Cigarbutt

It's essential to question the decisions taken during this outbreak but some of the variables are a result of historical path-dependency or previous decisions that have built on over time. With the next item on the headlines, it's possible that the driven off character will come back galloping. When comparing UK and Ireland, much is in common including genetics but there were critical different variables: -median age, higher in UK -% of older individuals, much higher in UK -degree of urbanization, higher in UK In my (our) country, there are significant regional differences and tough questions need to be asked but, in my province, the % of older people living in chronic-care institutions is very different (much higher) from the rest of the country. This trend is a result of decisions taken over many years. Crises should not be wasted as they often are, to various degrees.

... Have a nice Easter locked up! I guess we all try to wing it somehow. :) Happy Easter too.

Business interruption insurance is becoming a huge issue for many US and UK primary carriers and reinsurers at large. Commercial insurance exposure with contracts exposed to specific business needs are particularly sensitive to interpretation and litigation. Retroactive coverage, which is basically what claimants are going after, would mean huge costs for the industry. It is likely that public entities directly or indirectly will pick up the tab but the transition period remains ill defined. At a minimum, litigation costs are expected to increase significantly and policy pricing is expected to increase for certain lines to an extent that entities looking to be insured will simply accept a clear exclusion clause. https://www.dbrsmorningstar.com/document/359364.pdf?Expires=1586624996&Policy=eyJTdGF0ZW1lbnQiOlt7IlJlc291cmNlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGJyc21vcm5pbmdzdGFyLmNvbS9kb2N1bWVudC8zNTkzNjQucGRmIiwiQ29uZGl0aW9uIjp7IkRhdGVMZXNzVGhhbiI6eyJBV1M6RXBvY2hUaW1lIjoxNTg2NjI0OTk2fX19XX0_&Signature=Uyxg~dmC7rqVStSnZjIVN4m8FEDfhV9Svs9XbsaNnssRvPv4qhjj3YJXkqYZgF6vUQWU0G0ETUjJZ94IO71GKtThO9goW2uKJhl4vsrRz5rq49UsJgEwvRGFc5kXWcJ9K8V9M3PO4EATUef8fVK4SbmNP3DEbTwSEqxHyVdnDs6D4Inq~oQjDhMn5zlgWX5ofLx7otVS2Qta~snUuATWxQRCMkoqbRQ29-GbojxpT6-mXRj8~PR~vlUCK6ixR3cY1mW0G8GMmHZ1oh4TTVKL0pOrwxBg1j4E9rOo941izf6Ju1hcW4yoW2Xi5X1w3if7IAoy3rzC67RioaJjrWoW8gbOTCZW69cT8Vh-DtsAkb1eL71tzjEWUcm1~~JORbY7Ac7kIvb3PjYM6HvuCX0FzLMd-wZ4d9ZbXepjvNY1SdhSB7wqFlVN8s0MUouXUEMmEhAWV6MgxkUdIqF8TsXTdw2bFhfnAG0574D282o7HgOnitg6NM0ts7gTvLkX28p0KItwYVgEzWyis7OEqEljg08qRTdH1Qt2eoi48ko6dppxzzuQr7qD8Vz82~4PdAdW0wXRwoDcOPX2WGGaEfomeQT~KmOspqlr8l~cpilE623cZ-H38S4TtqWysxIoeVE32mihoWZoXGzDbuxMaaSVlNppkHJb3866sMQO1mmV0gk_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAI2JJS4PJDGONDEZQ http://www.pciaa.net/pciwebsite/cms/content/viewpage?sitePageId=59762 It seems the issue is large enough for Mr. Buffett to eventually comment on publicly.

The power of the data here is very weak but it suggests that the virus is more widespread in low or no symptoms carriers, which is exactly the underlying challenge with this virus. Think of it as an iceberg. The previous CV episodes had a very visible tip and almost no invisible underwater component. This CV (COVID-19) behaves more like influenza with a potential for a much larger invisible underwater component feeding the visible part for future development. Assessing if the wave of transmission is beginning, in the middle or at the end is important. Think of the Trojan Horse being rolled in the city. One could argue that the best scenario would have been to refuse the gift. An intermediate solution would have been to realize it was a mistake and try to mitigate the impact by containing the Horse. Another 'solution' would have been to (knowingly or not) go to sleep. Whatever the exact size of the invisible part of the iceberg (with more tests, we'll know more but present data overall suggest that the invisible part is small to moderate and still has the potential to grow++), what do you think of the visible part (deaths, hospitalizations). Using standardized data such as deaths per one million population, days since 1/1 000 000 person deceased, it looks like the US (still early the game, with a lag) will do better than Spain and Italy, about the same as France, UK, Sweden and worse than many others. Why do you think that's the case?

why? you dont have section 16b liability when the issuer buys back shares putting you over 10%, so there was no need to get under 10%. I just think warren has lost his good sense and munger cant hear any more I was under the impression that BRK had not bought BK shares in the last 6 months so the short-swing profit rule would not apply and that shares were sold as a way to bring the ownership below 10% (I think the Fed rule hasn't changed yet) given that BK kept the buyback going up to recently. no, this refers to potential 16b liability for BRK re selling shares of a portfolio company when you are a >10% holder...which is not triggered when you go over 10% without having made a buy (ie due to portfolio company repurchases shrinking the outstanding) my point is that warren cant justify any sales to get under 10% ownership of a portfolio company to avoid 16b liability, so it is a head scratcher why he would be selling anything now, given depressed portfolio company share prices and no shortage of cash on hand at BRK I agree that the 16b liability issue does not apply here and the control determination rules have been relaxed https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2020/01/fed-finalizes-rule-to-clarify-bank-control-determinations/ but i doubt that the move was not motivated. A very clear reason to do this has to do with SEC rules about reporting requirements: holders above 10% need to disclose trades in the shares within two business days. But who knows what the real plan is?

The sensitivity and specificity of tests in a diagnostic context also apply this principle with the pre-test probability based on clinical presentation ie the test will increase the possibility that you have the disease if + and decrease the possibility of disease if -. When used for screening, even slightly imperfect test specificity can raise significant issues. The concept that the thread describes is the positive predictive value. It can be a problem when (opposite scenario to CV) you receive a positive screening test while not having the disease. In this case 1-PPV means regret probability. Regret because it means one has to go through additional procedures, pain and anxiety for a statistical artefact. For the CV, the opposite plays out with the potential to create false confidence (think immunity is there while not having it for real) and this questions the usefulness of the immunity passport that some people suggested. Even if the prevalence goes up, on an individual basis, the positive predictive value increases and the individual likelihood of a true result increases but one is still left with a large absolute number of members of the population who are considered to be immune when they're not. Specificity can be improved by repeat testing with the same test at a different time or a different test at the same time but the complexity of the combination may not be worth it. Exit scenarios may involve a certain amount of controlled trials and errors.

wh you dont have section 16b liability when the issuer buys back shares putting you over 10%, so there was no need to get under 10%. I just think warren has lost his good sense and munger cant hear any more I was under the impression that BRK had not bought BK shares in the last 6 months so the short-swing profit rule would not apply and that shares were sold as a way to bring the ownership below 10% (I think the Fed rule hasn't changed yet) given that BK kept the buyback going up to recently.

Perhaps you’ve got a distressed seller but, otherwise, it sounds too good to be true. -The expense line items have to be investigated and possibly normalized. -It seems like this is a scenario where the manager’s ‘salary’ has to be deducted from the NI number. The industry often uses a 5% of gross income number to estimate that cost if it’s not included already and you have to assess if 5% is the real number in this specific case. -How many years left with the lease? -Is it possible the operator is looking to be hired as a competitor’s manager (with the obvious risk of lower occupancy in your leased space)? -Do you have a firm grip of local competitive dynamics (known and potential)? -Is the low occupancy due to lack of awareness or excess capacity?

And we think that herd immunity might kick in once we get to 40%-60% carrying antibodies? That is very interesting news, indeed, and much faster than I would have expected. SJ The German Heinsberg district became a significant hot spot (linked to carnival celebrations at the end of February) so the virus had the 'opportunity' to spread. Despite this, the antibody response rate is fairly low and in no way can be extrapolated to other parts of the country, some of which haven't even 'seen' the virus yet. Just now, some preliminary data has been released by an Austrian Institute (Austria was able to contain the virus exposure relatively well but it's a useful point of reference) and antigen testing done well from a randomization point of view (although relatively small numbers, 1544 people) revealed a prevalence of 0.33% (0.12 to 0.76%, 95% confidence interval). This number possibly underestimates seroconversion (antibodies) of asymptomatic individuals but they (and other countries) will do more good quality random testing using antibody tests. However, data published to date points to an overall very low immunity at the population level in typical countries, not even remotely close to herd immunity. The herd immunity % required may be lower than the often quoted 60% as the virus may run out of susceptible individuals (the subset of susceptible individuals may be much smaller than total population) but the 'personality' of this virus seems to show that, apart from children and the very young, it shows an unusual degree of ability for undercover operations. The economic relevance here is that there will likely be a risk of resurgence when new waves of people eventually get exposure. @SJ I've spent some time looking at the CDN data. BC and Alberta are doing better than Ontario and QC and Ontario is doing better than QC, at least so far. The difference between Ont and QC is small, both provinces showing relatively high levels of mortality in chronic care centers. Apart from genetic, bad luck and other factors, it seems that BC did better on three levels: 1-They have a significant Chinese community who likely responded faster to international developments 2a-The government was slightly more ahead (on a relative basis) of the curve and two or three days during the exponential curve can make a huge difference 2b-Ontario and especially Quebec had unlucky timing of school breaks happening at the very worst time (international travelers) 3-it seems BC did a much better job at targeted testing and tracing in order to protect chronic care facilities In case you read this and are interested, Google has published some data (crude in a way but still quite useful it seems) showing the 'compliance' to social distancing measures across jurisdictions (also available for states). There are some variations across the country but it is amazing how people may behave similarly, given similar circumstances. https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-03-29_CA_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

My area is not doing that well with some numbers, relatively speaking (depending where one draws a line along the humanist-evolutionary spectrum). Because elective procedures are cancelled or postponed, there has been excess capacity at acute-care hospitals and there is an ongoing major reallocation of human resources to nursing and chronic care homes where ordinary folks are sick and dying. John, I don't know if you're into reading but The Plague (La Peste) may be a book to consider. I'll just leave with a Wikipedia quote that is perhaps enlightening: "The narrator of the chronicle reveals his identity and states that he tried to present an objective view of the events. The narrator reflects on the epidemic and reaches the conclusion that there is more to admire than to despise in humans." ---)Back to investing and Happy Easter.

^This looks like adjustments to the 10% ownership level: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315090/000120919120024066/xslF345X03/doc4.xml Is there more?

^COVID-19 entered the American continent where the population profile included a heterogeneous mix of recipients with chronic systemic weaknesses (health risk factors) and no built-in immunity protection. An interesting parallel could be made with the arrival of European ‘visitors’ when they landed on this continent a few centuries and scores ago and transmitted their own set of foreign microbes. I wonder if the first settlers would not have preferred a flatter curve, given a choice or knowledge. Of course, the winners write history and some could argue that this was Manifest Destiny. What you propose (I understand and even appreciate some of the rationale behind this), in order to reach herd immunity, is to supposedly protect the extra weak, expose the weak and go through a period of relatively elevated deaths and some mortality shift to the young. This would be, in essence, unavoidable. Under that scenario, most people who would need to be back in action (low income service jobs, including beneficiary attendants to the institutionalized elderly), in comparison to white collars working from home, would be directly exposed to a disproportionate degree, as vectors of the virus and as sick recipients. There would be ways to alleviate this and perhaps, under unusual circumstances and luck, the outcome could be mitigated to some degree but there is no question, at least in my humble mind, that there would be a significant social cost that would not be evenly distributed. Is this the kind of society you want? (open-ended question) I think it is fair to consider reaching herd immunity but I’d say it requires that you (and others who don’t stand to benefit) accept what comes with the package. Magical thinking won’t do the trick here.

Nice find --- and facinating food for thought: ... herd immunity ... If we had herd immunity now, there couldn’t be a second wave in autumn. Herd immunity lasts for a couple of years, typically, and that’s why the last SARS epidemic we had in 2003, it lasted 15 years for enough people to become susceptible again so that a new epidemic could spread of a related virus. Because typically, there is something that requires cross-immunity, so if you were exposed to one of the SARS viruses, you are less likely to fall ill with another SARS virus. So, if we had herd immunity, we wouldn’t have a second wave. However, if we are preventing herd immunity from developing, it is almost guaranteed that we have a second wave as soon as either we stop the social distancing or the climate changes with winter coming or something like that…. There are several assumptions held that do not fit with previous or present facts. The 2003 SARS epidemic was contained in the US. From CDC: "In the United States, only eight persons were laboratory-confirmed as SARS cases. There were no SARS-related deaths in the United States. All of the eight persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS had traveled to areas where SARS-CoV transmission was occurring." From this and other seroconversion data, herd immunity was not attained from SARS. This idea that cross immunity may exist from previous exposures to benign CVs is interesting but benign CVs are not that widespread and behave similarly to influenza. The basic problem for the COVID-19 is that it behaves in a bipartisan way (!) which may explain why it needs a bipartisan solution and why the discussion here gets so heated (?). From a scientific standpoint, this concept was described for SARS (the SARS paradox and tip of the iceberg concept of disease). SARS had a strong propensity to make people very sick which is very bad for the person getting it but good for the population because containment becomes easier to implement. The challenge for COVID-19 is that it behaves as a hybrid between SARS and typical influenzas in the sense that it is a relatively efficient killer (especially in groups at risk) while not severe enough to automatically raise barriers. The context of the host (1-at risk group being a large part of the population and being meshed, to a significant degree, with potential spreaders and 2-essentially absent immunity and no vaccine to start with) also potentiates the bad characteristics of COVID-19. This is why containment is very hard to achieve and why mitigation efforts may require a measured and gradual approach that will include a certain amount of tolerance for continuous community transmission in different areas. A lot is unknown but, with the present trajectory, this kind of compromise may in fact prevent reaching herd immunity. It's some kind of tradeoff. Assuming gradual genetic drift attenuation of the virus and no additional waves, it looks like the economic impact will continue to be felt for a few months, although to a gradually lower degree. It won't be a straight line though and even if the patient eventually heals, one has to wonder about the potential pre-existing and continuing comorbidities. All the central injections of $ are like steroids used to decrease lung inflammation. In these cases, steroids can help but the final outcome lies with the host's starting point and capacity to mount an immune response. I have a hard time seeing the patient discharged in a better shape compared to when admitted.

Have you read the book The Economic Consequences of Debt-financed Peace? I would be surprised 'cause the book has been written but is still not published.

Additional animated perspective: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/the-rapid-increase-of-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-in-one-graphic.html Technical considerations: -The number of CV deaths may plateau or even decline as the NY peak is being passed, with lagging peaks from populous states (Florida, California and Texas) coming next before tapering over the next few weeks. -The other non-traumatic categories are averages and do not take into account a small adjustment (down) as a function of the number of CV deaths that would have been accounted to another cause over a relatively short term period, in the absence of COVID-19. -The accident category is also an average and does not take into account an adjustment (down) as a function of the actual decrease of accidents resulting from public health measures for COVID-19. -the period during which COVID-19 death rates go below suicide rates is a period when it will be suggested to go back to business as usual.

There is indeed and this is a multi-variable equation. It could obviously be related to policy etc.. I've been wondering about this too from a Canadian perspective. The two western most provinces (British Columbia and Alberta) have lower cases versus central and more eastern provinces (Ontario and Quebec). The extent of testing is different to some degree but, from a micro and macro point of view, policies and socio-economic variables are quite comparable across the board. For those who want to elaborate on stupid politics, stupid individuals etc, go ahead... A possible contributing factor is genetic. First, on the host side: I guess it's possible that regional genetic differences may explain a relatively weak or strong resistance to the virus. This also may apply on the virus side as genomic sequencing is starting to show that the virus mutates in a certain direction, creating different branches (with potentially different virulence, not proven yet). The virus sort of acquires a domestic passport based on its origin. Some work is starting to give credence to this hypothesis. More to follow i guess. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/most-nyc-covid-19-cases-came-from-europe-genome-researchers-say-1.1419250

If the line of thinking is every life should be saved,then we'd be all put on an artificial mechanical heart at the end of life. Death is tragic by definition but there is clearly a diminishing return aspect if one thinks of the pandemics from a public policy point of view (NPV vs costs; those terms need to be defined, left and right or whatever). If looking at survival rates vs age curves, a clear historical evolution has been the squaring (or rectangularization) of the curve. With CV, (from a public policy detached point of view), the area under the curve has been slightly diminished, highly skewed to the right side of the area under the curve. The public investments (basic social distancing to extreme quarantine and lock-down) have significant costs (for the whole population) and have contributed to mitigate the impact of the virus. I think it's reasonable to debate about the return on the investment, even if it is a hard question. Personal note: In another life, I've had to meet a large number of people who fractured their hips (in this group, there are sometimes young healthy folks but most are older and sick and the fracture is often a signal that the end is near, sometimes very. Over time, I've often been amazed at how little attention family and 'friends' gave to the dying. There were some factors that drew unusual attention and inheritance was one of them. i guess media (or other) attention could have been another. Edit: (versus the previous discussion about cause of death, bullet in the head etc) Filling out the death certificate could be a conceptual causation challenge for many of those cases. One of my colleagues used to write as the principal cause of death: "patient stopped breathing" and it used to drive public health officers crazy.

Thinking out loud. Probably best to disregard. I wonder what is most devastating? -The strength of the article -We can learn from past mistakes -We can learn from contemporaneous mistakes of others -The CV has been and will be the cause of excess mortality, especially in certain specific groups -Questions from the article -This outbreak had significant characteristics (R0 etc) that made previous strategies (MERC etc) only partially applicable to this new outbreak -Given the huge uncertainty as this thing developed, an echo-chamber approach may not be ideal in terms of public policy (evolutionary perspective) -It's still unclear how the extent of lock-down had an effect (flattening) outside of basic individual reflexes (physical distance, washing hands, careful what people touch) -When comparing similar countries (histories, institutions, social customs), variations in case and death rates are visible, especially in the short term, and some of these deviations can be explained by poor policies, political bickering etc but some of these deviations can also be explained by historical path- dependency, health profile of the host at large and resilience of the domestic health care system -When looking at mortality rates overall (being established in Europe and similar picture developing in the US and Canada) with a longer term perspective, rates are down, Covid-related peaks often don't appear significant (apart from some hot spots) and this raises the difficult question, which is relevant, as to why similar extensive measures have not been taken before for chronic and recurrent flu episodes A separate link was included about Chlamydia in Denmark. I think this may be relevant? Chlamydia has been on the rise in developed countries (also Denmark) and many people have tried to find explanations (aren't we in an era progress after all?). Some say it's because of more tests (maybe), better tests (better detection) or poor tests (high false positives). Some say it's because risk sexual behavior is on the rise. Some think it's because of rising Chlamydia resistance to antibiotics (including azithromycin, one of the wonder drugs suggested for CV). There is also some solid evidence backing another theory called arrested immunity hypothesis as early treatment may interrupt the natural immune response enhancing population susceptibility to infection as susceptible patients re-enter the same sexual networks. I think banning large group events may prevent short term spikes in chlamydia transmission but, human nature being what it is, I doubt that overall incidence and prevalence numbers will be changed. For Chlamydia to completely disappear, one has to wonder the extent of state intervention as it may involve watching what people do in their own bedrooms, which, in a way, is nobody's business.

Some of Dr. Burry's ideas are interesting. For example: "I would lift stay-at-home orders except for known risk groups." A practical problem is that at risk groups are widely dispersed in the communities. The following link conservatively estimates that over 90M of 246M Americans are at higher risk of developing severe COVID illness if exposed.. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/

However, the USD is also the global funding currency. For some time, it seems that the world has been looking for USD liquidity and last week, the IMF announced that they had received demands for USD by 80 (!) countries (mostly emerging) and the Fed (as the head of the virtual but global central bank) has recently expanded the swap lines to emerging partners (who happen to have a lot of debt denominated in the appreciating currency {ouch}), not to China however.. Above, Spekulatius suggested to consider buying at the periphery of damage, something I did when the housing bubble deflated (ie soundly financed manufacturers of carpets, building products, paints etc) but this strategy implies that one has to assume how easy (or hard) it may be to hide and to assess the degree and effectiveness of various bailouts. Linking back to the BP spill, there may have been ways to play that but a possible relevant exercise was to consider that the Deep Horizon disaster was first and foremost the result of an imbalance between expediency and caution. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/CaseDocs/10%20110%20BP%20Deepwater%20Horizon%20Locke.Review.pdf I'm not sure why you wrote "however". If a currency is not something like a reserve currency and is not freely traded in large quantities it won't be the global "funding currency". There's no doubt there is risk avoidance and high demand for money, hence the FED's increase in liquidity. It happened in 2008 and QE was quite effective. So, what is the net economic benefit to the USA here exactly that everyone wants USD? As for your example, the known example is of selling shovels to miners on a gold rush. Buying beaten-down stocks when there's blood on the street, or just under their feet, and the risk: reward is good is indeed the way to go. Haven't we all been doing that lately. Specifically, about BP, my only experience with this sector is SD, which Gregmal was kind enough to remind me about. If interested in the 'BP spill', you may want to watch the movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_(film) I'd say the movie is well done and entertaining. It's basically the story of people in charge desperately (for profit) trying to get liquidity (oil) to the market despite a less than ideal set up. It's also a story about human nature with people in charge thinking that they can always control complex systems with little or no margin of safety, who are very slow to react to clear stress signals and to reconsider their assumptions and who realize their foolishness only when the floating rig is in flames.

Last time I checked, there were more than 300 ongoing treatment trials in the US alone and more will be known. Unconventionally proposed mechanisms of action, hypothetical equivalence for different diseases and anecdotal reports should not be rejected but the evidence from these hypotheses, at this point, is considered weak. Hope your PA is well controlled. In my jurisdiction, public health has recently authorized pharmacists to not distribute chloroquine when it became known that many MDs started prescribing the medication to healthy 'friends' etc while patients suffering from lupus were threatened with limited access..

Interesting thought. Do you have any virology expertise or reference to back that up or is it a hunch? You could alternatively look at it as: the virus only needs to get enough of a foothold in a cell to get reproduced and the person is then infected and the virus doubles, quadruples and so on and is then ejected from the cell into other cells where it reproduced further. The cloth mask just gives a very slightly better chance of stopping it from reaching the initial cell and causing an infection in the first place but won't affect the severity of infection if it does occur. The viral load only matters days after infection when the body is flooded with virus that has reproduced within the body and the worst problem is the cytokine storm in certain individual where the immune system overreacts with the side effect of inflaming lung tissue and impairing the rate of oxygen absorption into the blood, thereby requiring oxygen masks to increase the oxygen density gradient or forced pressure ventilators to increase it further, to try to get blood oxygen take-up back to the body's required level. based upon my reading, covid virus cant replicate successfully without taking over senescent cells...hence the risk to elderly and immune-supressed, and hence the advantage of a senolytics like z-pack. I dont think the initial infection needs to be "loaded" The following is an educated hunch. The definition of viral load can be seen from two angles. 1- There's the race perspective that happens once a virus enters the organism (race between gradually higher virus concentration (or load) and the immunity response. There tends to be a correlation between this load definition and the severity of disease (and to a large extent contagious potential). 2- There's the offending perspective that shows an independent dose sensitivity between the quantity or extent of virus exposure and risk of subsequent and severity of disease. The latter was clearly shown in previous corona episodes and the COVID-19 seems to show the same characteristic (as exemplified by the famous young and healthy whistleblower Chinese MD who died and by the risk exposure in general for healthcare workers, even if young and healthy). There is potentially an interesting conceptual parallel to be made between a virus and a host with an economic shock and an underlying economy (load, comorbidities, resilience etc). For exposed workers who inevitably get exposed to the virus and who are much more likely to have the virus elect internal body residence, the goal of the protective equipment and safety protocols is to flatten the curve to some degree, at the individual level. @cherzeca. Unconventional theories are welcome and, in many cases, whatever impairs the immunity response which is not closely related to the infected cell itself will increase the risk of losing the battle and it seems that some people have "holes" or weaknesses in their immunity which is genetically based. I had such a deficit when I was a child (deficit against a specific group of bacteria) and I grew out of it. Also, a small load of knowledge can be very dangerous. :) If your theory about senolytics is correct at the economy level, your conclusion may be that elements that need to fail should fail in order for the green shoots to really happen.

Thinking out loud here. The comment is obviously correct, in hindsight. One could argue that the evidence was there for everyone to see but that one can always find explanations, after the 'unexpected' event, whatever it comes to be. Context: I've been thinking about risk and uncertainty lately and, for instance, now think that there is excess leverage in the global financial system with the risk of correlated (financial) contamination. It feels like a voice in the wilderness and it's no way to make friends. A way to deal with black or white swans is simply to build resilience but that comes with a cost. On a more relevant basis, I've been following the consequences for PG&E (California utility in bankruptcy). The evidence before the fires was obvious if you had eyes to see and an aspect which is concerning is that the diversion of attention of public authorities from the utility to the virus will likely result in PG&E coming out of bankruptcy weakly capitalized, with a poor operating culture and defective resilience planning. It's hard to prepare for contingencies and the natural reflex is to fight the last war. -----) Back to the Coronavirus

Of course, I am in no way recommending this strategy. wabuffo Thank you for the data and the perspective. It reminds me of Sir John Templeton who, apparently, bought a bunch of penny stocks in 1939 after the end of the world was announced. From an unaudited and a pre-virus 12-mo trailing perspective, about 41% of non-financial Russell 2000 Index members reported negative operating profit (38% including financials) so the opportunity set is on a growth trajectory. Quoting others does not indicate investment prowess (i think this quote is from you) but Sir Templeton evolved his thinking about maximum pessimism: "Invest at the point of maximum pessimism, in companies of high quality, where you detect future earning power is patiently being built but is not yet recognized by the market" and one has to decide when maximum pessimism has been reached. Cash is trash or invest in the worst of trash?

A lot of comments here about the virus and the political host but very little about the physiological hosts. If interested in more recent data: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf See pages 4, 5 and 7. The percentage of undiagnosed diabetes has trended lower but the trend of the absolute numbers should be absolutely worrisome unless you hold shares of insulin manufacturers. If a virus thinks, the figure three shows the evolving opportunity map. -----) back to political bickering