which are anti-retrovirals (hint: COVID-19 is not a retrovirus).

Hannity and that Fox Business anchor told me this was all fake news a long time ago anyway. Just a democratic plot to hurt our president. You can only hide behind lies for so long in times like this...

This is correct IMO. The rate of spread ought to be higher amongst the young as well (think malls, night clubs, and party party party). So it stands to reason there are simply far more cases amongst the young because of rate of spread. CDC on clinical criteria for testing... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-criteria.html This testing recommendation from CDC effectively biases those who get tests to older folks or people with preexisting medical problems (again, more likely to be older folks). Furthermore, it also depends on symptom severity and generally we know younger folks (based on data from China) show mild/no symptoms hence they are unlikely to get approved for a test in the United States. The older folks are more likely to throw a fever and develop shortness of breath. This leads one to conclude that the younger people who test positive for this illness must be the sicker younger folks who have this (because they were not denied a test) and we are excluding younger people with mild/no symptoms (who are denied testing). So the overall mortality/ICU stay skews higher since we are only looking at younger patients who are sicker to begin with. Again, for the 100th time explains the downside of being limited on testing. The U.S., being among the last developed nation to get this outbreak is among the most unprepared. A travesty of leadership.

No disputing that. However, the hospitalization rate is much higher than I expected. I thought for me (in the 20-44 group) - it was going to be a bad flu. I didn't think i'd have a 1/5 to 1/7 chance of going to the hospital. With n=705 for 20-44, I think you really need more information about the characteristics of the 100 that were hospitalized to know what the increased risk factors are and whether you have any. We think we know some (smoking, obesity), so assuming those don't apply to you, you're hospitalization rate ought to be lower. What it actually is though, remains unclear. It should be noted that due to testing shortage, those young folks and everyone else tested are likely to be the more symptomatic ones due to strict testing criteria in the U.S.. So even looking at hospitalizations as % of positive cases is likely sampling bias--you are not counting all the young folks walking around with this who have no or mild symptoms because they are never offered or are flat out denied testing. One of the advantages of widespread testing is you also throw in mild/asymptomatic in so those people reduce the spread (by cancelling their Spring Break plans and staying away from grandma and grandpa) and people freak out less about mortality.

No disputing that. However, the hospitalization rate is much higher than I expected. I thought for me (in the 20-44 group) - it was going to be a bad flu. I didn't think i'd have a 1/5 to 1/7 chance of going to the hospital. Well that's not surprising. Some people on here still think this is like the Flu and/or there is nothing we can do. All you had to do was look at other countries where they were ahead of us and see this was not the case. It's like the data is all right there and people still cannot understand it.

Look at the table (% of total cases in that age group), not the graph (raw numbers). Young people by and large do well. There will be younger patients who develop severe infections and unfortunately may even die, but the risk is much greater for older folks.

A lot of that is in NY which, largely thanks to Cuomo, is due to the state having achieved first world level of medical testing.

It looks to me like airlines, hotels, restaurants, cruise industry, travel industry, Boeing are all essentially bankrupt as of today. Most will not survive with no revenue if we do a soft lockdown that next 2-3 months. We know the government is going to try and bail some out. That is a tough thing for an investor to figure out (who the winners and losers are going to be). Didn’t work great for bank investors in 2008 (BAC and C); the companies survived but shareholders had their head handed to themselves. Shadow banking system might be the next shoe to fall... overleveraged companies. Oil and gas industry... Looks to me like their might be a real bifurcation in the market. A stock pickers market. 30% of companies weather the storm and 70% get shit kicked. Not great for ETF holders. Private equity would be my guess as a casualty. Another thing I noticed - treasuries were very weak today and interest rates have shot up. That rarely happens in such a down market. Is the financial system getting squeaky? If treasuries yields would explode upwards it would be game over, imo. Noticed that too - people have been saying even Treasury liquidity is off so people dumping what they can at what prices they can to get cash. Could it be the inflation scare of the House floating 2k/month payouts to every adult citizen and 1k/month for every child? If it passes, That's lots of f*cking money about to flood the system to a lot of people who don't really need it at a time when you dont have to spend it on the essentials (same bill allows deferral of ALL consumer and small business debt service like mortgages and credit cards and student loans w/ no penalties). I'm all for getting money into the hands of people who need it - but 4-8k/month for a household is A LOT and it sounds like it would be going to everyone regardless of immediate need. Meh. The bottom 90% of people have been screwed for 3 decades plus. $5k/mo is peanuts compared to decline in wealth over time. Unlikely to be for more than few mo after it runs thru the Senate. Then again, Trumpy might push for it because it helps him in November to have given checks out to every citizen. Those at the top have benefitted disproportionately from Monetary Policy past decade. Time to give some fiscal pump to those down below. We wonder why inflation has been persistently low for so long...putting money in the bottom 90% may push that inflation number up and that is not a bad thing during a crisis like this.

Youtube video: Ackman seems to get that an extreme upfront response will prove less costly than a slow, incremental response. His 30 day lockdown call seems excessive however. We already have a great example of how to tackle this outbreak in S Korea--extensive testing, then quarantine the positives even if they have few/no symptoms. You do not need extensive lockdowns to stop this. Extensive testing seems to be the most cost effective way to stop spread and spare the economy. We continually refuse to learn from other countries...

as we always have been, nothing new here. we could have put our economy in lockdown every winter to contain the spread of the flu. only imagine how many lives of the elderly we would have saved. we never did though. car speed limits vs pedestrians air polution vs the sick and i can go on and on and on. if we would prioritize lives over everything else, nothing would still get done. and people would still die (because that's what people eventually do). It seems some people seriously lack the ability to comprehend the "flatten the curve" to avoid healthcare overload concept. Seems really simple, but some people still do not get it. In other news, “The president ordered a Navy hospital ship with 1,000 beds to head to New York Harbor.” NYC just had a handful of cases 1-2 weeks ago. Now ICU/vent overload is a very real threat. If you think that the response to flatten the curve is overblown (esp after witnessing Italy), time should not be wasted arguing with you.

Some of us have been pounding on the table..."Tests, Tests, and more Tests and follow S Korea as an example". Thankfully some local governments like NY have picked up the tab from failed federal efforts (who botched test kits and prevented a Seattle ID doc from testing in late January/early Feb). A benefit often ignored about testing even asymptomatic/mild cases is that the probability that positive people will take shelter and stay away from elderly/vulnerable increases and the probability of further spread declines. Those people can self quarantine for a few weeks until viral shedding drops off.

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking. It is true: accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks. The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species. In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do. Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react. Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting. I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now. Yes Andrew Young (UBI), Liz Warren (student loan interest rates forgiven) won, Bernie (Medicare for all) is next. It’s free for all, Airlines, Cruise lines are already fed in the soup line. Shale and Energy is begging. I guess the lobbyists for all the industries are working overtime. Clearly, we have an extraordinary economic situation, but it is still surprising to see much more government intervention than in countries that are called socialist here. I’d be more in favor of something that helps individuals, if we have learned anything from the GFC it should have been that. Probably the wrong thread for this comment, but I doubt Democrats will go along with handing money to shareholders. Warren has come out with an 8-point "litmus test" for "bailouts to corporations." I like Warren much more than most people on this board appear to, but even I think much of it is misguided, though I expect she's just layout out a bargaining position. Shareholders don't need a bailout, hourly wage workers who are out of work need the bailouts. Maybe restaurants and other small businesses. Every time the fed lowers rates, it's a bailout to holders of financial assets (non-ordinary folk).

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/coronavirus-uk-strategy-deaths This is what you happens when you try to combat a viral outbreak by listening to "nudge boy" behavioral economists and pseudoscientists. Rapidly achieving "herd immunity" sounds good on paper, but then you have to actually think about what will happen on the way to getting there... Some people still clearly have not learned the basic "flatten the curve" concept.

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking. It is true: accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks. The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species. In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do. Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react. Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting. Better to over-react and survive, albeit with damage, than to underr-eact and die. "In order to succeed, you must first survive" --WEB

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking. It is true: accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks. The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species. In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do. Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react. Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.