Coronavirus!

[bleachkit]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

I’ll trust the pandemic professionals over amateur spitballing until everything is known.

Professions seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of it and the ways to mitigate it's spread. Statistical projections are all over the place though, there is no consensus there. 

[kg01]

59 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Some deaths might fall through the cracks, but for the most part those that are gravely ill with Covid-19 and ultimately die will be accounted for, whereas the millions of asymptomatic Covid-19 infections will not be. Long story short, the actual fatality is under 1%. Even Dr. Fauci has acknowledged the actual rate is likely less than 1%. An Oxford study suggested it might be as low as .1% when all is said and done. I'm not saying it's not serious, I'm not saying it's not deadly. But those are that saying the fatality rate is 3 to 5% are way off base. 

I still think @TheNorthCydeRises has a point.  All the data isn't 'known' at this point, so it's not totally improper to suggest the fatality rate is probably higher than the 'stats' suggest.

[KB21]

8 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Italy has a large elderly population, many of whom were long time smokers. That might be one factor why it's been so deadly there. Germany has had very few Covid-19 deaths. The disparities are curious.

Italy also has government controlled healthcare.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

Professions seem to be in agreement about the seriousness of it and the ways to mitigate it's spread. Statistical projections are all over the place though, there is no consensus there. 

Two articles by the same guy . . . not a medical doctor, but a research director with a PhD in business development.   What he says in these two articles actually backs up your belief about how many more are infected than is being reported, and how the fatality rate may be less than 1%.  But this is not a good thing, as he explains in these articles.   It turned out that number of 0.8% fatality may be more on the money than I thought.

 

First article - from February 27th:  

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/recession-is-imminent-we-need-a-travel-ban-now-817736/

He predicts a recession and the need for an immediate international travel ban.  The key point he makes is that at that time, we had thousands of people who had Coronovirus ( whether they knew it or not ), and were currently infecting people at that time.

Key points:

• 1 in 100 people that the virus infects show no signs at all, basically turning them into "bio-terrorists", because they can spread the virus without knowing
• 4 out of 5 with the virus will have mild symptoms ( which is what we commonly know now ), but that makes them more dangerous because they'll mix with healthy people
• At that time, fatality rate was believed to be 2%, which is 500x more lethal than the flu, but he believed that the actual fatality rate is around 0.5%, which still means that 1 in 200 people who get this, will die.
• Using the 1 in 200 will die number, he estimates that 500,000+were infected with Coronavirus in China, not the 80,000 that they reported 
• Iran ( at that time ) reported 26 deaths. Using the 1 in 200 model, that means that 5,200 people are actually infected, and are infecting others
• Italy reported 12 deaths. Once again, using the 1 in 200 model, this meant that 2,400 Italians had the virus and were infecting others
• Believed that once the virus spreads in America, schools, businesses, and travel will close or become restricted
• Predicts a 20% - 30% decline in stocks by the end of 2020
• May have no chance to contain the virus if more people have it ( but not cited as cases )
• May have to shut the economy down for weeks, like China had to do
• Investors need to shorten S&P 500 ETF, Russell 2000 ETF, etc
• Long term bonds will deliver short gains in next 6 months

 

2nd article - from March 20th:  ( remember, it's March 28th now )

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hell-coming-mathematical-proof-185019616.html

His opening statement:

Executive Summary

Right now 2 million Americans are infected with the coronavirus. The total U.S. death toll by April 15th will be more than 20,000. We estimate that 80 thousand of the 2 million infected Americans will be hospitalized over the next 2 weeks. That’s why we are short-term bullish on hospital stocks.

( Bleachkit - This aligns with your theory that millions may already have this thing right now.  But because so many have it, the results will be pretty bad, even if less than 1% of the population has this. This means that a lot of people are "bio-terrorists" and are spreading it everywhere. )

Key points:

• States that everything he said in the February article has happened . . . and it did.
• Estimates that Coronovirus fatality rate is 0.8% ( 1 out of every 125 people infected will die )
• Infection takes around 23 - 24 days to resolve ( from first exposure to death . . if patient becomes critical )
  • No symptoms in first 5 - 6 days
  • Symptoms show and possible hospitalization in the next 5 days
  • 10 days between hospitalization and death ( if in ICU )

 

• No way to accurately predict infection growth rate because of wide variation in testing across the country
  • His new calculation is to use the number of deaths and multiply that number by 125, to get an estimate of the number of people that are infected with the virus
  • Using this, he predicted that on March 26th, there will be 800 people that have died from Coronavirus
    • Actual death toll on March 26th . . . 1,295
    • Current death toll on March 28th so far . . 1,722 . . . ( if we have a day like we did yesterday, we're going over the 2000 death mark by the end of the night )

 

• Says that infections in the US aren't doubling every 3 days anymore, because of the closing of restaurants and businesses ( this is actually not true.  It's still doubling every 3 days )
• Says that we will be reporting 1000 deaths per day in 3 weeks, so he proposes putting the country on a strict lockdown ( similar to what they did in China )
• Predicts the entire country will be under quarantine within the next 4 weeks
• Worldwide recession pretty much a certainty now
• 4% of patients will be hospitalized . . ( right now 5% of cases around the world are serious/critical )
• If you're buying stock, hospital stocks are the obvious way to go.

 

So in my county, 9 people have been diagnosed.  So if I multiply that by 125, I need to assume that 1,125 have the virus. 

In New York state, they have 606 deaths with 46,000 confirmed cases.  Using the 125 multiple, they probably have 75,000 infected.  They've shut NYC and other areas down, so their infection rate should slowly decrease in theory.  But how many healthy people are getting infected by going to get tested, because they may be around infected people?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

53 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Italy also has government controlled healthcare.

 

And we don't . . yet, we're on the brink of being in crisis mode in some of these areas that can't even get the proper amount of PPE to do their jobs.

This virus doesn't care what our political stances are.  It's meant to take ALL of us out, if need be.

With you being in contact with potential carriers, you be safe.

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

I still think @TheNorthCydeRises has a point.  All the data isn't 'known' at this point, so it's not totally improper to suggest the fatality rate is probably higher than the 'stats' suggest.

Why would the fatality rate probably be higher? The fatality is probably lower. Millions of asymptomatic cases unaccounted for would put the fatality rate below 1%. What is the case for it probably being higher? 

Edited March 28, 2020 by bleachkit

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Italy also has government controlled healthcare.

The economic model is not the deciding factor, per se. But rather the quality of care and availability of resources, be it private or public.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 minute ago, bleachkit said:

Why would the fatality rate probably be higher? The fatality is probably lower. Millions of asymptomatic cases unaccounted for would put the fatality rate below 1%. What is the case for it probably being higher? 

The case for it being higher is seeing what the rates are in other countries.  As the hospitals get overrun, the opportunity to save the critical ill from this lessens, which will drive up the death rate.  That's what is happening in Italy right now, despite the country being on lockdown.   If you look at their country's data, their actual new case rate has started to flatten out over the past week.  But the daily death rates are still rising.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

 

The US graphical numbers aren't so forgiving.  This is why people kept saying that we're 10 days behind Italy.   What's worse for us, is that while we may be 10 days behind them, our peak may be far away..

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

6 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

The economic model is not the deciding factor, per se. But rather the quality of care and availability of resources, be it private or public.

 

Just curious.  Where do you think we'll be at ( numbers wise ) in 2 weeks?

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

The case for it being higher is seeing what the rates are in other countries.  As the hospitals get overrun, the opportunity to save the critical ill from this lessens, which will drive up the death rate.  That's what is happening in Italy right now, despite the country being on lockdown.   If you look at their country's data, their actual new case rate has started to flatten out over the past week.  But the daily death rates are still rising.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

 

The US graphical numbers aren't so forgiving.  This is why people kept saying that we're 10 days behind Italy.   What's worse for us, is that while we may be 10 days behind them, our peak may be far away..

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

Well your number of 0.8% is under 1%. I think that could be on the high side. But it is a certainty that millions will get Covid-19. In 2009,  60,000,000 people in the US were infected with H1N1 according to the CDC, just to show how quickly and far a virus it can spread. 

[bleachkit]

3 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Just curious.  Where do you think we'll be at ( numbers wise ) in 2 weeks?

Confirmed cases are hard to say because that depends on testing. As I already stated, millions likely already have it or have been exposed to it. Deaths are the key number because most people (not all) gravely ill are hospitalized and tested if they are having severe flu like or respiratory symptoms. In two weeks probably 5k to 10K. My guess is it'll likely fizzle out over the summer and then possibly return in the late fall.

[sturt]

Fwiw.... shocked this morning to learn that my brother-in-law in Philippines has died from respiratory failure, and there is reason for suspicion that it was caused by coronavirus. He lived on a fairly remote island populated by maybe a thousand or two residents, a one-hour ferry ride away from Cebu, which is a major city there. He and my wife were very, very close growing up, as the oldest two kids in their family. Samuel was always a very kind and generous man toward me. Very dark day. Grateful for your prayers on behalf of the Yee family--thanks in advance, friends.

[bleachkit]

Just now, sturt said:

Fwiw.... shocked this morning to learn that my brother-in-law in Philippines has died from respiratory failure, and there is reason for suspicion that it was caused by coronavirus. He lived on a fairly remote island populated by maybe a thousand or two residents, a one-hour ferry ride away from Cebu, which is a major city there. He and my wife were very, very close growing up, as the oldest two kids in their family. Samuel was always a very kind and generous man toward me. Very dark day. Grateful for your prayers on behalf of the Yee family--thanks in advance, friends.

Sorry to hear that. Are they doing anything to mitigate the spread in the Philippines? In some countries, like Brazil for example, they aren't altering behavior at all.

[Thomas]

21 minutes ago, sturt said:

Fwiw.... shocked this morning to learn that my brother-in-law in Philippines has died from respiratory failure, and there is reason for suspicion that it was caused by coronavirus. He lived on a fairly remote island populated by maybe a thousand or two residents, a one-hour ferry ride away from Cebu, which is a major city there. He and my wife were very, very close growing up, as the oldest two kids in their family. Samuel was always a very kind and generous man toward me. Very dark day. Grateful for your prayers on behalf of the Yee family--thanks in advance, friends.

Very sorry for you all Sturt. Hope to not see any family members deal with this virus like that but it may be unavoidable. Will surely pray for the Yee family.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

29 minutes ago, sturt said:

Fwiw.... shocked this morning to learn that my brother-in-law in Philippines has died from respiratory failure, and there is reason for suspicion that it was caused by coronavirus. He lived on a fairly remote island populated by maybe a thousand or two residents, a one-hour ferry ride away from Cebu, which is a major city there. He and my wife were very, very close growing up, as the oldest two kids in their family. Samuel was always a very kind and generous man toward me. Very dark day. Grateful for your prayers on behalf of the Yee family--thanks in advance, friends.

Wow man.  Sorry for your family's loss. 

[marco102]

Hey guys.  If you're interested in a summary of the stimulus bill, my firm put together a nice write up below. 

https://www.aprio.com/whatsnext/the-coronavirus-aid-relief-and-economic-security-cares-act-what-does-it-mean-for-you-and-your-business/

If you know of any small businesses that may need help applying for the stimulus PM please.  My firm is helping a lot of businesses with  the stimulus applications and other tax breaks they can apply for due to this crisis.  We are also offering a cashflow bootcamp for small businesses (https://www.aprio.com/whatsnext/covid-19-cash-flow-bootcamp/ ).  Not trying to shamelessly plug our services, but feel like this is really useful in a time like this. 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by marco102

[JayBirdHawk]

Encouraging?

 

 

Mmmmmmmm.....

 

If true expect companies like Nike etc. to jump into the mask business, they'll become fashionable items.

[bleachkit]

35 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Encouraging?

 

 

Mmmmmmmm.....

 

If true expect companies like Nike etc. to jump into the mask business, they'll become fashionable items.

Convalescent plasma actually worked for some during the Spanish flu too. Oldie but goodie.

[KB21]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

The economic model is not the deciding factor, per se. But rather the quality of care and availability of resources, be it private or public.

It is absolutely a contributing factor though.  When the government controls it, there will be fewer resources that are allocated to it.  That’s what has happened in China and Italy.  Compare that to South Korea and Hong Kong, who both have a strong private sector for health care.  

In the US, we have a strong private sector for health care that is handcuffed with government regulations.  The take home point from all of this is that we need less government regulation and less government intervention into health care.  

[lethalweapon3]

This informative article covering the wonkiness of reported fatality rates (numerator AND denominator) also features a Georgia State epidemiology and biostatistics professor.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/821958435/why-death-rates-from-coronavirus-can-be-deceiving

Quote

 

A country's case fatality rate is simply the number of deaths (the numerator) divided by the number of infections (the denominator). The problem is, both of these numbers may be unreliable.

For example, when an outbreak begins and health officials aren't looking for the virus, some people may die at home and never be diagnosed. That would lower the numerator and "might lead to an underestimate of the case fatality rate," [St. Louis' Washington U. School of Medicine professor and infectious disease expert Dr. Steven] Lawrence says.

But a much more likely scenario, he says, is that early in an outbreak, testing is limited to people who are so sick they wind up in the hospital. That means the only infections that get counted are in the people most likely to die. So the denominator is missing a huge number of infected people who survive, and that makes the virus appear much more deadly than it really is.

This is probably one reason that early death rates in China appeared so high, says Gerardo Chowell, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics in the department of population health sciences at Georgia State University. Chowell is part of a team that has been using statistical modeling to study the outbreak in China and South Korea.

When cases started showing up in the city of Wuhan, Chinese health officials "were obviously caught by surprise" and lacked the ability to test many patients, Chowell says. So testing was restricted to the sickest people. That probably contributed to early evidence that the fatality rate in Wuhan was 4% or more.

A study published last week estimated that in Wuhan, the chance that someone who developed coronavirus symptoms would die was actually 1.4%.

In South Korea, though, "they have been doing massive testing" since the first cases were detected, Chowell says. As a result, that nation has been able to count infected people with mild symptoms as well as those who become severely ill. That may be one reason the case fatality rate in South Korea has remained below 2%.

 

 

~lw3