StubbleJumper

Fascinating. Do Americans even eat that shit? If you have Covid-19, do you want to spend 45 minute boiling chickpeas, or do you want to throw a frozen lasagna or frozen pizza into the oven? Brown rice, lol. SJ I cook channa masala in my crockpot — need dried chickpeas for it so they draw in the flavor as they rehydrate. I don’t eat dairy so no frozen lasagna/pizza. I always eat brown rice — prefer the texture and flavor. Well, if you've got a way to prepare it that doesn't involve too much effort, it would be perfectly fine when you are ill. My experience with chickpeas and dried beans is cooking them with a pressure cooker and then going to the second step of making a meal with them. I'd buy 24 cans of chickpeas before I'd ever buy a bag of dried chickpeas, particularly if I planned to use them when I'm not feeling well! I ate a can of black beans today, and it was dead-easy! But brown rice instead of a perfumed rice? I know that you have plenty of money to buy basmati or jasmine! SJ

Fascinating. Do Americans even eat that shit? If you have Covid-19, do you want to spend 45 minute boiling chickpeas, or do you want to throw a frozen lasagna or frozen pizza into the oven? Brown rice, lol. SJ

You know the answer to that question. We discussed that about 2 years ago. It will be rolled because Blackberry doesn't have a surplus of cash and nobody other than FFH will lend them money. It is an encumbered asset for FFH. That is water under the bridge. Edit: Did I read incorrectly, or is it not $605m, and matures Nov 2020? It gets rolled in any case, but it just gives RIM a bit more time to burn through some cash. ;) SJ And as it was back then, BB is net cash and free cash positive. Specifically it has $880m on the BS and is projected to earn about $200m a year in FCF going forward, with positive FCF in every quarter. I’m only guessing here, but in the easiest lending environment in human history I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest they could get some debt if they needed it, which they don’t. I’m fairly sure it is $500m but less sure re Jan/Nov. EDIT: it’s November. My bad - but more time for the convert to be in the money ;) And it was $605, but Fairfax didn’t take all of it - I’m pretty sure they have 500m. Well, I must have been reading different financial statements than you. What I saw for the first 9 months of BB's year is that they reported small negative cash from operations on their cashflow statement. What is more, there is always a small amount of maintenance capex that is required, meaning they are burning cash by operating, and then burning a bit more just to allow themselves to continue to operate. The burn rate on operations and capex appears like it was $40m over the 9 months. It is well and good to project $200m FCF on a going-forward basis, but let's just say that I am from Missouri.... BB does have some cash on its BS, and theoretically, FFH could demand a cheque to settle those notes. So where would that leave everybody? Well, instead of the $880m cash on the BS, they would have $275m. Effectively, BB would be operating with very little room to manoeuvre. That would be all fine and good for FFH if the notes were FFH's only considerations -- if you just owned the notes, your answer would be "Tough shit. Cut us a cheque." But, FFH also owns a large slug of BB shares and Prem is on the BoD, so by insisting on re-payment of the notes you'd be kneecapping an equity investment that you cannot really divest in the short-term. If you believe that BB could borrow money, your view of their reputation is a good deal more favourable than mine. A lender would want to see a compelling prospect of BB generating meaningful FCF because if a lender were forced to petition BB into bankruptcy, there is much uncertainty about how much value could be recouped from an intellectual property firesale that would not be conducted until 2024 or 2025. It's a stinker for a lender, which is why FFH is involved. SJ An entirely reasonable reply. I am a little more hopeful that BB's operational dip is temporary. I'd also point out that its equity value to FFH is not only $200m so if the dip is not temporary, FFH have a strong incentive to burn the $200m in order to ensure recovery of the $500m. My guess is a halfway solution is likely: roll 50% and massively improve the conversion ratio on the other 50%. Keeps all the upside while lowering the downside. Revisit in November... Well, that's a fascinating question in some respects. You have a few broad options: 1) FFH could roll the notes and re-price the conversion privilege. If the market is still in the crapper in November, the conversion privilege could be repriced considerably lower. If BB executes and everything turns out to be roses, you convert the notes which results in owning a very large chunk of BB. Somehow you exit from that equity position and you ride into the sunset.... If FFH does that, does the partner in the notes agree to do the same, or does FFH expand its note position to the full $605m? 2) Prem resigns his BoD seat, and FFH sells its BB shares for what the market will bring. It then insists that BB write a cheque for the convertibles. BB is screwed, but who cares? FFH takes ~$500m for the notes and maybe ~$100m for the equity and walks away, chalking the whole thing up to "bad luck." That ~$600m is redeployed into something that actually makes FFH some money.... So which is the more attractive option at this point? I have always though that BB should have been tossed onto the "too hard" pile. But, if you can use your muscle to force a low enough conversion price, is there a reasonable prospect of getting decent return out of rolling the converts? Every instinct tells me to walk away and recuperate the capital that you can, but... SJ

sorry to hear that. Do you know their ages? Both in the 50s. @Muscleman , very very sorry to hear. Reoccurring infections have been reported in China (my wife told me about it) and so far seem inexplicable and scary. Probably different strains of the Virus ( solely my conjecture). Thank you for contributing, Muscleman and sorry for your continued loss due to this terrible illness. Stories of reinfection, and stories of lung damage are very concerning and are probably not factored in to most people's mental models. +1 What the heck is the r-naught if people have recurring infection?

If you have a model done already I'd appreciate you sharing it. I don't have a clue on the variables at play here, and quite frankly I don't want to get to false precision. What you're saying makes sense, but my question is if one has no symptoms or mild symptoms how would they know to self isolate? There's the example above of the NJNY Port Authority person who is asymptomatic - if he wasn't who he was I'm sure he wouldn't have been tested. Lastly, I don't know if hte last comment was meant for me, but I don't think it's constructive to the conversation... Well, I would say that understanding is best obtained if you build it out yourself. A quick and easy one: -create a column for each of two groups, one which has been diagnosed with Covid and has self isolated, and one which is either asymptomatic or has such mild symptoms that they haven't gone to the doctor for treatment -select an R-naught for each of those groups. The undiagnosed group might have R0=3, and the confirmed group might have R0=1.5 -build out a simulation by using 30 or 40 rows representing discrete "rounds" where the virus propogates. Your new cases are driven by your two different assumed R-naughts, and you can then once again apply your assumption of how many of those new cases will self-isolate and how many will just go on with day to day life. -you now have a multi-stage, 3 parameter, discrete time model that you've concocted in 15 minutes. Play around with your two assumed R-naughts and play around with your split between the percentage of people who self-isolate and those who do not. See how the evolution of the epidemic changes when you play with those parameters. Pretty much everybody on this board spent some portion of their life as a spreadsheet jockey, so this type of exercise is pretty basic. The last comment was not directed at you. There are 3 or 4 posters who have a view of this pandemic which might or might not be correct. Their view is underpinned by a few key assumptions (just like the model you could build). Other people do not share those key assumptions and parameterize their model differently, as should be expected in a situation characterized by uncertainty. But, the disagreement about how to best parameterize your model ought not degenerate into accusations of innumeracy or stupidity. SJ

Has everybody in this discussion actually concocted a model for this? Seriously, 15 minutes with a spreadsheet can be quite instructive. You soon learn that the potential of flattening the curve is driven largely by your assumptions of 1) How many people seek medical help and are instructed by physicians to self isolate, vs how many have mild symptoms and just continue with day-to-day life; and 2) What is the effective R0 for those who self-isolate vs the R0 of those who have mild cases and just continue on with business as usual. If you are in the camp that there is a large group that is not destined to self-isolate, there's not much that can be done to flatten the curve. Seriously, if people haven't already done so, go ahead and model it. And by the way, if somebody disagrees with your modelling assumptions, don't accuse him of not understanding math or being stupid. SJ Spreadsheets and models are for geeks who wear thick framed glasses! And apparently so is the precautionary principle! Do you have some sort of obligatory quota which demands that you issue at least one insult or an otherwise denigrating comment per post? SJ Yes, especially when others are put at risk. You should consider changing strategies. People will tune you out if all you can offer is insults. SJ

Has everybody in this discussion actually concocted a model for this? Seriously, 15 minutes with a spreadsheet can be quite instructive. You soon learn that the potential of flattening the curve is driven largely by your assumptions of 1) How many people seek medical help and are instructed by physicians to self isolate, vs how many have mild symptoms and just continue with day-to-day life; and 2) What is the effective R0 for those who self-isolate vs the R0 of those who have mild cases and just continue on with business as usual. If you are in the camp that there is a large group that is not destined to self-isolate, there's not much that can be done to flatten the curve. Seriously, if people haven't already done so, go ahead and model it. And by the way, if somebody disagrees with your modelling assumptions, don't accuse him of not understanding math or being stupid. SJ Spreadsheets and models are for geeks who wear thick framed glasses! And apparently so is the precautionary principle! Do you have some sort of obligatory quota which demands that you issue at least one insult or an otherwise denigrating comment per post? SJ

Has everybody in this discussion actually concocted a model for this? Seriously, 15 minutes with a spreadsheet can be quite instructive. You soon learn that the potential of flattening the curve is driven largely by your assumptions of 1) How many people seek medical help and are instructed by physicians to self isolate, vs how many have mild symptoms and just continue with day-to-day life; and 2) What is the effective R0 for those who self-isolate vs the R0 of those who have mild cases and just continue on with business as usual. If you are in the camp that there is a large group that is not destined to self-isolate, there's not much that can be done to flatten the curve. Seriously, if people haven't already done so, go ahead and model it. And by the way, if somebody disagrees with your modelling assumptions, don't accuse him of not understanding math or being stupid. SJ

Easily understandable. This situation is just like Huawei. We all know that BYD is an agent of the Chinese government and it will surreptitiously insert a whole host of sensors and cameras into the hopper of the garbage trucks to read all of the sensitive information off of our garbage. This information will be transmitted back to the Chinese government who will undertake nefarious acts with this ill-gotten intelligence. At least the US government is on top of this one! SJ

You know the answer to that question. We discussed that about 2 years ago. It will be rolled because Blackberry doesn't have a surplus of cash and nobody other than FFH will lend them money. It is an encumbered asset for FFH. That is water under the bridge. Edit: Did I read incorrectly, or is it not $605m, and matures Nov 2020? It gets rolled in any case, but it just gives RIM a bit more time to burn through some cash. ;) SJ And as it was back then, BB is net cash and free cash positive. Specifically it has $880m on the BS and is projected to earn about $200m a year in FCF going forward, with positive FCF in every quarter. I’m only guessing here, but in the easiest lending environment in human history I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest they could get some debt if they needed it, which they don’t. I’m fairly sure it is $500m but less sure re Jan/Nov. EDIT: it’s November. My bad - but more time for the convert to be in the money ;) And it was $605, but Fairfax didn’t take all of it - I’m pretty sure they have 500m. Well, I must have been reading different financial statements than you. What I saw for the first 9 months of BB's year is that they reported small negative cash from operations on their cashflow statement. What is more, there is always a small amount of maintenance capex that is required, meaning they are burning cash by operating, and then burning a bit more just to allow themselves to continue to operate. The burn rate on operations and capex appears like it was $40m over the 9 months. It is well and good to project $200m FCF on a going-forward basis, but let's just say that I am from Missouri.... BB does have some cash on its BS, and theoretically, FFH could demand a cheque to settle those notes. So where would that leave everybody? Well, instead of the $880m cash on the BS, they would have $275m. Effectively, BB would be operating with very little room to manoeuvre. That would be all fine and good for FFH if the notes were FFH's only considerations -- if you just owned the notes, your answer would be "Tough shit. Cut us a cheque." But, FFH also owns a large slug of BB shares and Prem is on the BoD, so by insisting on re-payment of the notes you'd be kneecapping an equity investment that you cannot really divest in the short-term. If you believe that BB could borrow money, your view of their reputation is a good deal more favourable than mine. A lender would want to see a compelling prospect of BB generating meaningful FCF because if a lender were forced to petition BB into bankruptcy, there is much uncertainty about how much value could be recouped from an intellectual property firesale that would not be conducted until 2024 or 2025. It's a stinker for a lender, which is why FFH is involved. SJ

I keep meaning to come back to this thread and read/reply properly, but life and markets are getting in the way. But I have been thinking about this part and would make two observations: 1) The trust of insurance customers in FFH has survived far worse than having an AGT, or a Mosaic, or any of the myriad other organisations that end up consolidated on FFH's BS, default on its debt due to a localised issue. It is entirely reasonable to talk about non-recourse debt. 2) Whether it is important for investors or clients may not be the point. It's likely to be important for ratings agencies. We will have to agree to disagree. SJ

You know the answer to that question. We discussed that about 2 years ago. It will be rolled because Blackberry doesn't have a surplus of cash and nobody other than FFH will lend them money. It is an encumbered asset for FFH. That is water under the bridge. Edit: Did I read incorrectly, or is it not $605m, and matures Nov 2020? It gets rolled in any case, but it just gives RIM a bit more time to burn through some cash. ;) SJ

You should be more tolerant and accepting. Your evolutionary instinct of disliking those things is neither more "right" or "wrong" than those folks who like those things. The folks have just as much insight into the right way to live as anyone else does. Why force (by "calling it out") your arbitrary values on others? I don't believe any of those things. I don't know why you're parodying moral relativism at me. Don't believe any of what things? You don't believe in moral relativism? Nothing "ageist" was said to begin with. Liberty has clashed with me once or twice in the past month and I suspect he's looking for a scrap, just for the purpose of looking for a scrap. You can demonstrate the inferiority of your opponent if you show that he is weaker on the "wokeness" scale. That's not unusual, but it's not emotionally mature either. He is one of the people in this discussion who is most certain of the correctness of his viewpoint, which, in my opinion, is dangerous. We are all operating under a situation of uncertainty, and those who are convinced that they have found the sole truth have vociferously denounced alternate viewpoints. We are all stupid because we disagree with certain assumptions. SJ

That makes sense. If the FCF number is calculated properly and includes all of the maintenance capex, you are right that it could have kicked off a nice amount of cash. If they paid $100m and it has a long term dividend capacity of even $10m, it's a nice little gem. SJ

Agree, as well as the cab/uber driver that took him too and from the airport, EVERYONE in the airport. The guy who touched his baggage on accident at the carrosel. The guy who touched the elevator button after he did. The guy that touched the escaltor rail after he did. The woman that picked up his scarf when he dropped it leaving the air port. The attendant he bought a magazine from in the airport. EVERYONE on the plane. EVERYONE in the hotel, the person that touched the door knob into the hotel after he did, the cleaning lady who cleaned his room, the waiter that waited on him. The people that sat next time in the restaurant he went to. The woman who he handed a tip to at the bar. The person that sat in the same chair at the airport after his flight left, and everyone at the conference that had the same interactions he did. Ok guys, your turn, of the above who do we test? I've got a better one for you: https://globalnews.ca/news/6639525/ontario-covid-19-case-las-vegas/ Some guy in Toronto took public transit to and from work for three days before he bothered to seek medical attention for Covid-19. So that's the problem with this virus. The people who don't have serious symptoms merrily go about their day to day life, banging off their R0=3. And then guys like this who do seek medical attention eventually self-isolate, but any bets on how many people he infected by taking the bus and the subway for three days? Lots of luck on the trace-backs. I have always tried to avoid using the handrail on the escalator when exiting the subway because I have always believed they were the most filthy surface known to man. Now it is not just the most filthy, but it is possibly outright dangerous! SJ And, this just in: https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/coronavirus-quebecer-with-covid-19-travelled-by-metro-and-bus Somebody in Montreal who has tested positive for Covid took public transit on February 24 and March 6. What could possibly go wrong? SJ

Thank you for sharing that. It's nice to get an update on where the Carrillon assets are headed, and it's nice to see that FFH will be on the receiving end of dividends and might ultimately have a partner to whom it can sell its stake (if that is what FFH decides to do). One of the unfortunate aspects of FFH's growth is that it is hard to follow the progress of every asset because most of the acquisitions are not individually material to FFH. Without a creating 1,000 page annual report, they just cannot really report on how things are going. I am quite curious how things are going with some of the other smaller acquisitions of the past couple of years, notably Toys R Us and Churchill. But at least we now know a bit more about Carrillon. SJ Agreed, although: 1) I don’t see why they couldn’t have taken a dividend from Dexterra without merging it. 2) They seem to be getting about C$100m of value, based on Horizon North’s predeal share price. Can anyone remember what they paid? I’m not sure they’re surfacing much value here unless the merger blurb about growth and x-sell is true. Yep, they might have already been taking a dividend from Dexterra, but it was a bit hard to tell from the small bit of ink that FFH could dedicate to Carrillon in the AR. Now at least we do have confirmation that there is an ongoing cash in-flow related to it, which is at least something. I don't believe that they ever included the price that they paid for the Carrillon assets in a press release...I don't remember if there was enough in the AR to get a feel for it. That's why I like when people find these sorts of articles, because it provides a bit more info that can't all be disclosed in the AR (unless you want a 1,000 page AR). I would like to see a similar article about Toys R Us. You and I had a bit of an exchange last year about the $100m EBITDA figure that was trotted out..and I think I saw a couple of articles about possible expansion. But, is Toys a net cash contributor to FFH at this point, is it requiring cash injections, or is it neutral? I'm pretty sure that the numbers are not material, but I am still curious. Same questions about Port of Churchill.... If people see random articles about FFH subs, please share! That's the only way we figured out who was the buyer of the Bangalore airport stake because it was not included in the press release from December. SJ

Agree, as well as the cab/uber driver that took him too and from the airport, EVERYONE in the airport. The guy who touched his baggage on accident at the carrosel. The guy who touched the elevator button after he did. The guy that touched the escaltor rail after he did. The woman that picked up his scarf when he dropped it leaving the air port. The attendant he bought a magazine from in the airport. EVERYONE on the plane. EVERYONE in the hotel, the person that touched the door knob into the hotel after he did, the cleaning lady who cleaned his room, the waiter that waited on him. The people that sat next time in the restaurant he went to. The woman who he handed a tip to at the bar. The person that sat in the same chair at the airport after his flight left, and everyone at the conference that had the same interactions he did. Ok guys, your turn, of the above who do we test? I've got a better one for you: https://globalnews.ca/news/6639525/ontario-covid-19-case-las-vegas/ Some guy in Toronto took public transit to and from work for three days before he bothered to seek medical attention for Covid-19. So that's the problem with this virus. The people who don't have serious symptoms merrily go about their day to day life, banging off their R0=3. And then guys like this who do seek medical attention eventually self-isolate, but any bets on how many people he infected by taking the bus and the subway for three days? Lots of luck on the trace-backs. I have always tried to avoid using the handrail on the escalator when exiting the subway because I have always believed they were the most filthy surface known to man. Now it is not just the most filthy, but it is possibly outright dangerous! SJ

I wonder if the National Guard can deliver food to every town? Does anyone know if there are any neighborhood banks in New Rochelle trading at Tangible Book Value? It's not just a question of whether the National Guard has the capacity to deliver food to every town, but a question of whether we should even want them to. We have a very efficient food retailing system in North America based on grocery stores which provide a typical American with a choice of more than 40,000 stock keeping units per store, refreshed regularly and with due care for food safety through effective cold-chain management. As long as you can keep those stores open, it strikes me that you wouldn't want the military to be delivering food baskets that probably don't have the assortment of food that most people want and that probably focuses on non-perishables (due to the need for a cold chain). The reason why a grocery store might need to close would be if a large portion of its employees refused to go to work out of fear of getting infected by colleagues or customers. I am convinced that there will definitely be some of this. There are some employees who work in a grocery store as a retirement job, but if I were 65 years old and just working at Safeway for something do do, I would be looking at the Covid mortality numbers and questioning how badly I really need that $10/hour. Similarly, a husband and wife making a family income of $200k who have a 17 year-old daughter working part-time at a grocery store, might naturally question how badly the family needs the daughter to earn the $10/hour. But, by and large, I can't see labour shortages (work refusals) being so severe that the existing supply chain would need to be replaced by centrally controlled food distribution. SJ Rate the following public relations messages: Option 1) We are sending the National Guard to help deliver food and disinfect common areas. Option 2) We are deploying the National Guard to establish a perimeter in anticipation of locking down the town within the next 3-5 days. We would appreciate it if no one left in the meantime. Ha ha! You are even more paranoid than me! I hadn't even considered the possibility that they were using this explanation as a plausible excuse for deploying the NG to a staging area where they could then be later deployed for sealing off the town. Maybe I am too trusting of government... SJ

I wonder if the National Guard can deliver food to every town? Does anyone know if there are any neighborhood banks in New Rochelle trading at Tangible Book Value? It's not just a question of whether the National Guard has the capacity to deliver food to every town, but a question of whether we should even want them to. We have a very efficient food retailing system in North America based on grocery stores which provide a typical American with a choice of more than 40,000 stock keeping units per store, refreshed regularly and with due care for food safety through effective cold-chain management. As long as you can keep those stores open, it strikes me that you wouldn't want the military to be delivering food baskets that probably don't have the assortment of food that most people want and that probably focuses on non-perishables (due to the need for a cold chain). The reason why a grocery store might need to close would be if a large portion of its employees refused to go to work out of fear of getting infected by colleagues or customers. I am convinced that there will definitely be some of this. There are some employees who work in a grocery store as a retirement job, but if I were 65 years old and just working at Safeway for something do do, I would be looking at the Covid mortality numbers and questioning how badly I really need that $10/hour. Similarly, a husband and wife making a family income of $200k who have a 17 year-old daughter working part-time at a grocery store, might naturally question how badly the family needs the daughter to earn the $10/hour. But, by and large, I can't see labour shortages (work refusals) being so severe that the existing supply chain would need to be replaced by centrally controlled food distribution. SJ

Thank you for sharing that. It's nice to get an update on where the Carrillon assets are headed, and it's nice to see that FFH will be on the receiving end of dividends and might ultimately have a partner to whom it can sell its stake (if that is what FFH decides to do). One of the unfortunate aspects of FFH's growth is that it is hard to follow the progress of every asset because most of the acquisitions are not individually material to FFH. Without a creating 1,000 page annual report, they just cannot really report on how things are going. I am quite curious how things are going with some of the other smaller acquisitions of the past couple of years, notably Toys R Us and Churchill. But at least we now know a bit more about Carrillon. SJ

Last time I looked, WHO and others were saying that they believe asymptomatic cases were extremely rare. That seemed to be the direction that the opinion of most professionals was headed, although it does strain credulity for me a bit. Your comments would make a lot more sense to me if you can substantiate your assumptions with references. By the way, it wasn't clear if you were saying I had said something offensive. One thing I should clarify is that when I have said "most people" in recent posts I was referring to people who aren't paying attention and those people certainly aren't reading the Coronavirus thread on CoB&F. No, you in particular have not said anything offensive that I am aware of. When I note that some participants have hurled around invectives, I was attempting apply the principle that we ought to criticize by category and praise by name. I most certainly did not intend to direct any criticism specifically at you. We are all making assumptions about a known-unknown, and there are no references to provide (the one thing that has puzzled me, but does not really constitute "evidence" is the lack of children reporting symptoms). Some portion of the cases are symptomatic and severe enough that people seek medical attention and those people end up in the stats. Some portion do not seek medical attention and those cases do not appear in the stats. As you noted, what exists at this stage are opinions, and I don't doubt that the WHO has provided an opinion, just as the WHO has provided an estimate that the mortality rate is 3.4%. There are different people out there operating with different assumptions. There are a few interlocutors in this thread who have launched accusations about people in being incapable of doing math, but the reality is that everybody is doing the math with different assumptions. So, anyone who is interested can create a Mickey Mouse spreadsheet to model infections under the assumption of there being those two groups, one which has mild symptoms and the R0=~3, and one which seeks treatment and perhaps has a R0=~1.5 (because they stop infecting people after they are instructed to self-isolate). If you assume that a large percentage of cases seek medical attention, then you might legitimately hold the view that you can meaningfully control and slow the outbreak. On the other hand, if you assume that a large percentage of cases do not seek or require medical attention, you might reasonably conclude that your focus should instead be on augmenting health system capacity. Your assumptions about the relative size of those two groups and the R-naught for each of those two groups will be a key driver of your attitude about the outbreak. But, we are all still grappling with a known-unknown. SJ

So what you wrote was callous, but you had good reasons. Ok. Personally I prefer neutral terms when talking about the death and illness of people. I still think the point I made generally applies. There's way too much casual and accepted discrimination against whole groups of people based solely on their age, which is just as out-of-their-control as their gender or color of their skin or sexual orientation or whatever. Are you in need of a "safe space" or are you just looking for something to scrap about? My sense is that it is the latter.... SJ

I hope someday what happened to racism and sexism happens to ageism. People are people, with inherent worth and dignity, they are not worth less because their bodies are sick and frail and they have had many birthdays. Now I know you said "economically", but the tone still got to me. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across this callous with the lives of people who often already have tough lives. No, I had intended to use a clinical tone to deal with that age cohort. I have several family and friends who are in that cohort and I fully expect to lose more than a few from Covid. When that happens, it will be sad for me and those around me. But, when dealing with the aggregate question, you need to remain distant, clinical, and ideally, objective. SJ What is sad is that if there is quick decisive action the financial costs can remain low. That unfortunately did not happen in China and this virus may now be with us indefinitely. And it also did not happen in the USA, which may increase the ultimate costs. It's kind of like levering the heck out of a bunch of businesses and telling everybody everything is going to be great. The costs of the leverage will be minimal until they aren't. Well, that might be true, but there are a few underlying assumptions that have not been articulated. Some of us disagree with the unspoken assumptions, which occasionally has resulted in a few sparks in this thread over the past couple of weeks. The conversation usually degenerates into a statement about how some people are stupid and can't do math, when the reality is that they disagree about how the math is to be done. So I will speak of a few of those assumptions where our respective views probably depart. An enormous issue is the question of asymptomatic cases, or mild cases that never end up seeking medical attention and a second enormous issue is the lengthy incubation period. Decisive action can be taken against known cases but you can't do too much about the undiagnosed. Nobody knows for sure, but it is quite likely that 50% of cases are asymptomatic (does anyone actually believe the stats that children are not infected?) and another perhaps 30% are mild symptoms that do not require a doctor visit. So, if ~80% of your cases are happily going on with life, hammering out their R0=3, you've got a problem. You can deal with the 20% who are actually sick enough to go to a doctor, and you can quarantine them and try to do some trace-backs, but there's a limit to do that. Meanwhile by the time your 20% have taken their trek to visit their doctor, they have already had the virus for 2 weeks as it incubates and were happily going on with life hammering out a smaller R0...perhaps they infect only 1.5 other people before they realize that they need to visit a doctor? So are we "stupid" for holding our assumption that the reported cases are the tip of the iceberg? Or are other interlocutors "stupid" because they are assuming that the only cases out there are the reported cases and you can take the same approach with Covid as you do with Ebola? In my book, neither are stupid, they are both just operating under uncertainty. Ex post, we will know whose assumptions were correct, but the invectives that are sometimes hurled around strike me as a sign of overconfidence of one's view. SJ

I hope someday what happened to racism and sexism happens to ageism. People are people, with inherent worth and dignity, they are not worth less because their bodies are sick and frail and they have had many birthdays. Now I know you said "economically", but the tone still got to me. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across this callous with the lives of people who often already have tough lives. No, I had intended to use a clinical tone to deal with that age cohort. I have several family and friends who are in that cohort and I fully expect to lose more than a few from Covid. When that happens, it will be sad for me and those around me. But, when dealing with the aggregate question, you need to remain distant, clinical, and ideally, objective. SJ The 80+ yr old people that it is killing in that age group (the weakest) had a higher risk of dying this year (and the next year, and the next) than the actuarial table tells. I believe we are talking about less than 2 years of life expectancy being lost for people 80+ who contract COVID-19. Definitely that is true. It is also likely the case that the covid-19 mortality rate will ultimately come in lower as time progresses, but we won't really know for quite some time. But, if any 40 year-old is fussing about his own prospects of mortality, it's worth reflecting on the existing likelihood of death in the actuarial table before getting too worked up about a 0.2% chance of dying if you are part of the 60% or 70% who catch covid. SJ

I hope someday what happened to racism and sexism happens to ageism. People are people, with inherent worth and dignity, they are not worth less because their bodies are sick and frail and they have had many birthdays. Now I know you said "economically", but the tone still got to me. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across this callous with the lives of people who often already have tough lives. No, I had intended to use a clinical tone to deal with that age cohort. I have several family and friends who are in that cohort and I fully expect to lose more than a few from Covid. When that happens, it will be sad for me and those around me. But, when dealing with the aggregate question, you need to remain distant, clinical, and ideally, objective. SJ My bad, I didn't realize that "clean out" and "croak" were clinical terms. No, but if you return to your psychology courses that you took from university, you would see that they are classical defence mechanisms: https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html The use of callous terms is designed to actually enable a clinical analysis. SJ