KJP Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 cigar, no complete country lockdown. lockdown nursing/lifecare facilities. lockdown elderly in place and within families and provide meal etc services. lockdown those who are obese/diabetes/etc. don't lockdown healthy adults or children. capiche? focus lockdown strategy on those who need it, not stupidly on everyone. we knew very early on who were really threatened by covid. common sense. What does it mean to "lockdown" everyone who is obese, has diabetes, etc.? Do you mean pay them to stay home and not to work? Do you think that would fly politically? In any event, wouldn't your lockdown include 50% or more of the US population? [see, e.g., the 42% obesity rate asserted by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html ]
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 cigar, no complete country lockdown. lockdown nursing/lifecare facilities. lockdown elderly in place and within families and provide meal etc services. lockdown those who are obese/diabetes/etc. don't lockdown healthy adults or children. capiche? focus lockdown strategy on those who need it, not stupidly on everyone. we knew very early on who were really threatened by covid. common sense. Too simple, makes too much sense... @cherzeca Reply #7449 was a second attempt at a constructive discussion. shame on me. Thanks for the post but your answer is an unsubstantiated opinion about an impractical plan. Your post does not help me in completing a retrospective review about what went wrong in my jurisdiction but helps to understand what happened on your side of the border as the fourth region (mid-west) is about to enter the last leg of the first phase. @cubspan Thanks for the additional and insightful analytical input. i'm quite dumb and like to read quotes i don't understand. Are yo aware of one of Einstein's quote that goes like this: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." A fascinating aspect is that the true quote apparently went like this: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." So it looks like somebody aimed to make it simpler than it really is (the quote). ----- For those interested in outcomes based on common-sense applications of data and analysis: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-convalescent-plasma-eua/ While plasma treatment continues to hold potential applications for a variety of conditions, it's likely that future generations will look at this practice as an equivalent to drinking one's urine (disinfected or not).
muscleman Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Warning to people who are still bullish on the market, I think the COVID situation is improving too fast and asset bubble is brewing too quickly and FED may be stopping the QE soon and I expect the market to build a major top here soon. To me, your comment seems to imply that: A) you view the Fed much more influenced by COVID case numbers than employment numbers. Or perhaps, B) you believe that the COVID case numbers are so strongly correlated to the employment numbers so that they're basically the same thing (i.e. if COVID cases decline to zero, employment will quickly return to high levels). Or, C) the Fed cares a lot about asset bubbles and sees this one, so they'll reduce stimulus even if employment hasn't recovered. Is one of these views basically your position? Because the evidence I've seen seems to suggest that the Fed is likely to be reluctant to reduce stimulus until employment numbers return to levels that cause significant inflation. So, I'm curious if you think A, B, or C above is true, or if there's something else that I don't understand about your reasoning that will help bridge that gap for me. Thanks! B. But my bearish view is based on a large amount of data points I track, not just based on COVID alone. Those data points led me to sell out in mid Feburary and I was feeling like a fool for two more weeks back then. Right now those data points look even more exaggerated than in Feb. However, I've been weighing the two scenarios since last night. Sector rotation vs everything crash. I start to lean against the case of a sector rotation right now. When AAPL, TSLA, SHOP etc go bust, traditional value stocks could have their day. People who bought AAPL and TSLA have never bothered to look at what happened in 2000. Cisco was the equivalent of AAPL and TSLA today. When Cisco went into bust, it went down 90% while traditional value stocks like BRK went up 100%
cubsfan Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 @cigarbutt I've always had huge respect for you, unlike some others. Please don't take offense at my comment. I happen to believe in Cherzeca's view. I think the CV19 situation is very much under control in the USA - and we should get back to work - with proper precautions. I'm fine with masks, social distancing and washing hands as the new normal until we have a vaccine - maybe a year off? The elderly and immune compromised should be isolated and protected - period. Let people make their own decisions. We are destroying lives and the economy. I'm a simple guy. There is much we DON'T know about CV19, but we are certainly handling it much, much better than a few months ago. Isolation, suicides, alcohol/drug abuse, child beating, etc, etc, are the other side of the coin. Good luck quantifying it - but it's happening. So many people I know are flat out depressed - still. This is being handled well - let press on with reopening - and stop legistlating nonsense. There are many, many areas of the country where this is not much of a problem. Rules for NYC do not make sense for the countryside. What went from making sure the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, has morphed to let's stamp this thing out and wait for a vaccine, until we reopen. That is economic and societal suicide in my book.
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 ...don't take offense at my comment. I happen to believe in Cherzeca's view. I think the CV19 situation is very much under control in the USA This is being handled well ... No offense. There's nothing wrong with relevant and objective questioning of costs related to excessive restrictions on economic activity. But the collective decisions should not be based, in substance, on what you, cherzeca or your leader "believe", as trust is a depleting asset that needs constant replenishment. Sure, ways to re-open have to be considered but, at this point in your country, people are still dying from Covid every week or two (depending on age and other adjusted data) at a rate similar to the fatalities derived from the World Trade Center Disaster, resulting from a barbarian invasion and giving rise to a modern (and very expensive) crusade against the Axis of Evil. Have you recently met the enemy? Please explain not using an authority or a believe-me mantle. Take the obesity risk factor aspect, as specifically mentioned by KJP. How do you go about that? Age is the big factor but obesity is also very significant. There's this very recent report discussing the importance and relevance of obesity with significant risk for Covid (BMI above 30). And there's this CDC 2020 report that describes the obesity profile in the US. So will the criteria be to "isolate" the above 80, the immunocompromised, the obese and then what? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826083015.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db360-h.pdf
Guest cherzeca Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ hey, good for lawyers...let's keep things shut down!
arcube Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 What large amount of data points? Please share. Thanks. Warning to people who are still bullish on the market, I think the COVID situation is improving too fast and asset bubble is brewing too quickly and FED may be stopping the QE soon and I expect the market to build a major top here soon. To me, your comment seems to imply that: A) you view the Fed much more influenced by COVID case numbers than employment numbers. Or perhaps, B) you believe that the COVID case numbers are so strongly correlated to the employment numbers so that they're basically the same thing (i.e. if COVID cases decline to zero, employment will quickly return to high levels). Or, C) the Fed cares a lot about asset bubbles and sees this one, so they'll reduce stimulus even if employment hasn't recovered. Is one of these views basically your position? Because the evidence I've seen seems to suggest that the Fed is likely to be reluctant to reduce stimulus until employment numbers return to levels that cause significant inflation. So, I'm curious if you think A, B, or C above is true, or if there's something else that I don't understand about your reasoning that will help bridge that gap for me. Thanks! B. But my bearish view is based on a large amount of data points I track, not just based on COVID alone. Those data points led me to sell out in mid Feburary and I was feeling like a fool for two more weeks back then. Right now those data points look even more exaggerated than in Feb. However, I've been weighing the two scenarios since last night. Sector rotation vs everything crash. I start to lean against the case of a sector rotation right now. When AAPL, TSLA, SHOP etc go bust, traditional value stocks could have their day. People who bought AAPL and TSLA have never bothered to look at what happened in 2000. Cisco was the equivalent of AAPL and TSLA today. When Cisco went into bust, it went down 90% while traditional value stocks like BRK went up 100%
cubsfan Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ hey, good for lawyers...let's keep things shut down! Exactly - one of the many "collateral damage" issues. So easy for politicians with safe jobs and pensions to legislate destruction for everyone else. Government needs to get out of the way.
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ hey, good for lawyers...let's keep things shut down! Exactly - one of the many "collateral damage" issues. So easy for politicians with safe jobs and pensions to legislate destruction for everyone else. Government needs to get out of the way. There you go again (both of you)! Assuming that "shut down" is a cause for the rise in the reported divorce rate and not an association, which requires a leap of faith (i guess the usual mode of reasoning for assessments), then you know you're in trouble if/when you realize that spending more time with your loved one will actually imperil your relationship. Did you know that divorce rates in the US went down during the Great Depression and increased significantly after WW2? Using the sophisticated causal assessment tool described in the post article, one perhaps should not have wished for the war to end then.
KCLarkin Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ Fact check: sales of one company's divorce software are up 34%.
cubsfan Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ hey, good for lawyers...let's keep things shut down! Exactly - one of the many "collateral damage" issues. So easy for politicians with safe jobs and pensions to legislate destruction for everyone else. Government needs to get out of the way. There you go again (both of you)! Assuming that "shut down" is a cause for the rise in the reported divorce rate and not an association, which requires a leap of faith (i guess the usual mode of reasoning for assessments), then you know you're in trouble if/when you realize that spending more time with your loved one will actually imperil your relationship. Did you know that divorce rates in the US went down during the Great Depression and increased significantly after WW2? Using the sophisticated causal assessment tool described in the post article, one perhaps should not have wished for the war to end then. So you are saying that job losses, destruction of family businesses, and economic hardship have no link to increased divorce rates? Sorry, I don't buy it. But reasonable people can disagree.
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ hey, good for lawyers...let's keep things shut down! Exactly - one of the many "collateral damage" issues. So easy for politicians with safe jobs and pensions to legislate destruction for everyone else. Government needs to get out of the way. There you go again (both of you)! Assuming that "shut down" is a cause for the rise in the reported divorce rate and not an association, which requires a leap of faith (i guess the usual mode of reasoning for assessments), then you know you're in trouble if/when you realize that spending more time with your loved one will actually imperil your relationship. Did you know that divorce rates in the US went down during the Great Depression and increased significantly after WW2? Using the sophisticated causal assessment tool described in the post article, one perhaps should not have wished for the war to end then. So you are saying that job losses, destruction of family businesses, and economic hardship have no link to increased divorce rates? Sorry, I don't buy it. But reasonable people can disagree. No, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying this needs to be analyzed and reasoned. Simply picking up some info and trying to make it fit into a pre-formed analytical grid that always spouts the same thing runs a high risk of coming up to the wrong conclusion. When trouble hits, sometimes it brings people together and sometimes it pulls them apart and maybe it's largely a communication problem. :)
patience_and_focus Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ Fact check: sales of one company's divorce software are up 34%. Exactly. If only someone would do a simple click to the original source article from the ny post page, it also has following - "During the COVID-19 crisis, we experienced the highest purchase of divorce agreements per capita in the South followed by the Midwest, the West, and the North East. The rate of divorce in the south was two to three times higher than the rest of the US regions. The Southern states with the highest divorce rates were: Mississippi Oklahoma Arkansas Alabama Louisiana" Hmmmm, so states mostly resisting lockdown had higher divorce. May be we should lock down more to save marriage instead of banning gay marriage. :o
Guest cherzeca Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 divorce rate 34% higher in 2020 than 2019. https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/divorce-rates-skyrocket-in-u-s-amid-covid-19/ Fact check: sales of one company's divorce software are up 34%. Exactly. If only someone would do a simple click to the original source article from the ny post page, it also has following - "During the COVID-19 crisis, we experienced the highest purchase of divorce agreements per capita in the South followed by the Midwest, the West, and the North East. The rate of divorce in the south was two to three times higher than the rest of the US regions. The Southern states with the highest divorce rates were: Mississippi Oklahoma Arkansas Alabama Louisiana" Hmmmm, so states mostly resisting lockdown had higher divorce. May be we should lock down more to save marriage instead of banning gay marriage. :o who said anything about gay marriage? must have been cigar...
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 @cherzeca A definition for you, what is a weak argument? A weak argument is one which is illogical, impractical or irrelevant. You've managed to reach all three qualifiers in the last few posts. ::) Have a good night.
RichardGibbons Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 To me, your comment seems to imply that: A) you view the Fed much more influenced by COVID case numbers than employment numbers. Or perhaps, B) you believe that the COVID case numbers are so strongly correlated to the employment numbers so that they're basically the same thing (i.e. if COVID cases decline to zero, employment will quickly return to high levels). Or, C) the Fed cares a lot about asset bubbles and sees this one, so they'll reduce stimulus even if employment hasn't recovered. Is one of these views basically your position? Because the evidence I've seen seems to suggest that the Fed is likely to be reluctant to reduce stimulus until employment numbers return to levels that cause significant inflation. So, I'm curious if you think A, B, or C above is true, or if there's something else that I don't understand about your reasoning that will help bridge that gap for me. Thanks! B. But my bearish view is based on a large amount of data points I track, not just based on COVID alone. Those data points led me to sell out in mid Feburary and I was feeling like a fool for two more weeks back then. Right now those data points look even more exaggerated than in Feb. However, I've been weighing the two scenarios since last night. Sector rotation vs everything crash. I start to lean against the case of a sector rotation right now. When AAPL, TSLA, SHOP etc go bust, traditional value stocks could have their day. People who bought AAPL and TSLA have never bothered to look at what happened in 2000. Cisco was the equivalent of AAPL and TSLA today. When Cisco went into bust, it went down 90% while traditional value stocks like BRK went up 100% Thanks Muscleman--given that premise, your point of view makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining it.
mattee2264 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 I can't see the Fed taking away the punchbowl. They are gonna keep interest rates low for longer and will be forced to continue to print money to fund government borrowing. They've essentially ruled out pre-emptive tightening which they made a half hearted attempt at doing a few times post-crisis. And they've made it pretty clear they don't care what the stock market does. Big Tech right now seem to offer growth, defence and safety. No wonder they are one decision stocks. As COVID has forced everyone to move online and decimated their offline competitors they have benefited from increasing adoption as well as increasing usage. And with increasing returns to scale that massively increases their earning power. But there seem to be multiple ways to lose. My first concern is that they've borrowed against the future. A lot of late adopters have jumped onboard. They've taken business away from offline competitors by fiat. Usage has increased because we are spending most of our lives online now. So while this year you will see an acceleration in revenues because of this there will soon be a slowdown in revenue growth and that could trigger a sell-off. And this could be true even if the new normal is working from home, streaming all our entertainment and doing most of our shopping online. You can only consume so much cloud and so much TV and so much groceries etc. And I suspect that once a vaccine is developed people will want a bit more of an online-offline balance. Most companies will want their employees to come into the office at least a few days a week which will allow them to economize on cloud usage. People will start going to movie theaters, nightclubs, bars more often and spend less of their time bingeing Netflix. And retail therapy will give way to more travel and nights out. My second concern is that in a lot of their new markets they are in competition against each other. That isn't a big deal when those new markets are growing very fast (helped of course by COVID-19) but eventually they will collide. I'm thinking cloud and streaming in particular. I see this as more of a longer term headwind. My third concern is the law of large numbers. As market share gains become harder to achieve GDP growth will become more of an anchor and I think we are still stuck in a low growth world. My fourth concern is that if the economy takes another hit they aren't gonna be immune because consumers and businesses have already reallocated much of their budgets towards Big Tech so if their incomes and profits decline further they will have to cut spending on Big Tech. My final concern is that even if there is a V shaped recovery and it doesn't result in a massive lurch from online to offline spending this will probably lead to a rise in long term interest rates which reflect inflation expectations which should be a lot higher in this scenario. This should lead to some multiple compression which will hit growth stocks hardest. Although I expect that this will be more of a long term tailwind. But I think while a sell off is probably on the cards at some point it won't be extreme. Perhaps a 20-30% decline. I think a greater concern is that long term returns are probably going to be disappointing. I think with traditional value stocks what is gonna happen to them will depend on the course of the virus and the economy. Most of them have already recovered quite nicely from the March lows and seem to be pricing in a quite optimistic recovery scenario. So while traditional value stocks may look relatively cheap I do not think they are that cheap in absolute terms the way they were as a class in the late 90s. And where they are they are perhaps justifiably so.
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/herman-cain-s-twitter-says-covid-19-not-as-deadly-as-media-implies-he-died-of-covid-19/ar-BB18BhaU?ocid=msedgntp Sad Here's a man, a real one, Who held to his strong opinions, Who clinged to his deep beliefs, Until the very end. Whatever it took. Was it in Tulsa? Or in Arizona? But in my book, A failure to mend, A foolish disregard for mischiefs, A blind faith to wrong convictions, And now he's gone. He was 74.
DooDiligence Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/herman-cain-s-twitter-says-covid-19-not-as-deadly-as-media-implies-he-died-of-covid-19/ar-BB18BhaU?ocid=msedgntp Sad Here's a man, a real one, Who held to his strong opinions, Who clinged to his deep beliefs, Until the very end. Whatever it took. Was it in Tulsa? Or in Arizona? But in my book, A failure to mend, A foolish disregard for mischiefs, A blind faith to wrong convictions, And now he's gone. He was 74. A fitting epitaph. "We need a leader, not a reader." - Herman Cain or was it president Schwarzenegger?
John Hjorth Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Cigarbutt, I hope that you've "cooled down" - a bit - on a [hopefully] good night's sleep, while at the same time, you never "hit the roof" or "go ballistic" based on something posted here on CoBF [, to the contrary to me, - now and then].
Gregmal Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Ah yes, the "he downplayed the virus and died from it" subject. If I downplay the risks of driving my car, and then die in an auto accident, it doesnt change the reality of how safe/unsafe driving is. But it may be a "gotcha" point for people who dont like me or something. Anyway, Cain was what? 75?
KCLarkin Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Ah yes, the "he downplayed the virus and died from it" subject. If I downplay the risks of driving my car, and then die in an auto accident, it doesnt change the reality of how safe/unsafe driving is. You have inadvertently clarified the major fault lines in this thread. If you downplay the risks of driving, it absolutely changes the risk level of driving. You drive a little faster, run yellow lights, text, drive after a beer. And risk doesn't rise linearly, so small behaviour changes dramatically increase your risk. And it doesn't just change your risk, you increase the risk for everyone else on the road. the estimated risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately 9% if they are hit at a speed of 30 mph. The risk at an impact speed of 40 mph is much higher, at approximately 50%. The same thing happens when you downplay the risk of a pandemic.
Gregmal Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Ah yes, the "he downplayed the virus and died from it" subject. If I downplay the risks of driving my car, and then die in an auto accident, it doesnt change the reality of how safe/unsafe driving is. You have inadvertently clarified the major fault lines in this thread. If you downplay the risks of driving, it absolutely changes the risk level of driving. You drive a little faster, run yellow lights, text, drive after a beer. And risk doesn't rise linearly, so small behaviour changes dramatically increase your risk. And it doesn't just change your risk, you increase the risk for everyone else on the road. the estimated risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately 9% if they are hit at a speed of 30 mph. The risk at an impact speed of 40 mph is much higher, at approximately 50%. The same thing happens when you downplay the risk of a pandemic. These are just faulty assumptions. I dont think driving is risky at all, and I dont do any of those things. I also dont think the pandemic is an extinction level event, but I wear a mask and keep my distance... What basis do you have to form the conclusion that someone who doesnt think driving is super dangerous has to be someone who is reckless/careless?
Castanza Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Ah yes, the "he downplayed the virus and died from it" subject. If I downplay the risks of driving my car, and then die in an auto accident, it doesnt change the reality of how safe/unsafe driving is. You have inadvertently clarified the major fault lines in this thread. If you downplay the risks of driving, it absolutely changes the risk level of driving. You drive a little faster, run yellow lights, text, drive after a beer. And risk doesn't rise linearly, so small behaviour changes dramatically increase your risk. And it doesn't just change your risk, you increase the risk for everyone else on the road. the estimated risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately 9% if they are hit at a speed of 30 mph. The risk at an impact speed of 40 mph is much higher, at approximately 50%. The same thing happens when you downplay the risk of a pandemic. Who do insurance companies target with high premiums for driving? Young teenage males and elderly drivers. Targeted solutions for higher risk individuals.
Cigarbutt Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Cigarbutt, I hope that you've "cooled down" - a bit - on a [hopefully] good night's sleep, while at the same time, you never "hit the roof" or "go ballistic" based on something posted here on CoBF [, to the contrary to me, - now and then]. i slept like a baby, thanks for asking. This AM, i walked with my youngest daughter on her way to the bus corner (first day of school for many here). It's really hard to be mad at life when seeing what she is becoming. FWIW, education authorities here (IMO) are navigating the return to school turbulence based on a reasonable course and a few compromises. It seems that they are using 'foreign' inputs for vicarious learning: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/01/898184566/how-denmark-is-thinking-about-reopening-schools-safely https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/switzerland-denmark-school-reopening-plan-covid-19-1.5683975 The importance of education can't be stressed enough. To learn the basics, ways to think, learn how to learn, rights and responsibilities of citizenship etc About the intensity of last night's exchanges, it happens rarely but, when it happens, my level of interest (for a person, an investment opportunity, a topic) can reach unusual levels and the coronavirus topic has been a relative focus lately. Hopefully, the exchanges are helpful for somebody. Helping others to help themselves tends to be productive while simply helping enters a territory of diminishing returns. And of course there's those that can't be helped.
Recommended Posts