Coronavirus

[KCLarkin]

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

It is possible. AND the situation in Italy shows that a strong response is required. With more widespread testing and better controls, these lockdowns would not be necessary.

[Liberty]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

The market is forward-looking. As long as there's no testing going on, nothing was shutdown and hospitals didn't have more peak capacity and measures in place to deal with this (fever clinics, etc), then it was going to get much much worse. Now that a lot of the world is starting to react, the trajectory is probably being shifted in a better direction, but a lot of damage has already been done by the slow and inept reaction. Remember, what we're seeing now are infections from many days ago, there's a lag in the system, and a lot of symptomatic people were running around spreading it.

[LC]

We can only derive outcomes from information. Quality of information determines precision. Let's look at the responses:

 

The market has seen massive swings in either direction.

Trump's administration is flailing about like a fish

FRB is pumping money on autopilot - they've got a hammer and everything is turning into a nail

State responses have been on either end - Colorado shuts down its skiing, Beaches still open in Florida. NYC is a ghost town.

 

I would argue the volatility (i.e. imprecision) in all these actions is all driven by lack of information. Trump's administration shat the bed on this one 1.5 months ago when they should've been preparing test kits.

[cobafdek]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react. 

[adesigar]

Dont know if this has been posted already

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8115879/COVID-19-Australian-researchers-CURE-coronavirus.html

 

Edit

The drug Chloroquine was also used in the french research posted earlier.

 

 

 

 

[LC]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

I disagree with the bolded statements. The first, we can obtain accurate (i.e. representative) information with widespread testing. The second, you cannot possible know this without knowing the first. The most you can say is, a pandemic response may be warranted:

 

Pandemic responses are warranted in one of two cases:

 

Case 1- We do know that we are dealing with a high-magnitude pandemic.

Case 2- We don't know, and therefore are taking a precautionary stance.

 

The US (and the world) is in Case 2. Globally we do not have reliable information as the article posted by minten illustrates. We are extrapolating from tens, hundreds, and thousands of cases to ten and hundred millions of cases. Statistically, our conclusions are subject to excessive sampling bias.

 

We want to be in Case 1 - where we do know. The only way to do that is widespread testing, which did not happen. Now, we are potentially making inaccurate decisions.

 

We are slowly moving from Case 2 to Case 1. I am arguing the speed of this movement is too slow, particularly from the US point-of-view where we had both the resources and head-start to achieve a Case 1 decision more efficiently.

[Liberty]

Interview with Italian doctor: https://overcast.fm/+LHycp1NFU

[Read the Footnotes]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

I disagree with the bolded statements. The first, we can obtain accurate (i.e. representative) information with widespread testing. The second, you cannot possible know this without knowing the first. The most you can say is, a pandemic response may be warranted:

 

Pandemic responses are warranted in one of two cases:

 

Case 1- We do know that we are dealing with a high-magnitude pandemic.

Case 2- We don't know, and therefore are taking a precautionary stance.

 

The US (and the world) is in Case 2. Globally we do not have reliable information as the article posted by minten illustrates. We are extrapolating from tens, hundreds, and thousands of cases to ten and hundred millions of cases. Statistically, our conclusions are subject to excessive sampling bias.

 

We want to be in Case 1 - where we do know. The only way to do that is widespread testing, which did not happen. Now, we are potentially making inaccurate decisions.

 

We are slowly moving from Case 2 to Case 1. I am arguing the speed of this movement is too slow, particularly from the US point-of-view where we had both the resources and head-start to achieve a Case 1 decision more efficiently.

 

How times change. I'm glad this is finally now the level of conversation people are engaging in.

Much better than "hoax" and "just a cold"

[minten]

Daily Italy update:

 

New cases:

 

11-03: 2313

12-03: 2651

13-03: 2547

14-03: 3497

15-03: 3590

16-03: 3233

17-03: 3526

 

New deaths:

 

11-03: 196

12-03: 189

13-03: 250

14-03: 175

15-03: 368

16-03: 349

17-03: 345

 

Anybody left that wants to argue exponential growth into the millions?  We're still a few days away from the lockdown effects kicking stats down though.

[Spekulatius]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

I agree. There is definitely a chance that we are overreacting , but in the absence of good information, what is the alternative?

Personally, I think we are probably under reacting to the changes  as a whole. There are large parts of the population that act as if nothing has happened. I have in my personal circle (work colleagues, neighbors) a lot of folks who are totally misinformed and totally underestimate the severity of the situation,  both in terms of the epidemics as well as the economic consequences. I actually think that the latter one is what is going to take much more time.

 

I live and work in a pretty rural area, so that perhaps why. Other than supermarket shelves being empty, people here have not seen much change yet. Even my wife working at hospitals noticed so far that it is quite (quieter than usual, because they moved many patient out to make space). I am sure this will change quickly.

 

If you like anecdotes, We have acquaintances who went shopping for a truck this weekend in Boston. I also had a colleague coming in this AM he believed there are only 400 infections in the US. he was surprised when I told him that this is probably the official number for MA alone today. I think the collective group here is aware that the Titanic hit an iceberg, but a lot of people believe this is actually all but media hysteria, or just don’t care about the news.

[cobafdek]

The first, we can obtain accurate (i.e. representative) information with widespread testing.

 

True, but only after-the-fact, usually LONG after the fact.  Accuracy of a test can be determined only retrospectively.  By then it may be too late.

 

Case 1- We do know that we are dealing with a high-magnitude pandemic.

 

Again, by the time we "do know," it may be too late.  Furthermore, Case 1 is not a scientific statement.  Philosophically and technically speaking, science does not "verify" anything.  It can only falsify.  All scientific knowledge is provisional.  Humans only "think" something is "confirmed" by science, when in fact that something is merely not falsified.  Then the black swan comes, and only then we will know something for certain, that that something is false.  It's the problem of induction that cannot be overcome with more information and data.

 

Sometime in the future, we will "know" (that is, have a better idea) how serious this pandemic is with higher accuracy.  By then, we will have enough data to get to a probability level high enough to feel certain.  But certainty in medicine is an illusion.  Especially early in a pandemic.

[Dalal.Holdings]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

Better to over-react and survive, albeit with damage, than to underr-eact and die.

[Read the Footnotes]

 

I agree. There is definitely a chance that we are overreacting , but in the absence of good information, what is the alternative?

 

I think there's little chance we are overracting, but a massive risk of people who don't understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will start saying some enormously ignorant things at some point. Calling it a cold is out of style now, but the next wave of ignorance will be various forms of denying the impact of interventions.

 

Personally, I think we are probably under reacting to the changes  as a whole.

 

Germany apparently recently said that controls could stay in place for two years.

What I read was not inconsistent with scenarios from the model I built way back in January, but I agree most people aren't thinking this is going to last more than 2 weeks.

Spek, Have you been keeping up on what Germany has been saying? Thoughts?

 

For those looking for different ways that forecasts have been communicated in English, I would recommend:

-The communication in England has been more direct and clear (regardless of what you think of their policy)

-South Africa has also communicated admirably

-Washington State's communications at one point was a better window than the federal Government. That gap has probably narrowed.

 

If you like anecdotes, We have acquaintances who went shopping for a truck this weekend in Boston. I also had a colleague coming in this AM he believed there are only 400 infections in the US. he was surprised when I told him that this is probably the official number for MA alone today. I think the collective group here is aware that the Titanic hit an iceberg, but a lot of people believe this is actually all but media hysteria, or just don’t care about the news.

I like your anecdotes.

I'll reciprocate. I have been communicating with a lot of doctors from around North America. One of them I kept arguing with him not to do something stupid in his personal life. Well guess who's under quarantine now? Excellent doc, but just because he's good in his specialty doesn't mean he's good at stats, probability, or risk assessment.

[Read the Footnotes]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now.

[Liberty]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/science/coronavirus-math-mitigation-distancing.html

 

"An extremely simple chart showing how important timing is with exponential growth. You can stop one COVID-19 infection today and avert 2,400 infections in the next 30 days OR wait one week to stop the infection and avert 600 cases. The power of just one"

[Dalal.Holdings]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

Better to over-react and survive, albeit with damage, than to underr-eact and die.

 

"In order to succeed, you must first survive" --WEB

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/coronavirus-uk-strategy-deaths

 

The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government.

 

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

 

This is what you happens when you try to combat a viral outbreak by listening to "nudge boy" behavioral economists and pseudoscientists.

 

Rapidly achieving "herd immunity" sounds good on paper, but then you have to actually think about what will happen on the way to getting there...

 

Some people still clearly have not learned the basic "flatten the curve" concept.

[cobafdek]

interesting well-argumented contrarian opinion piece from an epidemiology professor on why fatality ratio of this virus might be much lower than we think:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?utm_content=buffere08f7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic

 

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

[minten]

I agree. There is definitely a chance that we are overreacting , but in the absence of good information, what is the alternative?

 

I agree as well. I'm perfectly OK with measures that are currently being taken, because we don't have enough data yet not to take them. But when data does become available (which is happening more and more) it must be judged fairly, and not ignored by those who are too pot committed to their own train of thought or too hypocritical to look at what's real and what is hype.

We mustn't be biased into thinking any life taken by this virus is somehow more important than a life taken by whatever else. At some point, we can't keep closing our eyes to all the death that's being caused by economic damage caused by excessive containment (Germany's two years of control? what?), because simply we are too busy in tunnelvision looking only at the death caused by this virus.

 

There's literally death everywhere on this planet, all the time, and we ignore almost all of it without losing a day's sleep. This cannot be any different because this time we happen to see it on our Twitter timeline all day.

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

interesting well-argumented contrarian opinion piece from an epidemiology professor on why fatality ratio of this virus might be much lower than we think:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?utm_content=buffere08f7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic

 

 

Thank you.  It offers an answer to the challenge posed earlier with regards to possible Diamond Princess deaths that went uncounted.

 

It basically suggests that the mortality rate of COVID-19 amongst the general population would still be lower than 1% because the population on that cruise ship was much older on average.

[Spekulatius]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now.

 

Yes Andrew Young (UBI), Liz Warren (student loan interest rates forgiven) won, Bernie (Medicare for all) is next. It’s free for all, Airlines, Cruise lines are already fed in the soup line. Shale and Energy is begging. I guess the lobbyists for all the industries are working overtime.

 

Clearly, we have an extraordinary economic situation, but it is still surprising to see much more government intervention than in countries that are called socialist here. I’d be more in favor of something that helps individuals, if we have learned anything from the GFC it should have been that.

[Liberty]

interesting well-argumented contrarian opinion piece from an epidemiology professor on why fatality ratio of this virus might be much lower than we think:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?utm_content=buffere08f7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_organic

 

 

Thank you.  It offers an answer to the challenge posed earlier with regards to possible Diamond Princess deaths that went uncounted.

 

It basically suggests that the mortality rate of COVID-19 amongst the general population would still be lower than 1% because the population on that cruise ship was much older on average.

 

Yes, but very small sample size. Only 7 deaths on that ship. Not the most reliable stats. Obviously I hope the death rate is very low, but let's also remember that many of those who don't die can get very serious pneumonia and have permanent lung damage, including younger people.

 

What's happening now with the healthcare system in Italy shows that it should be taken very seriously and not allowed to spread quickly. I recommend this interview with a doctor there: https://overcast.fm/+LHycp1NFU

[KJP]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now.

 

Yes Andrew Young (UBI), Liz Warren (student loan interest rates forgiven) won, Bernie (Medicare for all) is next. It’s free for all, Airlines, Cruise lines are already fed in the soup line. Shale and Energy is begging. I guess the lobbyists for all the industries are working overtime.

 

Clearly, we have an extraordinary economic situation, but it is still surprising to see much more government intervention than in countries that are called socialist here. I’d be more in favor of something that helps individuals, if we have learned anything from the GFC it should have been that.

 

Probably the wrong thread for this comment, but I doubt Democrats will go along with handing money to shareholders.  Warren has come out with an 8-point "litmus test" for "bailouts to corporations."  I like Warren much more than most people on this board appear to, but even I think much of it is misguided, though I expect she's just layout out a bargaining position.

[Dalal.Holdings]

minten, thank you for posting. This explains why testing i.e. accurate information is a critical factor in early stage viral outbreaks.

 

For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

 

This is incorrect, and dangerous thinking.

 

It is true:  accurate information is a critical factor, but it is not possible for humans to obtain such early in these viral outbreaks.

 

The pandemic response is warranted - the precautionary principle is the only guide that would ensure the survival of the species.

 

In these situations, you don't need accurate knowledge of the probabilities in order to know what to do.

 

Our emotions and stress are wiser guide than our intelligence in deciding how to react.

 

Strongly agree with this. That's how the precautionary principle works. When there is wide uncertainty with a lot at stake, you err on the side of taking things seriously and overreacting.

 

I would have thought more people on this board would be fans of the margin of safety, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the US election. Did Andrew Yang win? I hear the US Gov't is handing out cash now.

 

Yes Andrew Young (UBI), Liz Warren (student loan interest rates forgiven) won, Bernie (Medicare for all) is next. It’s free for all, Airlines, Cruise lines are already fed in the soup line. Shale and Energy is begging. I guess the lobbyists for all the industries are working overtime.

 

Clearly, we have an extraordinary economic situation, but it is still surprising to see much more government intervention than in countries that are called socialist here. I’d be more in favor of something that helps individuals, if we have learned anything from the GFC it should have been that.

 

Probably the wrong thread for this comment, but I doubt Democrats will go along with handing money to shareholders.  Warren has come out with an 8-point "litmus test" for "bailouts to corporations."  I like Warren much more than most people on this board appear to, but even I think much of it is misguided, though I expect she's just layout out a bargaining position.

 

Shareholders don't need a bailout, hourly wage workers who are out of work need the bailouts. Maybe restaurants and other small businesses. Every time the fed lowers rates, it's a bailout to holders of financial assets (non-ordinary folk).