Cigarbutt

Thanks. I'm guessing the last number is the estimate for your IFR? It's not clear what the percentages indicate (and it's not clear how they come up with such precise numbers). The simple way to build a model here is to use CFRs, adjusted for region and adjusted for risk factors defined per CFR from different sources: CDC etc. i assume the percentages apply if and once you're Covid+. (?) It may be more conceptually sound to go through a simple exercise (which will correlate with common sense) and use a risk stratification. Alberta has put up a 3-level risk (low-intermediate-high) system: https://www.alberta.ca/lookup/COVID-19-personal-risk-severity-assessment.aspx An interesting aspect is that the Alberta site does not require a US zip code and, at least for me, adding dementia to the risk factors does not significantly change the risk level. The Sanford Health group also has a nutrition coach subsidiary. https://www.profileplan.com/

^They say a picture is worth a thousand words. What about two pictures? -The first picture is the CDC hospital data as of July 18th 2020, with the information they knew then. -The second picture is also from the CDC and is simply a reflection of the weekly updates they do regularly and the graph shows how the data has been updated over time with updated data as of July 18th 2020 markedly different from initially reported (and matching reality better) and with recent data (as of October 24th 2020) which may not reflecting what will be shown in a few weeks for the same period. Why don't you commit to show an update of this in 4 to 6 weeks?

No, no...i just mean to say that they use a different method and i offer the opinion that the Covid-tracking method is more reliable and timely. For the CDC, they use a COVID-NET framework which is based on sampling. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html It's like if you analyze a company and obtain a summary from an analyst who had access to a sample of a few pages of a few of their 10-Ks. You may get a fair idea about the company. The Covid-tracking people suggested early on that the data was imprecise and not timely. They have tried to put in place a way to obtain directly the data from all states and to aggregate the data sytematically. And they've noted obstacles. https://covidtracking.com/blog/whats-going-on-with-covid-19-hospitalization-data Many others have tried to do the same and have come up with similar results but the Covid-tracking team seems to be the group that gained the widest recognition. It's like if you analyze a company and obtain a summary from an analyst who went deeper and in more details. It's not enough but it's a good starting point. "Come on man" i wonder if you watch too much of a certain kind of entertainment: This is not an endorsement or opportunity to mock; it's simply an attempt at humor given the very poor opportunity set.

@Investor20 You have mentioned this aspect (declining hospitalization rates) before (replies 7792 and 7939) and have made it a central tenet of conclusions. You may want to re-visit reply 7943 which described the limitations of CDC data for this aspect. Just like for the percent positive rate trends, the CDC data is often not reflecting the real-time developments due to less comprehensive scope and lag. Whatever leaning you may have for decisions, you have to agree (i assume here) that precise and timely information is critical for cost-effective decision making. Covid-tracking has much better methodology and, so far, has been more reliable in delineating trends (in real time). The CDC data often ends up (after corrections and updates) showing trends that Covid-tracking showed weeks before. You seem to suggest that US and CDN hospitalization rates are coming down or at least not correlated to rising cases. This is correct in the sense that younger cohorts are now accounting for a larger share of cases and hospitalization rates are not tightly correlated. But hospitalization rates are going up and this will likely get worse for some time because of the lag effect. This is not fake news. In Canada, similar trends are playing out, see page 12 of the document (as of Oct. 24th): https://health-infobase.canada.ca/src/data/covidLive/Epidemiological-summary-of-COVID-19-cases-in-Canada-Canada.ca.pdf Yesterday, hospitalizations were at 1179. Just to confirm on a local level (my area has taken the approach that we will breeze through this), after a few phone calls, it became clear that hospital cases are going up. But the virus will eventually go away; that's an incontrovertible fact, almost.

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

^Reasonable time to retrospectively evaluate the Brit acquisition so far. -Price paid in summer of 2015 for 97.0% interest = 1,656.6M (including 575.9M in shares (price per share about 500-501(!)). 100% inferred price for 100% = 1,707.8M ----- a look at OMERS -in late June 2015, they got 29.9% interest for 516.0M -since then -57.8 paid back by Brit in August 2016 -251.8 paid back by parent in July 2018 -206.4 paid back by parent in Q3 2020 -57.8+251.8+206.4=516.0M -the return obtained by OMERS is related to dividends received over time: 45.8 (2017), 45.8 +12.8 (2018), 20.6 (2019) and 20.6 + 13.6 (2020) -total div. = 159.2 which results in an about 9% compound return over time. So that part of the initial transaction was financed by debt-like characteristics with an approximate 9% coupon, non-tax deductible. Opinion: From Omers' point of view, i would say a satisfying risk-reward proposition, assuming they had some kind of downside protection. ----- Of course, the future is where the money is but let's take a retrospective look from FFH's point of view. Since acquisition: cumulative pre-tax income = 165.7M Book value of Brit at end of Q3 2020 estimated at about 1.85B Outside of holdco capital contribution to Brit to fund payments (capital and dividends) to OMERS, FFH parent contributed a net 196.6M Brit, itself, paid OMERS (capital and dividends) 190.6M Difference in book value from acquisition to end of Q3 2020 = about 140M Average combined ratio since acquisition: 103% The return (average net pre-tax earnings over book value) so far from both the underwriting and investment points of view has been very low (about 1.5 to 2.0% CAGR). Other aspects to consider: -NPW at end of first complete year of operations (2016): 1,480.2M; at end of Q3 2020: about (annualized) 1,800M -reserves development is still positive, slightly overall better in 2020 in a declining trend and lower in Q3 year over year.

@Investor20 What's your opinion about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons? Are you a member? ... ----- This whole discussion about masks as a potential variable among many variables is seeing parallel developments in severe Covid survival data. There have been recent works published (solid data, peer-reviewed etc) from the New York (Langone) and UK experiences. If one accepts the three sub-waves definition, results from people reaching hospitals in the second wave were better (better survival) and it looks like this trend is continuing into the third wave although it is still too early to tell for this last one. This article covers the basics and i've looked at the underlying data: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/death-rates-have-dropped-for-seriously-ill-covid-patients/ar-BB1avfbY?ocid=msedgntp The data shows that the improvement is only partially explained by the younger cohorts affected after the first phase. The data supports the hypothesis that there were no silver bullets. In the UK, the data reflects the introduction of 'new' treatments (as part of the Recovery Trial) and the NY data suggests a similar phenomenon but most of the improvement came from a better assembly of many small things (timely interventions, protocols based on sequential and shared learning, liberal use of steroids at the right stage (dexamethasone has been known for ages in the use against inflammatory respiratory distress), more dedicated use of blood thinners etc). Singling out how a specific aspect of the treatment improvements would be very difficult to delineate at this point and it may take a while to figure out but the improvement in survival has been impressive (clearly, we are on the right track). But the wheel has not been reinvented here, people have just learned to make it roll better. Some suggest (hypothesis) that people survive better because of the use of masks because a coherent link can be made between using masks and viral loads which have been clearly shown to be significant for disease severity. It's an interesting hypothesis and, frankly, wearing a mask is more comfortable than having a breathing tube down one's throat. A relatively negative aspect of this development is that there are more people fighting harder and longer for survival and, in some centers, that is resulting in longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, with obvious consequences for those waiting for care unrelated to Covid and this can be an acute problem when hospital capacity becomes a limiting factor. It's been shown (for Covid and other ailments) that acute episodes of excessive hospital disease burden can result in poorer results for all involved. Somehow, the Graham concept of margin of safety applies elsewhere also.

Otherwise yesterday, i was visiting my in-laws (retirement home) and there was this sympathetic young person at the entrance regulating the traffic (asking a few questions, telling to sign a timed in-out list and measuring body temperature with a device). So she gets a reading of 33.2 °C (91,8 °F for you) and asks me to write it down beside my name. i did not think it was appropriate to explain that those devices were unreliable devices measuring an unreliable variable (surface body temperature) using an unreliable algorithm to infer core body temperature which, itself, is a relatively unreliable indicator of Covid presence or contagiousness but i felt that it would have been useful to notify her that her device was malfunctioning (all others before me had readings between 32.8 and 33.5) but after a very simple question wondering if it was possible that her instrument could have been precise without being accurate (suggesting the need to replace the battery or to recalibrate it), it became clear that the effort wasn't worth it. i did not insist because even if what she was doing had low 'scientific' value, she was, fundamentally, communicating that she cared about my in-laws. So, i simply said she was doing a great job and she said that's pretty cool.

Have you considered the possibility that the difference between a)spontaneous individual actions, b)how people react to recommendations and c)how people react to rules may not be different in the extreme? Also, do you think that 'measures' (whatever the origin) improved, had not effect or worsened virus-related health outcomes (let's forget about the costs for this part of the argument)? Also, how do you explain the divergent evolution between the US and Sweden after the first phase (percent positive rates, excess mortality)? Do you actually think that 'extreme measures' are explaining the wide and persistent difference? BTW, i agree that costs have been (and will be) significant. But i wonder if you can help clarify the benefits, if any. Good point on the voluntary measures. But Sweden's google mobility data are fairly close to 2019 baseline levels now. The US is a much bigger country and the outbreaks right now are concentrated in the places that were spared in the spring. My guess is that higher level of population immunity is a big reason for the current more benign experiences in places that were hit hard in the spring. The problem with the discussion may be related to the fact that there are multiple variables and the "lockdown" variable definition makes it hard to isolate, in terms of cost or effectiveness. It's become clear that restrictive measures (personal, collective or whatever) could have been and can be improved upon. Another aspect that's become clear is that areas that have tried to let the disease spread to some degree and to 'protect' the vulnerable population have had significant excess mortality. The data (age-adjusted etc) you showed before hides the fact that Sweden, during the initial phase, reported very significant excess mortality with an unenviable record for older cohorts and for those born outside of Sweden. The public health authorities have clearly acknowledged that. They are reporting low death rates now despite some resurgence and it's unclear why (many variables). Some of the improved profile (remains similar to neighboring countries who did well also during the initial phase) is related to partial herd immunity developed initially and possibly a better handle and more uniformity in application of cost effective behaviors and policy. What differentiates Sweden and the US in the latter phases is a persistently high spread (heterogeneous but high nonetheless) and an inability to effectively protect the vulnerable cohorts. Numbers in the US have consistently shown rising cases in the younger and healthier population first and then subsequent spread in older and more vulnerable cohorts, resulting in very significant excess mortality compared to most other areas in the world, including Sweden. Absent improved survival rates for people reaching hospitals, results would have been even poorer. Yesterday, the percent positive test rate (more than 800k tests done) in the US was 9.0% (!). The CFR has not reached zero.. There are regional differences but some areas report incredibly high percent positive rates which implies at least a continuation of poor relative results for excess mortality. This is complex but it's not rocket science. It's about capital allocation, strategy and application of cost effective policy. And it does not need to be ideological. In terms of economic costs, there are slight differences compared to neighbors but the comparison are made around expectations for 2020 and 2021. Also, the countries used to compare (UK, Spain and France) are not a proof that 'lockdowns' don't work, it only shows that countries that cannot effectively contain the spread in one or two phases will likely do worse, economically. Sweden has 'behaved' differently, at the margin, in terms of mobility, but there are other variables.

Have you considered the possibility that the difference between a)spontaneous individual actions, b)how people react to recommendations and c)how people react to rules may not be different in the extreme? Also, do you think that 'measures' (whatever the origin) improved, had not effect or worsened virus-related health outcomes (let's forget about the costs for this part of the argument)? Also, how do you explain the divergent evolution between the US and Sweden after the first phase (percent positive rates, excess mortality)? Do you actually think that 'extreme measures' are explaining the wide and persistent difference? BTW, i agree that costs have been (and will be) significant. But i wonder if you can help clarify the benefits, if any.

Apologies for the critical addition but it is meant to be constructive. What is happening in many places in the US with the recent upswing in viral activity is that hospital capacity may be tested (yes even in the land of Regeneron). With the seasonal factor and other facilitating factors and with the added new dimension that the virus is now spreading even more predominantly in rural areas, reaching hospitals with limited experience in dealing with the disease and its consequences, it's possible that some treatment teams may have to apply "crisis standards of care". i'm used to socialized care so this is nothing new on my side of the border. This is an aspect that can be dealt with reasonably when there are mismatches between supply and demand but can turn into death panel-type discussions very rapidly, especially if you're not used to deal with the delicate balance. Anyways, some US hospitals may have to come up with improvised ways to deal with this: who gets care and who doesn't and some people will be sent home, their terminal home. It has already happened in NY, GA etc earlier during the pandemic. In my area, when the pandemic reached climax during the spring, plans were made (but not applied, barely) in order to form three-people committees (2 peer-recognized MDs and an administrator) in order to allocate vital resources in case of system overload. Realizing that the US has reached this stage in some areas (with all the wealth and excess capacity) is simply mind boggling. If you have time and interest, this came out from Texas recently and it's quite interesting: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/covid-19/assets/modeling.pdf ----- BTW, i try to stay away from political discussions but noticed earlier that you had commented about Mr. John Oliver and the legal tension with a certain coal baron. i stayed silent in that thread but would have appreciated the details in his application to be compensated for occupational black-lung disease. But he died. https://www.mining.com/web/robert-murray-outspoken-coal-miner-who-battled-epa-dies-at-80/

Anecdotal additions. It really boils down to personal values and the choices available in your area. i went to private skools (classic corpus, latin, uniforms, religious framework, the whole shebang) and we've decided to send our kids to public schools, even if private schools are partially publicly subsidized in our jurisdiction (long story). The main reason is that being exposed to a wide variety of opinions and to the 'real' world has potentially positive consequences. Participation in enriched courses and programs is an interesting way to integrate this aspect with more limited impact on the 'core' curriculum. i agree with what some mentioned above when children reach the transition to adulthood whereby an easy course should be challenged. For our children, we decided to have them go through high school (ages 12 to 17) immersed in a different language than the one typically used in the household. One has to realize that, for most kids, the place where they attend school will have a relatively small impact on the overall academic progress and 'outcome'. i think the major influence, for most, is not the wealth of the parents or even the educational achievement of the parents, it's the parental attitude to education.

The data in this website is not correlating with other websites. https://covidactnow.org/us/south_dakota-sd?s=1200292 is giving south dakota positivity rate with 15.4% Also the website is giving Florida positivity rate 16.3%. But the Florida state website report is giving 4.71% as of Oct 24 and ranged from 3.6 to 6.7 in last two weeks. http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/cases-monitoring-and-pui-information/county-report/county_reports_latest.pdf Could well be. Those guys use data feeds from the state websites that can get disrupted when they change something. The SD Gov website also shows 15.4% positivity ( which is still pretty high) and that’s for a 14 day average. i didn't spend enough time to be a 100% sure but the data, as submitted initially, seems to be relevant and accurate. The combined data sites from various sources can result in discrepancies for various methodological reasons (definitions, private vs public labs, 7-day vs 14-day average etc). The % percent positive numbers that Investor20 refers to seem to be a cumulative number, which would tend to show linear changes (similar to log) when, in fact, exponential events are under way. See: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/map/south-dakota @Investor20 Your sunlight hypothesis is hard to reconcile with the third leg of this unique wave because, from a coherence point of view, resurgence activity would have been expected much later in the season, perhaps in December or after. Also, virus and infectious diseases that tend to show seasonality can peak in various months, unrelated to exposure to UV light. For example, the polio virus used to peak in August.

It would be easy to dismiss SD but there is so much to learn. Those in charge (holding responsibility) in South Dakota recently reported that their assessment of the situation (rising cases and rising hospitalizations) was a result of more testing in some areas of the state (!) and due to people now reaching hospitalization stage for other conditions because of delayed care as a result of Covid restrictions (!). They can also boast a CFR going from 1.4% to 1.0% as a proof of excellent governance and care.. South Dakota has the highest hospital-bed-per-capita numbers in the US (twice more than MA and four times my area). They also have one of the worst records (absolute numbers per population and trends) for influenza deaths. In this context, so far in 2020 for Covid, South Dakota, as it is reaching its peak, has twice the average annual flu death toll and has reached a rate of flu-death-per-year equivalent every 10 days for the next 6 weeks or so. In terms of hospital capacity, at this point about 15% of their acute care beds and 30% of their intensive care beds are occupied by Covid cases. The impact on 'productivity' at those levels (isolation, extra-steps, protocols) has got to be very significant. An under appreciated aspect is that the group in SD most at risk for a nervous breakdown are those working as contact and tracers: https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2020/08/24/covid-19-cases-rise-experts-question-effectiveness-contact-tracing/3430097001/

Yes....I agree....that is what is meant by "Herd immunity" according to Barrington declaration....not lack of infections but the disease becoming slowly less severe. We are already seeing this. Below is the CDC updated hospitalizations this week. Early introduction of vaccine, especially for vulnerable along with therapeutics would help. 1-On the 3rd wave that the CDC data does not show really well, at least at this point. Just like in early July, when the CDC did not show well for a while the forming 'second' wave because of lag-related issues (lag in reporting updated data and lag inherent to the sequential case-hospit-death that tends to occur over time). It looks like the "third' wave will be smaller. Compare: and https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized 2-"Early introduction of vaccine, especially for vulnerable along with therapeutics would help." This benign and perhaps obvious on a first level basis statement is, in fact, a fascinating statement and may explain part of the misunderstanding implied by the Barrington Declaration. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, the vaccines are unlikely to be distributed widely for many months. Also, the earlier forms of the vaccines may be the most at risk for temporary immunity. So, vaccines are likely to be insufficient, in terms of demand, for a while and an interesting discussion will occur concerning who will or should get it first. Before Covid, when discussing scarce vaccine availability and herd immunity for a population, a predominant school of thought suggested to distribute the valuable vaccine not to the 'vulnerable' population but to frontline workers and other individuals who could act as super-spreaders and to use other 'social' measures to keep the vulnarables protected.

Sharperdigaan, What's your source for posting this? The Riksbank's e-krona project...https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/06/staff-analytical-note-2020-10/ ... The Swedish central bank's project is only a pilot project which has skipped almost all controversial aspects, continues to be based on the traditional two-tier banking system and is simply a reflection of the general declining use of physical cash by Swedes. Going to digital currencies will improve domestic and cross-border payments efficiency but traumatic mass layoffs are a wild stretch of the imagination. i would say the introduction of ATMs was much more potentially impactful on clerical jobs so.. The velocity-of-money comments are where the money is for public digital currencies and asset deflation has no direct effect on money supply. Centrally-based mass payments (virtual or helicopter) means crossing the Rubicon and fundamental laws would need to be changed although we're moving closer to that every day unfortunately, with the obvious risk that private cryptocurrencies may somehow represent an interesting alternative.

This is an interesting topic with potential investment implications. But it's about 'public' digital currencies which is not exactly the spirit of this thread. I can think of three reasons why central banks would venture into digital currencies and investment implications depend on the reason. Is there a specific aspect of the article that concerns you?

Recently, The Swedish state epidemiologist (Mr. Tegnell) revealed the following insight: “I think the obvious conclusion is that the level of immunity in those cities is not at all as high as we have, as maybe some people, have believed, I think what we are seeing is very much a consequence of the very heterogeneous spread that this disease has, which means that even if you feel like there have been a lot of cases in some big cities, there are still huge pockets of people who have not been affected yet.” Perhaps a way to reconcile the herd immunity aspect with reality implies to consider it as a dynamic concept and not as a binary outcome (helpful also to incorporate what Investor20 and yourself describe with the T- cell immunity aspect). Another consideration is that Sweden is showing a larger disconnect than others between cases and deaths and the benefit is related to developing herd immunity but, so far, the price that has been paid for dancing with the virus has not been recovered and probably never will be. i have a slightly different take on this. The above is from the US but is simply used as an illustration of the disconnect that has been developing between rising cases and death rate trends, which is showing up in most places. When adjusting fore more tests, the rising cases have stayed tightly correlated with hospitalization rates but death rates have stayed low (relatively speaking!). There are many variables including minor ones. i submit that 'new' treatments such as Remdesevir and plasma therapy have brought only marginal improvements. The major reasons for improved death rates are: 1-the virus has been spreading to younger and less frail cohorts and 2-treatments that have been known for decades have simply been standardized. Through mostly trial and error, people on the ground have come up with (and shared) protocols and standardized approaches reflecting best practices. It's become clear that using the right approach in a timely manner can have a major effect on results even in the absence of 'new' or revolutionary treatments. This has been my experience as well from a practical point of view and the approach is often wildly underestimated in terms of potential improvements in outcome. The vaccines, over the next 12-18 months or more, are likely also to produce a relatively small and marginal effect on outcomes but the effect will be positive as low-grade excess mortality becomes part of the new-normal landscape. The part above about standardization and best practices is also being played out at the population level: 'we' are finding out (slowly it seems and clearly not homogeneous across the board) how to introduce simple (and targeted at times of resurgence) measures helping to deal with the virus and its spread. It's been a painful (to watch) process though. ----- This is to disclose that i've been wrong. Previously, when describing the average years of life lost in relation to excess mortality, i've mentioned 10-12 and even 10-15; it looks like (new evidence keeps coming) that this is more like 9-10 (per death).

Go at the end of this post for a partial answer to your request ---- wabuffo is likely the gold standard for this kind of info. i recently looked at this recently with the passing away of Mr. Rick Guerin, with the underlying question: if and when BRK would have been included in the portfolio? If investing in the 60s and 70s, i doubt that it would have been possible to match Mr. Guerin's record (up to 1973) and i'm quite sure that temperamental forces would have prevented the leverage issues encountered around 1975-6 by him when he sold (margin pressures) his BRK stake at slightly below 40$ per share (CAGR of 22 to 23% since then) to Mr. Buffett. ---- The data is tabulated in Of Permanent Value, the 1996 revised expanded edition, pages 725-6 and the data contains hi-lo quarterly prices from 1965 to 1980. So either get the book, use archive.org to reach the relevant section. If somehow not easy or feasible, ask and i will type the data here.

The problem with the old, pre-Covid RCTs is compliance. You can give masks to kids in a dorm, but they are unlikely to wear them if the risk is small (e.g. seasonal flu) and there is no culture of mask wearing. But when compliance is high, evidence suggests they are effective. One of the referenced studies: There is also the possibility that, on top of lower transmission, the severity of disease transfer is less because of lower viral loads. There are some data and conceptual reasons behind this hypothesis. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913 Another data point is the fact that frontline healthcare workers working in high risk areas (concentrated active cases shedding virus and high-risk procedures for droplets and aerosols) and equipped with appropriate for risk equipment did not, at least on a large scale, develop disease as a result of nosocomial transmission. i assume your thesis is that there is some kind of conspiracy going on to avoid meeting certain deadlines? A few observations: -Moderna is very highly motivated (too much?) to meet deadlines -Moderna was looking for 30k 'volunteers' by September and adjusted their protocol of selection to better reflect the underlying population -Without going into controversial issues, there are understandable reasons why certain communities may not volunteer as much because of a deficit in trust ----- For those interested, concerning the vaccines, health disparities and especially excess mortality, JAMA has recently released (especially the October 12 issues) many interesting and impactful studies and commentaries. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/newonline

When observing people wearing masks, the frequency of technical errors is quite high. One has to wonder if that's related to distraction or habit. Pretending to believe in masks may play a role. Early on in the pandemic, there was this video that is interesting: @clutch i can't resist to mention that, by denouncing fake virtue signaling, you are, by definition, virtue signaling yourself. :) On this topic, can we say masks are filters and call it a day?

^An aspect (positive or negative) of mask wearing is related to signaling. But what is the signal? My softball season has been modified (delayed, some new rules etc) and the risk-reward disease aspect has been efficiently integrated. Players don't wear masks and continue to spit. An interesting change is that the home base umpire (umpire typically have risk factors for covid) now stands behind the fence, at a reasonable distance. The catcher continues to wear a mask and this is not seen as a sign of weakness or control, at least for the very large majority. Community mask use in North America has increased significantly during 2020 and there has been some convergence in use concerning differentiation factors (ideological affiliation, education, age, urban vs rural etc). i continue to have doubts about masks under various scenarios but have no problems with public mandates. The risk-reward related to the inconvenience and very low cost seems to be a no-brainer. However, i've noticed that people who refuse to wear masks for ideological reasons tend to (correlation) wear a virtual one in front of their eyes when uncomfortable objective data is presented.

The thread is quiet because whenever someone tries to have an intelligent conversation, the MAGA-trolls post gibberish and nonsense to try to drown out any rational thought. Maybe there is a need for a third definition of Coronavirus fatigue. On top of the fatigue that the virus may cause, there's the fatigue resulting from chronic or recurrent social restrictions and there is the fatigue related to attempts to engage in constructive discussions.

^ https://www.fairfaxafrica.ca/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Details/2020/Fairfax-Africa-Enters-Into-Automatic-Share-Purchase-Plan-and-Announces-Intention-to-Make-Normal-Course-Issuer-Bid-for-Subordinate-Voting-Shares/default.aspx

^Just a small addition. The question explores the difference between the arithmetic and geometric means. The compound annual return (geometric) equals the arithmetic mean only when the return is the same every year. Otherwise the geometric return (as a function of total end value) is always lower than the arithmetic mean. The mathematical proof lies in log work but you can use the general rule that the difference between the two means will be a function of the standard deviation (volatility of returns over time) squared. This can be useful math if your compensation is tied to the arithmetic return and can 'work' despite a high water mark feature.