At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[Eddie]

Hmmmmmmm, Dr. Fauci or Dr. Phil?

After Fauci urged caution in reopening the economy, Fox News turned to Dr. Phil for a second opinion

Embedded Tweet

Man. I hope I can avoid catching the swimming pool death. That sounds like a horrible illness.

What's his opinion on a potential connection between autism and automobile accident vaccines? Or autism and cigarette death vaccines?

[Northwestcoug]

This sounded promising at first, but got less so as I read further. That said, if you did receive the BCG vaccine when young (unlikely if you grew up in the U.S.), you may have some extra resistence to COVID-19.

Does the BCG vaccine help with Covid-19? The experts weigh in

It is interesting that the U.S. is one of a small number of countries that does not administer BCG at birth or during childhood.

The BCG vaccine is only partially effective against TB. It is given in countries that have a high incidence of TB, because even a less effective vaccine preventing only some transmission has a large benefit for the population. In countries with a low incidence (like the US), it isn't typically given because it causes a false positive tuberculin skin test, the main screening test for TB here.

Interestingly, it is used in early bladder cancer here. The rationale is that it causes an exaggerated immune response that helps fight off the cancer.

[SeattleUte]

Here is the Santa Clara study. Just out.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20062463v1

The population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions: The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

Again, the true death rate matters if you accept models are a useful tool. Death rate drives the models. If you're a knuckle dragger who doesn't believe in models, you don't get it.

This is why the models have been way off, and New York hasn't needed 30,000 ventilators (estimated after the clamp down).

More powerful evidence that the case death rate overstates actual death rate by several orders of magnitude:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-military-sympt-idUSKCN21Y2GB

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/04/us-coronavirus-outbreak-out-control-test-positivity-rate/610132/

[Northwestcoug]

Even if the COVID-19 prevalence is much higher than what is assumed, it's still not the flu:

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

Even if the COVID-19 prevalence is much higher than what is assumed, it's still not the flu:

Embedded Tweet

The seasonal flu rate is a composite of the entire country. Does it vary by region, since viral load matters?

[Omaha 680]

Even if the COVID-19 prevalence is much higher than what is assumed, it's still not the flu:

Embedded Tweet

At this point I don't think anyone who is looking at the data critically will still claim this is just the flu or that some form of distancing and/or lockdowns weren't necessary to stem the spread of this highly transmissible disease. But estimating the true fatality rate is important to better predict where we are headed and responsibly open things up as soon as possible.

I was disappointed the prevalence was so low in Santa Clara. I was hoping it was more like the 15% found in the German study. NYC has to be much higher than Santa Clara.

[Northwestcoug]

The seasonal flu rate is a composite of the entire country. Does it vary by region, since viral load matters?

Without looking it up, I'm sure the flu hits NYC harder than other regions. And rural areas less so. But it's clear that the flu doesn't hit NYC to any extent like COVID-19 has. And that data can reasonably be extrapolated to any setting that simulates the high population density of NYC. Which is why it was/is so important to be smart about large gatherings, irrespective of the region.

At this point I don't think anyone who is looking at the data critically will still claim this is just the flu or that some form of distancing and/or lockdowns weren't necessary to stem the spread of this highly transmissible disease. But estimating the true fatality rate is important to better predict where we are headed and responsibly open things up as soon as possible.

I was disappointed the prevalence was so low in Santa Clara. I was hoping it was more like the 15% found in the German study. NYC has to be much higher than Santa Clara.

A word of caution on that Santa Clara study, we still don't have a great antibody test for COVID. And that study has not been peer-reviewed yet. It's more of a hot-off-the-press kind of release.

[beefytee]

The problem is that it was after the market closed and it started crashing the next morning, > 1,000-point drop.

14 minutes too late, darn!

Nevermind. The 22nd was a Saturday, so I was a full 1.5 days ahead of the stock markets initial tumble

Also, why is the stock market continuing to go up at this point? The Dow is up about 30% from its lows almost a month ago. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 are at about or above the levels they were last September/October before the markets skyrocketed.

Why hasn't the market factored in your economic apocalypse?

[Omaha 680]

Nevermind. The 22nd was a Saturday, so I was a full 1.5 days ahead of the stock markets initial tumble

Also, why is the stock market continuing to go up at this point? The Dow is up about 30% from its lows almost a month ago. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 are at about or above the levels they were last September/October before the markets skyrocketed.

Why hasn't the market factored in your economic apocalypse?

The market is pricing in Trump's (and several governors') efforts to open up the economy as well as some optimistic news on COVID19 treatments. If the economy stays shuttered a couple more months and none of the treatments materialize, the market will fall past its previous yearly low. Also contrary to Trump's insistence, short term stock performance <> economic health. The devastation is widespread and accelerating.

[beefytee]

The problem is that it was after the market closed and it started crashing the next morning, > 1,000-point drop.

The market is pricing in Trump's (and several governors') efforts to open up the economy as well as some optimistic news on COVID19 treatments. If the economy stays shuttered a couple more months and none of the treatments materialize, the market will fall past its previous yearly low. Also contrary to Trump's insistence, short term stock performance <> economic health. The devastation is widespread and accelerating.

It's baffling to me that the markets keep going up at this point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's baffling to me that the markets keep going up at this point.

Agreed. Makes no sense.

[Omaha 680]

Trump said sports would resume without live audiences and would be produced for television. Live audiences would be allowed to return over time, he said.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/trump-virus-reopening-guidelines-call-for-downward-trajectory

I'll take college football on TV with no audiences over no college football!

[wapiti]

Nevermind. The 22nd was a Saturday, so I was a full 1.5 days ahead of the stock markets initial tumble

Also, why is the stock market continuing to go up at this point? The Dow is up about 30% from its lows almost a month ago. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 are at about or above the levels they were last September/October before the markets skyrocketed.

Why hasn't the market factored in your economic apocalypse?

The strange part of this collapse is the economic shift creating a lot of big winners. Amazon and Walmart, for example, are both booming. Walmart's online ordering and pickup system is giving it market share in grocery and a lot of that share will stick after the crisis. They knew customer satisfaction was very high with the program but they struggled to get people to try it. Problem solved.

Other areas of the market are doing well too. Netflix is a big winner. Disney+ optimism is helping offset some of the gloom around the rest of Disney's business. Big Pharma and the tech sectors are doing well.

What the market seems to ignore is the money and productivity that is being sucked out of the economy by the recession. That should have a downstream effect on everyone. Maybe the federal government has largely offset the contraction? US GDP in 2019 was estimated at about $21 Trillion. Between the CARES act and the Federal Reserve, they are pumping over $4 Trillion back into the economy. That will happen inefficiently so there will be winners and losers. But maybe the market believes that will cover the economic contraction and, as a whole, the winners will make up for the losers.

[Bo Diddley]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/corona...ard-trajectory

I'll take college football on TV with no audiences over no college football!

[Omaha 680]

The strange part of this collapse is the economic shift creating a lot of big winners. Amazon and Walmart, for example, are both booming. Walmart's online ordering and pickup system is giving it market share in grocery and a lot of that share will stick after the crisis. They knew customer satisfaction was very high with the program but they struggled to get people to try it. Problem solved.

Other areas of the market are doing well too. Netflix is a big winner. Disney+ optimism is helping offset some of the gloom around the rest of Disney's business. Big Pharma and the tech sectors are doing well.

What the market seems to ignore is the money and productivity that is being sucked out of the economy by the recession. That should have a downstream effect on everyone. Maybe the federal government has largely offset the contraction? US GDP in 2019 was estimated at about $21 Trillion. Between the CARES act and the Federal Reserve, they are pumping over $4 Trillion back into the economy. That will happen inefficiently so there will be winners and losers. But maybe the market believes that will cover the economic contraction and, as a whole, the winners will make up for the losers.

It all depends on duration. Short term the feds can cover the contraction but no way they can make that work for much longer, especially when we are talking a potential 70%(!) contraction. I just think right now it's a simple as the market betting we will open up sooner rather than later and/or some treatment will significantly reduce the impact of COVID19. That could certainly be a losing bet.