Cigarbutt

This is a result partly from the compromise reached whereas the employers will not likely encounter tort litigation for the large majority of deaths (at least that was the case before CV) and the employees' survivors will receive funds relatively automatically corresponding, in substance, to the economic losses (varies across jurisdictions). For CV, there is a risk that the employer is considered or found 'negligent' versus Covid mortality (with the potential for 'nuclear' verdicts) and this would likely bypass the insurance intermediate such as Zenith. The indemnity to dependents is fixed as a percentage of salary (often two-thirds) and there is often a cap (absolute amount or duration) that may be related to the 'ability' to work for the surviving spouse and children no longer qualify for benefits when they reach adulthood (remember the age group of the typical CV death). Also, the indemnity owed by the insurance carrier may be lowered by corresponding amounts that may result from Medicare rules (surviving spouse). So there are a lot of mitigating factors. An interesting spill-over effect though are the additional costs that employers will accrue (to eventually be passed on the customer) when prevention measures will be applied (equipment and protocols) in order to prevent workers from getting sick when businesses reopen (think restaurants, hospitality, healthcare etc). If i were part of Zenith, i would make sure that future coverage will be conditional on firms following state regulations being presently drafted for going back to work protocols. A lot of potential grey areas and this will not help productivity of the services sector..

Relevant follow-up about potential costs (workers comp in California) which is important for Zenith. The ongoing development (not in the sense of recognized reserve development but in the sense of the social inflation threat) is definitely positive. Absent future adverse legislation, costs appear more and more manageable. Even if there is unusual flexibility to submit claims, Zenith will have to opportunity to rebut the claims and influence case law. It appears that Zenith will be able to report reasonable estimates in the coming quarters. https://www.wcirb.com/sites/default/files/documents/rb-covid19-cost_impact_of_governor_executive_order_0.pdf

i came across the following while finishing a review of the rental and servicing of uniforms market. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-25/a-0-0000148-yield-on-bond-sale-in-japan-is-exciting-investors?srnd=markets-vp TL;DR version: It's a Japanese agency (student financing) that just issued bonds at a minuscule yield (0.0000148%) and the positive yield (!) got investors "excited" resulting in excess demand because the agency had issued negative (barely) yield debt last year. Using a USD analogy and a pension funding point of view, putting aside 1M in such debt would procure 15 cents (rounded) per year. To fund one Starbucks latte per year would require setting aside 30M. The rental and servicing of uniforms industry is interesting and has a future. Cintas (CTAS) for example has pulled all the right levers to improve all lines from top to bottom and even borrowed cheap debt to buy 1B of stock in 2019. A conclusion is that the return from holding such security is very likely to be positive over the long run. However a satisfactory return (IMO) is possible only if the Japanese debt example above makes sense.

It can’t replicate by itself, it needs a host to replicate. On a different matter, outbreak in Church in Germany - 107 cases all at once! Ouch. All churches in the area have been closed again. https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/coronavirus-in-frankfurt-am-main-mehr-als-hundert-glaeubige-in-kirche-infiziert-a-a94cf16c-f765-4549-b49f-704f33568b00 (There is an escalation Rule in place that allows only 50 cases within 7 days /100k population that if exceeded lights to a re-tightening of distancing rules in the affected county area. This rule was triggered here in even more than one county) In another article it was mentioned that one of the main reason why meat processing plant workers are so susceptible to COVID-19 is because they are operating in relative crowded conditions, but also because the air temperature is typically low (4-7 Deg C) making the folks that stand there a long time more susceptible to respiratory infections. Dalal mentioned this - it applies to common cold, but COVID-19 likely as well. This might be one reason why southern states do relatively better but it also might mean a second wave isomorphic likely in fall/ early winter just like the Flu. i've looked at various meat processors over the years (for example Hormel Foods, HRL) and they have produced impressive financial numbers IMO related to impressive growth in productivity but also (ab)use of an expendable workforce. In Germany, it seems that a majority of meat processing workers are migrants (Eastern and Southern Europe). In the US, it's been reported that 30 to 50% of the workforce is composed of undocumented immigrants. It appears that living conditions for the typical worker involves crowded and multi-generational habitats. It looks like some places are taking advantage of the fact that a virus does not replicate well in robots (even those that don't take chloroquine, zinc, vitamin F3 and elderberry extract juice). https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-makes-the-case-for-more-meatpacking-robots/ Anecdotal addition: As a kid, i had the opportunity to visit a sausage factory. i came away fascinated by human ingenuity. It also took a while before i could eat sausages. Often, it's better not to know. At times, it is.

If you describe a factory with productive capacity, you may consider the perspective of a private party as a potential buyer of the asset. When running the factory (IRR or NPV point of view), you will take decisions about basic maintenance costs (typically expensed, and reducing the numerator) and about upgrades to maintain earning power (typically capitalized capital expenditures, which will affect the denominator). As the operator of the business, you may be ahead or behind schedule (owner's earnings perspective) and the buyer will look into that. On top of the intrinsic decisions related to earning power, there are potentially extrinsic reasons that may change the fair value of the recorded asset (competitive position). If one of your competitors enters financial distress or if your factory makes face masks, all of a sudden the value recorded on the balance sheet no longer reflects the fair value. IFRS (vs US GAAP) allows to use the revaluation method to update the fair value of assets such as factory and equipment but one is always left with the possibility that the value recorded needs an adjustment from an outsider's perspective. Normally, in a competitive market, if you find a business that does not require cap ex to maintain earning power, it's the earning power that will tend to be at risk as more capital will tend to enter the specific market.

i'm presently involved (on a personal and otherwise level) in the circumstances described in the above bolded part and reading your post induced a cardiac pause. If you read this, could you elaborate (bcoz there must be something i'm missing)?

A fascinating aspect is that central banks have allowed to be put on a path that leads to overt, direct and explicit monetary government financing. An incredible amount of effort has been put into blurring lines. These issues are mostly irrelevant when reading footnotes of financial statements but there's got to be a point (depends on the definition of margin of safety i guess) when this would be considered bothersome. Analogy from an anecdotal perspective. One of my daughters just finished a relationship and we’ve been talking. It was a relationship that was not made to last and i was (secretly) hoping that it would end earlier than late (lasted about 18 months). At first, she talked about the triggers and then we moved to the slippery slope aspect which (she now realizes) started a while back. Relationships based on poor premises should be ended earlier rather than late. The timing is unclear but I’ve become increasingly convinced that appeasement of financial markets will eventually be considered as one of the most colossal failures of modern times. Disclosure: Stuff I’m reading these days is related to the dynamics that led the Japanese army leaders to develop the kamikaze strategy. I humbly suggest that they should have inverted. But it’s not easy. Today is shaping up to be a sunny day. :)

Cross-country comparisons can be useful but the point about previous paths taken during an exponential phase is relevant. Social "restraints" measures have decreased the spread and lifting those measures will cause various levels of resurgence activity. The trade-off lies between the "costs" of the containment measures and the "costs" of re-opening the economy. The following two are useful inputs (see what happened before and try to see what could guide policies going forward): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766229?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=051820 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608 The first study (when analyzed and related death rates are obtained and compared) suggests a relatively small positive impact of the differential measures taken between Iowa and Illinois. The second study shows the potential of limiting exponential morbidity and mortality when applied effectively and early. Both studies have significant limitations and have observational qualities. As numerous other studies show, one of the risks is extrapolating conclusions from limited data and interpreting causal effects when, in fact, the findings are simply correlations. This is a frequent flaw now with limited peer reviews and people coming up with "explanations" or risk factors for various clinical findings which are simply markers and not meaningful variables to alter. Pressures will keep building up for opening (for both valid and non-valid reasons) and it may be best to try to optimize the process going forward. To assess the validity and effectiveness, policy and measures depend on context. As an analogy, the application of QE (there he goes again) makes a lot of sense from a liquidit standpoint. However, recognizing the significant known and unknown consequences including asset price inflation and high leverage from the chronic application of such acute measures when asset prices and leverage were high to start with simply introduces inter-temporal imbalances that simply take longer to correct, at some point. To tie the analogy to COVID-19, trying to maintain radical lockdown or similar measures makes little sense once the spread has occurred. This is the kick the can down the road era. Healing will eventually happen.

In terms of COVID-19 by priority of potential impact, event cancellation comes first, then business interruption (dynamics developing) and then workers comp exposure (at Zenith). The evolving "presumption" definition makes sense. Typically, the presumption of a work related "disease" (infectious or not) does not apply and the worker has to "prove" that there is causality. However in certain instances (by using classes of work or criteria for exposure) the presumption threshold can be modified. Work-related exposure to COVID-19 will be specific to state or provincial jurisdiction but similar principles apply. Some areas will use a class of work method (ie healthcare workers, first responders, working in meat processing plants?) and states like California will use a criteria method. The end result (the story has evolved when compared to the Zenith link mentioned above; this was released relatively early in the game) was influenced by inputs given by players like Zenith. There may be significant pockets of costs but the typical accepted claim using the criteria will likely result in very manageable costs. Also, the typical person who will get COVID-19 will be asymptomatic or will have limited symptoms. Zenith has a long history of strong underwriting and this episode may even help them to strengthen their moat when rate increases will be authorized by regulators. https://www.thezenith.com/wp-content/uploads/Agent-GovernorExecutiveOrder.pdf Thanks for the thoughtful observations, Cigarbutt. I guess my disquietude about workers comp reflects my limited knowledge about the subject. It was an enormous cost, largely underwritten by Uncle Sam, for the 9/11 response. There is some talk of public funding for covid workers, but this is yet unclear. I agree that most will have extremely mild symptoms that they might not even notice, some will have a modest WC claim if they are off work for a month or two because that would likely exhaust their paid sick leave. The ones that get expensive will be the tail cases -- those that have long-term lung issue, extreme PTSD and those that actually perish from covid. In the US there have already been about 100 public transit workers who have died from covid (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/20/us-bus-drivers-lack-life-saving-basic-protections-transit-worker-deaths-coronavirus). My guess is that there will be hundreds of workers from nursing homes that will meet the same fate. And then there will be the other less visible deaths from places like the slaughter plants that we have already mentioned, plus the retail workers who worked in essential businesses. What kind of indemnities will be triggered? A couple million bucks per death if the policy covers income replacement for 5, 10, or more years? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision 1,000 fatalities in the US, resulting an industry level indemnity of perhaps a couple billion divided by however many underwriters are in that space. If the government does get involved, that becomes more manageable (just like what it was for the 9/11 responders), but it seems perplexing to me that this has not already been a cause for at least a modest provision at Zenith. Anyway, maybe this will end up being nothing-burger for Zenith, but I still find that idea quite counterintuitive. SJ The post's aim was to moderate the existential worry but it's early and developing and there will be costs to Zenith (currently about #17 in market size). If you look at Markel (currently about #23 in market size), their Q1 report appeared quite conservative overall (versus future losses) for COVID-19 exposure but they reported and commented that the workers comp threat was forming and was not counted in the reported reserve numbers. The following gives an idea of exposure range for the industry: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/05/05/567599.htm The factors that mitigate the threat are 1-the degree of "expansiveness" of states for inclusion will be proportional to various state-sponsored stop-loss schemes and 2-use of quota-share and excess of loss reinsurance (of course this is a two-way street). One thing to watch for is that workers claims tend to rise with unemployment (interesting topic on its own) and that may end up more significant than the disease itself.

In terms of COVID-19 by priority of potential impact, event cancellation comes first, then business interruption (dynamics developing) and then workers comp exposure (at Zenith). The evolving "presumption" definition makes sense. Typically, the presumption of a work related "disease" (infectious or not) does not apply and the worker has to "prove" that there is causality. However in certain instances (by using classes of work or criteria for exposure) the presumption threshold can be modified. Work-related exposure to COVID-19 will be specific to state or provincial jurisdiction but similar principles apply. Some areas will use a class of work method (ie healthcare workers, first responders, working in meat processing plants?) and states like California will use a criteria method. The end result (the story has evolved when compared to the Zenith link mentioned above; this was released relatively early in the game) was influenced by inputs given by players like Zenith. There may be significant pockets of costs but the typical accepted claim using the criteria will likely result in very manageable costs. Also, the typical person who will get COVID-19 will be asymptomatic or will have limited symptoms. Zenith has a long history of strong underwriting and this episode may even help them to strengthen their moat when rate increases will be authorized by regulators. https://www.thezenith.com/wp-content/uploads/Agent-GovernorExecutiveOrder.pdf

^They have a small arbitrage position in Tiffany & Co. These arbitrage operations (small versus the size of their portfolios) have appeared for a very long time. i wonder who is in charge of these investments and what kind of return they've achieved over the long term.

i guess one could say that elected officials are advocates. :) Leeches appeared on the evolutionary scene not as survivors but only because they could. In exchange for regeneration potential, leeches developed suckers. The necessary reaction is reform (eg tort reform) and you can call it drain the swamp if you want but it needs to be done, hopefully earlier than late. ---- Here's some data on an example (mentioned before): US-based healthcare insurers. Most evidence suggest that, on a net basis, costs will be down this year and a component of COVID costs will be shared with the 'consumer' and back-stopped by public entities. Still, the "business" continues as usual, only because they can. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurance-premiums-expected-to-rise-4-to-6-before-factoring-in-covid-162932394.html

https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/amid-the-coronavirus-crisis-a-regimen-for-reentry Interesting take on the parallel to be made between containment of nosocomial spread and the exit scenarios. Dr. Gawande describes the four-pillared combination therapy (hygiene measures, screening, distancing and masks) and adds the toughest one to achieve: culture change. This still leaves open-ended the uncomfortable situation where we are building this plane while it's flying and with still no visible landing site. Animal spirits will eventually prevail.

This is a multi-variable question but one thing to consider is how regular people react to a situation. Many headlines (and some of the posts here) suggest that the US population can be divided in two but it seems that people at large have reacted in a much more homogeneous way irrespective for whom they voted or the political affiliation of their governor. You will 'see' the guy in Florida screaming "let's party!" but you won't necessarily hear from the waitress, the teacher or the caretaker but they will tend to respond to the virus appropriately and responsibly without ingesting disinfectant. However it's true that a uniform and consistent message can make a difference at the margin (with appropriate policy etc) and what happens at the margin can be significant with a potentially exponential problem. See the Google Community Mobility reports (the results are crude and imperfect but useful i think) and compare states. https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/

Two-part post 1-a study which will satisfy the beliefs of both tribes https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html It's from Spain and many features point to solid work. Some will conclude that 90% of cases have not been detected by tests, implying a wider spread while others will conclude that 5% is still far from 60% (if 60% is the 'right' number for herd immunity). Countries with relatively (still) steady state of new cases: US, UK, Sweden, Philippines, my area... Countries with rising cases: Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, India, Russia, Mexico, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa... So, one should at least consider the possibility that the rough patch may not be transient and there may be a few Vs in the "recovery". 2-an interesting parallel which shows how clusters can feed in the community and vice-versa https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/analysis-how-montreals-chslds-mirrored-the-diamond-princess-outbreak/ar-BB144o2Z?ocid=spartanntp My area has reported a very high number of deaths, adjusted for population, and most (more than 80%) deaths happened in people living in chronic care institutions. The author submits that chronic care centers acted as many Diamond Princess cruise ships floating right in the middle of urban centers. Retrospective analysis shows that acute policy mistakes were made on top of consequences of decisions made years ago by the host. The urban community neighborhoods most affected are populated by people working in chronic care homes..

Short version: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-healthinsuranc/us-health-insurers-benefit-as-elective-care-cuts-offset-coronavirus-costs-idUSKCN2291DY Longer version (i have a very thick file on them): If you can live with the following risks, health insurers are looking good: -nationalization risk -regulatory risk -declining market risk Risks above would mean lower multiples and lower realized value. The regulatory risk is related to the eventual decrease on rate of return allowed. i think JRM has described this for utilities in general as allowed returns have remained high despite risk-free rates going down. It's bizarre because regulated entities, in that context, benefit from relatively high returns and simultaneous high valuations when trading (interest rate gravity rule). Is there some kind of free lunch or is reversion to the mean lurking? The declining market risk is related to the potential migration of people from employers-sponsored health insurance to Medicare and Medicaid. This may hurt some insurers but others (Centene) may benefit. Forgetting the above risks, health insurers are looking good because COVID-19 costs will be more than mitigated by lower costs elsewhere and insurers can always adjust premiums with rising costs if they occur. Health insurers have done well adjusting this way and more uncertainty about costs mean more potential profits that includes some forms of regulatory capture. Personal anecdote-type of data which is relevant to the US even my area has socialized medicine: In my area (especially true for large and urban centers), emergency rooms are set up to operate at about 100% capacity at all times which means, in practice, that emergency rooms typically operate at 120% of capacity. With the COVID-19 outbreak, for many weeks up to about just now, despite higher activity for COVID-19 related care, emergency rooms have been operating at about 80% capacity (!). As the previous poster has mentioned, elective procedures supply has gone down very significantly and will only slowly pick up. From a financial perspective, this is very good for health insurers. An argument could be made that there is pent-up demand but this is only partially true as a lot of care has simply been and likely will continue to be forgone. Fwiw, 10 years ago, i considered putting a % of funds into a basket of stocks (United Health, Anthem, Humana, Cigna, Centene and others) and decided not to because of the above risks that i thought could play out over the next twenty years. So far, i've been wrong and the basket of stocks would have provided Buffett-early-years returns (basket has multiplied by 12, add low dividend % and has rebounded nicely by about 50% {typical recession-resistant stocks} after the recent scare). We all have to take our individual decisions but i just want to add that the recent COVID-19 episode has shone a light on the comparative disadvantages of the US healthcare system (difficulty with coordination of policy, human and physical resources) that health insurers thrive on.

^In a way, the verbal management has done the job as spreads have largely recovered and (AFAIK) the Fed has not even started buying the actual securities. What's wrong with that? The beginning of an answer needs to include trust which takes a long time to be lost but which also tends to disappear suddenly, once in certain territories which are defined mostly at times by events outside of one's (anyone's) control. From a certain perspective, moral hazard is not a problem and can never be a problem with Fed intervention: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/08/03/Poole.pdf The problem is that the Fed's role for putting out fires have gradually allowed (forced?) them to be participating arsonists. On this slippery slope, they may become victims of their own "successes". With the virus episode and the global evolution in different time frames, some wonder why late participants failed to integrate vicarious learning. With the monetary policy episode and the Japan-led global evolution in different time frames, i wonder why the Fed deliberately follows the same path. i'm afraid it's because it's the path of least resistance.

Disclosure: FFH prefs are trading at interesting levels from a risk-reward perspective. It seems CDN prefs have a life of their own with the fixed/resets aspect, institutional movements that tend to be correlated and more recently the ETF effect. Raymond James produces reports that tend to describe the situational awareness: https://www.raymondjames.ca/branches/premium/pdfs/preferredsharesreport.pdf The ETF CPD is a relevant CDN preferred index. For comparison: CPD FFH.C mid 2018 14.25 24.50 01 2020 12.27 18.55 min 03 2020 9.37 12.85 now 10.51 13.89 FFH preferreds follow the trends but also show variable credit-specific spreads. On top of market sentiment, there are two components that can go in the right or wrong directions.

How much money do you expect the taxpayers to lose via this program? An argument could be made that the Fed is circumventing the intent of the Federal Reserve Act. Why was the Act made in a way to avoid this kind of situation? Why do we end up in a situation (paraphrasing Mr. Buffett here) with a binary choice between significant ramifications with inaction and potentially extreme consequences with action?

^It seems like the Riverstone deal has two components. First, there is 'value' recognition (although this value was deserved to start with if you think runoff operations are worth it). Second, this was a liquidity operation. The 599.5M flowed to holdco (in a quarter when holdco was sending capital to insurance subs) in exchange for assets contributed to the Barbados-based joint venture. OMERS is participating for a price: the present value of the deconsolidated non-controlling interest. This is reminiscent of the Northbride and OdysseyRe bi-directional (sell then buy higher) operations (which were opportunities for profitable trades from an outsider perspective). There is a schedule for Fairfax to buy back the interest over time. It was opportunistic but it is what it is.

https://www.amazon.com/Go-Go-Years-Crashing-Streets-Bullish-ebook/dp/B00MAEVRAQ It's a light book that draws a picture of the relative euphoria that existed when the next phase was shaping up. https://pakiyafunds.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/forbes-on-buffett.pdf The 1969, 1974 and 1979 articles help to understand the radical transformation which was contrarian and prescient. https://www.amazon.com/Personal-History-Katharine-Graham-ebook/dp/B004FYZ3P4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3N7S9FNC6KLST&dchild=1&keywords=personal+history+katherine+graham&qid=1589114582&sprefix=personal+history%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1 A very well done biography that helps to understand the political context with the Post as an investment opportunity at the juncture period. https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/adm/loeb/historical%20winners/National%20Magazine_Fortune.pdf http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/valuing-growth-stocks-revisiting-the-nifty-fifty.pdf Two publications that help to bridge the Nifty-Fifty conundrum. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/aggreg/meulendyke.pdf See pages 34-48. The 70s was a period of paradigm shifts and the picture is not complete without monetary policy. In the 60s, monetary policy was mostly about passive resistance that eventually failed before it eventually morphed into a pro-cyclical agent.

Random thoughts: -For the Kawasaki disease question, viral diseases can result in unusual outcomes including triggering an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals and i agree with Spekulatius that these reports in children are now published in correlation to the prevalence of the CV virus more than a specific problem related to that specific coronavirus. -For the semen quality question, the information is fragmentary and it's still early. However, sexual transmission seems unlikely. There's more work though showing that, in general, virus presence in semen is associated with a significant impact on fertility. -For the spread extrapolation and controversial herd immunity questions, a lot of data and analysis suggest a more optimistic take. The R0 number is a theoretical construct and it assumes a homogeneous transmission pattern in a homogeneous population. More evidence is building up showing that the R0 number is significantly affected by many critical variables and it may be better to use a dynamic Rt {effective R} number. The theoretical construct needs to take into account the facts that some individuals spread the virus much more and outbreaks tend to happen in clusters. Population density and crowded conditions are key variables. So, as areas open up, the virus will tend to spread to areas where there will be a lower amount of susceptible individuals (spreaders and sick) and less dense or crowded populations. The 'price' to pay for less severe resurgence activity may be a much longer or even seasonal or chronic course but the dynamic level of herd immunity required may be much lower than presently conveyed. The following reference is interesting for that aspect: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf -An interesting aspect is the regional variation for the application of lock-down or easing protocols which will help to define the best path but will also create tensions as regions may suffer from consequences of decisions made in other regions. It seems that leadership is needed on top to create a sense of togetherness despite the differences. For instance, trust could help to share best practices and there are self evidences that need to be maintained, for instance the indication for appropriate vaccination (existing and future). It's been reported (see below) that regular vaccinations have been postponed or eliminated. Also, if a vaccine becomes available, reaching a sufficient amount of people is key for effectiveness. https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/08/childhood-vaccinations-decline-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://theconversation.com/a-majority-of-vaccine-skeptics-plan-to-refuse-a-covid-19-vaccine-a-study-suggests-and-that-could-be-a-big-problem-137559 Skeptics are essential but so is reaching a critical mass. From a biological perspective, FWIW i continue to be relatively optimistic about the virus but unusually cautious about the host.

This is being looked at by many (need models and statistics though :) ). {i live in a socialized medicine world and there are costs to waiting just as there are costs for excessive care}. It appears clear that delaying major cardiac surgeries has resulted in people dying while waiting. Also, anecdotally and progressively from more solid evidence, because of imposed shortages and people actively avoiding care, patients tend to come late for various conditions (heart attack, stroke) and obviously this limits the options that could reverse, at least partially, the consequences. The answer will become clearer when excess mortality data will be collected and analyzed. There will be excess mortality from COVID-19 and from the above but it also appears that there will be much less mortality from accidents. i read Spekulatius mentioning that hospitals are open for business but this is far from being the case in my province (especially urban centers). There are many places where a large part of the workforce is either CV+, in quarantine or simply decide to avoid work.

But sir, the facts, they are changin'. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/household-savings-rate-going-up-or-down Given the evolving age profile , it's hard to see a scenario where Japan does not enter a dis-saving phase. As far as the outlook for oligopolistic CDN banks and their ability to thrive in a minuscule net-interest-margin world, when a typical CDN is asked why he or she is not saving: "I don't need to save, I have a house". In the US, savings rate started to go up after it was realized that houses were not necessarily piggy banks.

We may very well find looking at the time line in NYC that staying at home and significantly increasing time in the household was the gas on the fire that put things out of control in NYC. Most peoples' guard is down at home, no mask, no washing hands, close contact. Not to mention huddling millions in a small square footage. Staying at home and not leaving the house in retrospect maybe found to be the worst thing to have done. What do NYC, Italy, Spain, and people of color have in common? Lots of multigenerational families. Bringing thousands/millions of asymptomatic or sick people in the house likely infected those most at risk in the household. If found to be the case hopefully its not employed as a measure this fall/winter https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-home-isolation.html The point you describe is interesting. There are spreaders and outbreaks tend to occur in clusters, especially among the vulnerables. In my area, the number of very sick and those who died (people living in chronic care homes) is relatively quite high. The solution to improve (in this specific case) is to augment the number of caregivers and improve disease spread protocols (and other aspects as well). But what do you do for multi-generational families? These arrangements are partly tradition but also economic in nature. Could most vulnerable people 'afford' to be separated? Concerning your last post above, for the country that sent the man to the moon, what do you think of relative performance, when correcting for historical path-dependent differences. Of course, if you're not really trying... My area is just north of New York State (foreign Canada) and there is evidence that the virus originated in China but it had various levels of stopovers before it was exported. i wonder if better collaboration would have made a difference?