Castanza

A little: RDS.b, WMB, RTN, GRBK, HHC, SAVE, UPS and JETS

It's 9:40AM here...too early?

Everclear 190 is made for situations like this

People avoiding the quarantine in Italy.

Did you even read what he wrote? Where does it say anything about spending money? Taxpayer money? Isn’t it assumed? Maybe I read it wrong, but isn’t he saying govt SHOULD take precaution? I mean govt effort or lack of efforts seems to be the core theme in this thread. I meant nothing in this post about government at all, and I don't believe that this thread is or should be about politics. Nor do I believe that arguing about domestic politics has that been the motivation of most people here. Personally, I was thinking of Taleb's comments with respect to reducing health risk for individuals and with respect to portfolio management. If there are those who would like to argue about the government response, and argue in a non-productive way as we have seen before on CoB&F, I would suggest this topic has become large enough to create a separate thread within the Politics section and potentially another thread within investment strategies to discuss portfolio management in the context of COVID-19. Ultimately we are all here as investors, but let's not forget that some of us have already lost friends or family to this epidemic and more certainly will. I have many close friends on this board who I value immensely. Many of them are older and some are older with health issues that could put them right in the cross hairs of this virus. I worry for them and selfishly I fear for my loss were there something to happen to them. I just found the original context of Nassim's comments, and I have to admit I don't fully understand the context, especially the disagreement: I especially don't understand his spat with Tetlock: Taleb's deragotory comments addressed at Tetlock seem unnecessary and I think engaging with a variety of viewpoints would be valuable in this situation. I think this board would similarly benefit from a variety of viewpoints and we could all be more welcoming by focusing on the ideas and not attacking individuals, but focusing on the specifics of an argument and responding with an argument that is even more well reasoned. From watching the interactions of several others on this board in the past couple of days I think the discussions would have been better if everyone could have refrained from the use of "you" and tried to refrain from making assumptions or at least questioned their assumptions about other people's motivations. There has certainly been a mix of comments in this thread. But the government aspect of this is undoubtedly connected to the investment side. The context in which government is referred to has been both on and off track at points. Whether or not government decides to quarantine large swaths of people will most definitely have an impact on the market and the economy. Domestic politics and the political aspects of this investment thesis have been touched on by pretty much everyone in this thread.

Did you even read what he wrote? Where does it say anything about spending money? Taxpayer money? Isn’t it assumed? Maybe I read it wrong, but isn’t he saying govt SHOULD take precaution? I mean govt effort or lack of efforts seems to be the core theme in this thread.

Well, I’m more in the Taleb camp on this one: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1235663235573067777?s=21 I particularly liked his comments about forecasters. He essentially said that just because you put your seat belt on does not mean you are forecasting a car crash and just because you lock your doors does not mean you are forecasting a burglary. That statement works simply because it’s so broad. How far can you take that? Should every state have a few hospitals with 10k beds laying in wait for the next pandemic? Preparedness is different when it’s funded with tax dollars. To me, that statement only applies to things that are statistically common and have a reasonable chance of happening. Pandemics aren’t common by any means. Should we all start building bomb shelters in our back yards? I mean it could happen!

Morgan Housel sums the whole situation up nicely.

Finally got some nice weather here in PA. Trout fly season doesn’t start for a few weeks so what’s a guy to do? Michters no1 and an Argyle Banquet

TLDR (WSB analysis) ;D Buy Calls on top 5 largest ventilator manufacturers. Philips Healthcare (Netherlands), ResMed Inc. (U.S.), Medtronic plc (Ireland), Becton, Dickinson and Company (U.S.), and Getinge Group (Sweden). Some of the other players in this market are Dräger Group (Germany), Smiths Group plc (U.K.), Teleflex Incorporated (U.S.), Hamilton Medical AG (Switzerland), and GE Healthcare (U.S.)

No, the concept simply shows that if you can squish down the curve, you get benefits, which is hard to understand for the "well, the genie's out of the bottle, it's all pointless, nothing to be done" crowd. And it does change what is coming, nothing about this is binary. Not shown on the graph is also the possibility of a vaccine, so you could draw a vertical line at some point, and the part of the cruve that gets squished past that line could also have it a lot better by vaccinating the most at-risk populations. Where the chart goes wrong is by showing healthcare capacity. It's disingenuous. If current healthcare capacity is sufficient to handle COVID-19 then that would imply Covid-19 is no worse than influenza. So either COVID-19 is not similar to influenze (which is what I'm hearing on here) or the other healthcare systems are full of shit about their "exceptional healthcare advantage". The chart is a better representation of spending flexibility and that governments ability to levy tax funds. No governments "current" healthcare capacity is built for pandemic levels. Everything from beds, to machines, to supplies on hand is based on averages. It's still flawed though because there is not way to represent actual cases since the majority are probably unknown. It's a difficult line to walk as the ability to levy funds requires timing, discretion, and responsibility. I prefer a leader that adheres to the aforementioned traits within reason. China was extremely flexible and they now have tons of small businesses going belly up. I wonder if those citizens are happy they avoided a "mild" flu (according to CDC) at the expense of their business and tax money? And I'm not saying there wont be significant economic impact in the US. And I'm not saying China should have handled it differently. I'm just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat. Someone mentioned the Fukushima meltdown earlier in the thread. Sometimes fear (cough cough media) can do more harm than whatever it is you're actually scared of.

What constitutes "Healthcare system capacity"?

WMB

That Union and subsequent pension are enough to make me think it's a bad long-term investment.

Troegs Perpetual IPA

Thanks. We are doing great and not losing any sleep. Just staying informed exercising reasonable caution. +1 Yeah, I'd +1 that too. I don't want to diminish what's going on. This thing is definitely a nasty bug. But the reaction to it is definitely weird. I lived in Toronto during SARS (I actually worked on the subway during the crisis) and I lived in London during H1N1 (England was one of the harder hit places). But I don't remember anything like what is going on right now. There was a general level of concern (I started to cough in my elbow) but life pretty much went on as usual. I don't remember being any shortage of masks in the heath care sector. People definitely didn't stockpile masks. The markets certainly didn't care because we were all fucked at that point anyway. I just don't get why things are so much different this time. Social media

Does anyone know who's the asshole who voted against it?? Senator Rand Paul WOW! If I had to guess I would have said Ted Cruz... not the doctor. You should read his reasoning first. When he voted there were already enough to pass the funding. He voted no to make a statement that the funding could have easily been pulled from elsewhere instead of borrowing more. If the vote was going to depend on his vote he would have voted yes. It was a no because he had the luxury. That being said, it’s a bad time to die in that hill under these circumstances.

That's called reading into what people have said. Nobody is saying to lack empathy or not move forward with testing, quarantine, etc. It's sad that individuals have died from this. Nobody wants that especially in their own social circle. One of Greg's points earlier in this thread was correct when stating how a lot of people are using this situation as an outlet for political frustration. It's not unwarranted, but there is no benefit to that in the near term. Panicking solves fewer issues than having cynicism in a situation. Doctors and healthcare providers are the most cynical people I've ever met but at the same time are extremely compassionate. My wife works with babies that are the size of baseballs who have little chance of surviving. The situations are terrible and I wouldn't be able to handle it. But she has a job to do and for the most part being an effective healthcare provider means putting emotions on the back burner (most of the time). At the end of the day If you're that worried about it then do what brings you peace of mind and go out as little as possible. Take precautions for your loved ones etc. Is Buffett panicking? That mofo is in the high risk category and he's out hunting! ;D

Added to $JETS in IRA

Moving to safe havens like $SPCE.....jk.....added a SAVE atm LEAP and some shares

I'm sorry, you work in healthcare? As in caring of people who are ill, with the goal of them getting better? There are goals and there are realities. The reality is if your old and/or immuno compromised your more likely to die if you get the corona virus. Without a cure what exactly would you like a healthcare worker to do in that situation? I know that the internet does not convey tone well, so please believe me when I say that I mean this in the most sincere, non-offense way - I think you should find another line of work outside of the healthcare industry. If your default response whenever someone is ill with an unknown illness or an illness in which there is no cure is to suggest that there's nothing to do, then perhaps trying to help those in need of help is your calling. I agree regarding tone via the internet but thats beside the point. That being said I would have you take a hard look at what the current healthcare system has to offer those with flu who become compromised secondary to super infection or "collateral damage" either metabolic, organ etc. If you were aware you might become very alarmed by friend. Many of those who die due to the flu are not able to helped, nothing can be done. They have irreversible organ/lung damage, do not physically have the immune response needed to fight the virus or would only survive in a vegetative state. My initial assumption is your aware there is no cure for covid19 or the the flu, correct? Again, since there is no cure, outside of supportive measures what exactly would you like a healthcare provider to do? I think this is a good segway into why many on social media, the TV, radio, etc are alarmed by the muted response by health care officials, gov, CDC, etc. Outside of universal precautions and quarantining people THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO!!!!!!!! As cherzeca said above. Where is all the outrage regarding the flu? We deal with that every year and 600-800k people die a year!!! Where is the outrage? The compassion? The love???? Not to mention a vaccine would only be what 50% effective for HEALTHY individuals. People don't get it as I said earlier. Rapid compounding spread is inevitable.

I work in healthcare. The only advances that we have come up with in that time that are effective against this are 1) hand washing, 2) contact isolation, 3) mechanical ventilation (but by this point it is already way too late). Also, we severely lack # of ICU beds and resources which will become apparent soon. It is already apparent we lack resources if you look at how testing for this has rolled out. Lack of testing (thus giving visibility) and means of spread prevention are two different things in my opinion. They work together on some level for sure. But for something as infectious as this, if you miss a single person who is infected anywhere it is already too late. In fact the incubation period alone (14 days) is enough to come to the conclusion that stopping spread is pretty much impossible. Even if the US and other countries started preparing for COVID-19 the minute the heard about it, the time frame for vaccine development would still likely be 1 year. If test kits were developed in masses on the first day it still would be too late because individuals are walking around for potentially 14 days with no symptoms. Eventually would most likely show "mild" symptoms that they probably wouldn't seek testing for to begin with. This is wrong though. Basic epidemiology and how R nought works. Each person you contain prevents about 2-3 other infections. You can only contain what you can see. If you're not showing symptoms, you're not getting tested. It's compounding regardless and as you said above there are no hospitals with enough beds. I guess the question is, would testing with quarantine of individuals who test positive slow the compound rate enough to reduce the impact on hospitals? Probably not. And I'm not saying they shouldn't test. I'm just saying everyone's focus on it seems bit overcooked. For example: my wife works in the most advanced level 4 NICU east of the Mississippi. They have a whopping total of 62 beds... Are you trained in epidemiology? This stuff is not rocket science and it is certainly not new. Your argument is like saying “so what if i lose 99% of my portfolio, the remaining 1% will continue to compound and I will be rich someday”. SARS R0 varied a lot during the epidemic. It ranged from 2-15 and hen fell all the way back down to 3. I think we agree more than what you think. There is no vaccine so R0 isn't all that helpful. Testing is helpful to a degree but absent a vaccine impact is minimal. Locking down high risk individuals and limiting their exposure is probably the best. So far 81% of cases have been "mild". "The model we’ve used for our R_0 estimate is phenomenological, which means that it doesn’t aim to *explain* what’s happening on the ground but rather to *describe* it. This is a good option in information-scarce situations, like at the start of a novel viral outbreak (AKA now)." — Dr. Maia Majumder (@maiamajumder) January 24, 2020 How much does R0 matter? R0 is a useful number to understand when it comes to things like determining vaccine targets (the higher the R0, the more people you have to vaccinate to stop the disease from spreading). But the work of containing an outbreak can begin even before we have R0 nailed down. The R0 depends on a few things, including how long a person is contagious, how many susceptible people they tend to interact with, and how transmissible the infectious agent is. That means we can make an epidemic less likely to spread by attacking those particular factors. We can make fewer people susceptible to the virus; that’s what a vaccine does. (There’s no vaccine for the coronavirus yet, but perhaps there will be someday.) You can reduce the amount of time you’re able to spread the virus by staying home if you’re sick. And you can reduce transmissibility through measures like hand washing. These are all good actions to take no matter what the R0 turns out to be, and they’re good advice even for ordinary colds and flu.

I work in healthcare. The only advances that we have come up with in that time that are effective against this are 1) hand washing, 2) contact isolation, 3) mechanical ventilation (but by this point it is already way too late). Also, we severely lack # of ICU beds and resources which will become apparent soon. It is already apparent we lack resources if you look at how testing for this has rolled out. Lack of testing (thus giving visibility) and means of spread prevention are two different things in my opinion. They work together on some level for sure. But for something as infectious as this, if you miss a single person who is infected anywhere it is already too late. In fact the incubation period alone (14 days) is enough to come to the conclusion that stopping spread is pretty much impossible. Even if the US and other countries started preparing for COVID-19 the minute the heard about it, the time frame for vaccine development would still likely be 1 year. If test kits were developed in masses on the first day it still would be too late because individuals are walking around for potentially 14 days with no symptoms. Eventually would most likely show "mild" symptoms that they probably wouldn't seek testing for to begin with. This is wrong though. Basic epidemiology and how R nought works. Each person you contain prevents about 2-3 other infections. You can only contain what you can see. If you're not showing symptoms, you're not getting tested. It's compounding regardless and as you said above there are no hospitals with enough beds. I guess the question is, would testing with quarantine of individuals who test positive slow the compound rate enough to reduce the impact on hospitals? Probably not. And I'm not saying they shouldn't test. I'm just saying everyone's focus on it seems bit overcooked. For example: my wife works in the most advanced level 4 NICU east of the Mississippi. They have a whopping total of 62 beds...

I work in healthcare. The only advances that we have come up with in that time that are effective against this are 1) hand washing, 2) contact isolation, 3) mechanical ventilation (but by this point it is already way too late). Also, we severely lack # of ICU beds and resources which will become apparent soon. It is already apparent we lack resources if you look at how testing for this has rolled out. Lack of testing (thus giving visibility) and means of spread prevention are two different things in my opinion. They work together on some level for sure. But for something as infectious as this, if you miss a single person who is infected anywhere it is already too late. In fact the incubation period alone (14 days) is enough to come to the conclusion that stopping spread is pretty much impossible. Even if the US and other countries started preparing for COVID-19 the minute the heard about it, the time frame for vaccine development would still likely be 1 year. If test kits were developed in masses on the first day it still would be too late because individuals are walking around for potentially 14 days with no symptoms. Eventually would most likely show "mild" symptoms that they probably wouldn't seek testing for to begin with. People are putting way too much emphasis on testing (as if testing is going to stop it). My wife (a healthcare professional) agrees. The best thing is to take spread prevention precautions such as limiting contact with others, washing you hands, drinking lots of water, and staying away from high risk individuals who already have acute or chronic illnesses. Anyone who is at high risk of dying from COVID-19 is going to be treated the say exact way they are treated for the flu. If you have a 80 year old grandmother who spent her life smoking and she developed a severe cough what would you do? You would take them to the doctor and they would be treated with standard protocol. But you would do this both before and after COVID-19 existed. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256521#covid-19 Shutting down schools, daycare and any type of senior care facilities is probably the best course of action.

Lmao that’s pretty good! ;D