Coronavirus

[Liberty]

Looks like US is going for herd immunity.

 

People won't stay home anymore when they see large protests like this. It'll suck for healthcare workers, but US will get to herd immunity faster.

 

Herd immunity: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

 

 

[Gregmal]

It will be curious to see how these play out. I dont think any of these red states will go full shutdown over a few thousand cases a day or whatever. But I would imagine this would effect people mentally and as we ve seen the corporations who probably are acting out of 1) genuine concern and 2) not wanting the liability/blood on their hands; so they err on the side of caution such as SBUX did with many of its drive through location and what most corporate offices are currently doing. As with most socially responsible acts, this will obviously have a cost, which will be bore by shareholders as their allocation of the profits dwindles and in some cases, their per share ownership gets diluted.

 

I'm also eagerly anticipating seeing everyone who missed the massive rally get excited and say "see! I was right to be in cash", after a 10-20% retreat. Which I will buy again. And others will probably completely miss. Maybe Buffett gets a mulligan.

 

I agree about the psychology of the trading range as others have said. I dont see the recent highs being eclipsed for a while. So play the ranges.

[Peregrine]

One more thing about the rise in hospitalizations in some states: because hospitals put off elective surgeries and people were completely avoiding hospitals over the last few months, there has been a sizeable backlog of people coming in over the recent weeks. Anyone who enters the hospital gets tested for COVID so even those who come in for completely different ailments and are asymptomatic will be listed as a COVID hospitalization if they test positive for it. With that said, there has not been anywhere close to the huge spikes we saw in NYC.

[mattee2264]

 

Re-opening is a series of steps. So the logical response to a rise in cases is to take a step back and see if cases stabilize and if they don't take a further step back. And if cases explode take a leap back. I think containment is the goal rather than expecting to achieve zero cases and I also think that in re-opening it is to be expected there will be a rise in cases. So agree that a few thousand cases a day isn't going to set off any alarm bells and watchful waiting is going to be the most likely response.

 

And yeah so long as the virus is in circulation a lot of people are gonna continue to WFH if at all possible and it will be difficult for businesses to force them to come into work. Especially in a big city reliant on public transport I cannot expect people being willing to brave the rush hour. And WFH will probably depress productivity and discourage all but essential hiring.

 

And yeah I think we are going to see risk-on/risk-off trading for a while. That isn't enough to cause a crash or a melt-up. But could create some good buying opportunities especially as while the S&P 500 may only correct 10-20% the more cyclical stuff such as energy, financials, travel related stocks etc are going to have much bigger moves.

[StubbleJumper]

The interesting case is New York City. Despite widespread protests beginning about two weeks ago, COVID positivity rate and new hospitalizations continue to come down day after day. This may indicate that a place like NYC has already reached a level of herd immunity and that you don't need to see immunity get anywhere near the 70% level that everyone says is needed to see the R0 fall below 1. FYI, antibody testing in NYC suggests 20-25% infection rate - so maybe that's even enough.

 

 

NYC was showing 21% with antibodies on April 23, so what would it be today?  Would it be as high as 30% today (7 weeks later), or is that dreaming in Technicolour?  Right off the top, that would cut the R0 by 30%....

 

 

SJ

[Spekulatius]

One more thing about the rise in hospitalizations in some states: because hospitals put off elective surgeries and people were completely avoiding hospitals over the last few months, there has been a sizeable backlog of people coming in over the recent weeks. Anyone who enters the hospital gets tested for COVID so even those who come in for completely different ailments and are asymptomatic will be listed as a COVID hospitalization if they test positive for it. With that said, there has not been anywhere close to the huge spikes we saw in NYC.

 

Yes, it is important to keep the hospitals open. The most critical number to look at is hospitalizations, which isn’t really impacted by testing rate. I also look at %positive tested. What you don’t want to see is all these three (including tested positive #) indicators shooting up rapidly, which is the code in AZ, FL and a few other stated right now.

 

Any lockdown will be driven by hospital utilization’s. Color of the state (blue or red) won’t matter. Once hospital space gets tight, I think any state will start various lockdown measures.

[Gregmal]

With several vaccine candidates stating it could be ready by September, I think these instances are less concerning than the ones a couple months ago. Passing time here is the important thing. Slowing the pace of spread. The areas will likely fluctuate, but the key thing is that A LOT of the US is naturally distanced. Many of the suburbs. Honing in on specific areas and activities for another 3-4 months is a lot easier and more defined a course of action than whatever the fuck it was everyone was guessing we do back in February and March. This is partially why I think the coastal states have purposely dragged their feet opening. Killing another week or two before roll out buys you a lot more than another week or two of time, if that makes sense.

[Liberty]

People make it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

We can see what works elsewhere.

 

The way to keep the economic AND human suffering to a minimum is to keep R0 below 1 and as low as possible.

 

The way to do this is first with the hammer (lockdown), which we've done in many places, and then have everybody wear masks, have hand washing stations everywhere in public spaces, try to have as much social distancing as possible in public spaces, have contact tracing, heck, recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. All this is basically free compared to letting things blow up again (well, much better than free.. huge positive value)... All no-brainers that have worked elsewhere. Anyone sane would be pushing hard on this. If even Italy can get things under control, anyone can...

[Peregrine]

Anyone sane would be pushing hard on this. If even Italy can get things under control, anyone can...

 

Comparing new case counts in Italy to that of the US is disingenuous. For one, Italy is a far smaller country while the US is much more spread out. And two, the worst hit places in Italy likely already have a sufficient degree of immunity such that their numbers continue to fall even with limited mitigation. New York's numbers looks a lot like Italy's for instance - and this despite having widespread crowded protests daily for more than two weeks already.

[Liberty]

Anyone sane would be pushing hard on this. If even Italy can get things under control, anyone can...

 

Comparing new case counts in Italy to that of the US is disingenuous. For one, Italy is a far smaller country while the US is much more spread out. And two, the worst hit places in Italy likely already have a sufficient degree of immunity such that their numbers continue to fall even with limited mitigation. New York's numbers looks a lot like Italy's for instance - and this despite having widespread crowded protests daily for more than two weeks already.

 

It's not what I'm doing.

[Peregrine]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

When Italy is better run than the US...

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Comparing new case counts in Italy to that of the US is disingenuous.

 

Saying he is 'disingenuous' is a bit harsh and there are other explanations for his remarks:

disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does:

 

Such as not first considering your points made here, and doing so because you had not yet made these points:

 

For one, Italy is a far smaller country while the US is much more spread out. And two, the worst hit places in Italy likely already have a sufficient degree of immunity such that their numbers continue to fall even with limited mitigation. New York's numbers looks a lot like Italy's for instance - and this despite having widespread crowded protests daily for more than two weeks already.

[Peregrine]

Comparing new case counts in Italy to that of the US is disingenuous.

 

Saying he is 'disingenuous' is a bit harsh and there are other explanations for his remarks:

disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does:

 

Such as not first considering your points made here, and doing so because you had not yet made these points:

 

For one, Italy is a far smaller country while the US is much more spread out. And two, the worst hit places in Italy likely already have a sufficient degree of immunity such that their numbers continue to fall even with limited mitigation. New York's numbers looks a lot like Italy's for instance - and this despite having widespread crowded protests daily for more than two weeks already.

 

Agreed - poor choice of words. What I meant was that the comparison wasn't properly contextualized.

[Liberty]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

Yeah, it's not about the nominal number of cases. Italy has 60m people, so talks of herd immunity after 35k deaths doesn't make sense. A country known for chaos and bad management has been able to totally crush its curve while the US has one of the worst curves in the world (which isn't surprising when you look at how bungled almost everything has been from leadership). 4.3% of world population with over 27% of deaths so far.

[Peregrine]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

Yeah, it's not about the nominal number of cases. Italy has 60m people, so talks of herd immunity after 35k deaths doesn't make sense. A country known for chaos and bad management has been able to totally crush its curve while the US has one of the worst curves in the world (which isn't surprising when you look at how bungled almost everything has been from leadership). 4.3% of world population with over 27% of deaths so far.

 

The data coming out of the hardest hit places have been quite positive IMO: case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

As far as deaths per 1mm pop, US is at 351 vs Italy's 566.

[Liberty]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

Yeah, it's not about the nominal number of cases. Italy has 60m people, so talks of herd immunity after 35k deaths doesn't make sense. A country known for chaos and bad management has been able to totally crush its curve while the US has one of the worst curves in the world (which isn't surprising when you look at how bungled almost everything has been from leadership). 4.3% of world population with over 27% of deaths so far.

 

The data coming out of the hardest hit places have been quite positive IMO: case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

Has the very high false-positive rates in serum tests been addressed? I don't put much weight on those.

 

Trying to spin things to say that the US hasn't made things much worse than they had to be isn't realistic. Weeks and weeks were wasted, opportunities to push masks were wasted, the federal government mostly hindered states and did little at crucial times, everything was politicized and made confusing to citizens, etc.

 

 

As far as deaths per 1mm pop, US is at 351 vs Italy's 566.

 

Not a good time to compare both when one country has almost no new cases for a while while the others a bunch more coming in, since it can take weeks for deaths after infection.  Italy's median age of 46 (vs US at 39) and multi-generational homes certainly didn't help it there too, but that just shows how much worse the US would be if it also had those demographics and cultural traditions.

[Peregrine]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

Yeah, it's not about the nominal number of cases. Italy has 60m people, so talks of herd immunity after 35k deaths doesn't make sense. A country known for chaos and bad management has been able to totally crush its curve while the US has one of the worst curves in the world (which isn't surprising when you look at how bungled almost everything has been from leadership). 4.3% of world population with over 27% of deaths so far.

 

The data coming out of the hardest hit places have been quite positive IMO: case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

Has the very high false-positive rates in serum tests been addressed? I don't put much weight on those.

 

Trying to spin things to say that the US hasn't made things much worse than they had to be isn't realistic. Weeks and weeks were wasted, opportunities to push masks were wasted, the federal government mostly hindered states and did little at crucial times, everything was politicized and made confusing to citizens, etc.

 

 

Not it hasn't which is why serology tests for those with limited outbreaks (i.e. the Santa Clara study) or for individuals aren't useful. Serology tests in places with far more widespread outbreaks provide a much better gauge of the population's exposure level and it may well even understate the level of exposure at the time the tests were taken given the weeks it takes for antibodies to appear + sampling bias that favors a less susceptible population (i.e. healthy people going into grocery stores). Either way, it's the hardest hit places that are seeing their numbers decline fastest.

 

Not trying to put a spin on anything just providing data points that show that the transmissibility of the virus may be far less potent than what many originally thought.

[ERICOPOLY]

case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

This may be due to people of certain lifestyles, such as that of the bus driver or the hair dresser, who are most at risk to contract the virus in the first place, and while they have the virus are likely to spread it to the greatest number of people. 

 

Such people probably test at higher than 20%-30%.  If they don't, throw all common sense out the window.

[Liberty]

You're not? Sorry I may have been mistaken since you put this chart up a few posts ago.

 

Yeah, it's not about the nominal number of cases. Italy has 60m people, so talks of herd immunity after 35k deaths doesn't make sense. A country known for chaos and bad management has been able to totally crush its curve while the US has one of the worst curves in the world (which isn't surprising when you look at how bungled almost everything has been from leadership). 4.3% of world population with over 27% of deaths so far.

 

The data coming out of the hardest hit places have been quite positive IMO: case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

Has the very high false-positive rates in serum tests been addressed? I don't put much weight on those.

 

Trying to spin things to say that the US hasn't made things much worse than they had to be isn't realistic. Weeks and weeks were wasted, opportunities to push masks were wasted, the federal government mostly hindered states and did little at crucial times, everything was politicized and made confusing to citizens, etc.

 

 

Not it hasn't which is why serology tests for those with limited outbreaks (i.e. the Santa Clara study) or for individuals aren't useful. Serology tests in places with far more widespread outbreaks provide a much better gauge of the population's exposure level and it may well even understate the level of exposure at the time the tests were taken given the weeks it takes for antibodies to appear + sampling bias that favors a less susceptible population (i.e. healthy people going into grocery stores). Either way, it's the hardest hit places that are seeing their numbers decline fastest.

 

Not trying to put a spin on anything just providing data points that show that the transmissibility of the virus may be far less potent than what many originally thought.

 

I agree the virus is probably less dangerous than initially thought, though still pretty bad (115k deaths in the US after a few months, far from the end of the crisis), but you don't gamble on that during the initial confusion and panic, you take precautions and do the things that you know work, as they more than pay for themselves early on in an exponential process. If those had been taken well, we'd be in much better shape now, like SK/NZ/Taiwan/HK/etc, but that was bungled.

 

I was looking at the high-level trends for whole countries (ie. Italy vs US, but you can look at lots of other countries that were hit hard but crushed their curve*). I agree serum can provide some info for specific highly-infected areas, but I wasn't looking at areas there so I'm not sure what it has to do with it.

 

*

[Peregrine]

case counts, hospitalizations and positive test rates have been dropping steepest in the places that have seen the worst outbreaks yet serology testing in those places suggests 20-30% infection rates in those populations. This suggests that we might not need anywhere near the arbitrary but oft-cited 70% infection rate level to see sharp declines in the virus's prevalence.

 

This may be due to people of certain lifestyles, such as that of the bus driver or the hair dresser, who are most at risk to contract the virus in the first place, and while they have the virus are likely to spread it to the greatest number of people. 

 

Such people probably test at higher than 20%-30%.  If they don't, throw all common sense out the window.

 

Could be - there's been strong evidence of the 80/20 rule - superspreaders accounting for the lion's share of transmission.

 

There's also strong evidence that susceptibility varies highly across the population - that some people are just a lot more susceptible to being infected when exposed to the virus, namely the old.

 

Either way, both data points suggest that we likely don't need 70% of the population infected to see R0 fall sufficiently under 1 to see large case declines. Hell, New York State's estimated R0 has fallen to the 0.7 level and serology tests show 13% of the population have tested positive for antibodies.

[KCLarkin]

Not trying to put a spin on anything just providing data points that show that the transmissibility of the virus may be far less potent than what many originally thought.

 

Seems to be a very high correlation between countries that believe this and deaths/million.

[Jurgis]

Hell, New York State's estimated R0 has fallen to the 0.7 level and serology tests show 13% of the population have tested positive for antibodies.

 

And you are sure thie R0 decline is because of the 13% population testing positive and not because of the lockdown/social-distancing/masks?  ::)

[Peregrine]

Hell, New York State's estimated R0 has fallen to the 0.7 level and serology tests show 13% of the population have tested positive for antibodies.

 

And you are sure thie R0 decline is because of the 13% population testing positive and not because of the lockdown/social-distancing/masks?  ::)

 

I think a whole host of factors are at play. But the speed of the decline in New York City vis-a-vis other cities (that have also instituted lockdowns and changed their behaviors) suggests that the relatively higher levels of infection already in place have a strong deterence on the virus's transmissibility.

 

Btw, New Yorkers haven't really abided by social distancing for the last few weeks and positivity rates are at 1.7% versus the rest of the country at 5-6%.

[John Hjorth]

... I think a whole host of factors are at play. But the speed of the decline in New York City vis-a-vis other cities (that have also instituted lockdowns and changed their behaviors) suggests that the relatively higher levels of infection already in place have a strong deterence on the virus's transmissibility. ...

 

Personally, for me, there is no way for me to pursue this line of thinking. Personally, I consider it a line of "sleeping pillow" thinking. I hope my quoting is not considered unfair.

[Peregrine]

Interesting. Maybe just wearing masks is enough to halt the spread - two COVID-positive symptomatic hairstylists who wore masks saw 140 customers over 8 days and none of them have tested positive since.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/us/missouri-hairstylists-coronavirus-clients-trnd/index.html