Gyroscopic Investing

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:51 pm

Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:42 pm Interesting table. Things can always change, but with the lowest number of cases and deaths per capita Texas is feeling relatively comfy right now.

To what do you attribute that to?

Honestly, I have no idea. Just one more reason to like Texas.

Here is the link to the table Vinny posted:

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

I believe that updates frequently throughout the day. I have heard that many are critical of the methodology of this and other sites, but the official numbers do eventually seem to more or less fall in line what I see on that table.

And here is the link to the table for the whole world:

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

I know this has been talked about elsewhere, but I find it notable that warmer countries and areas of the US are faring much better. Obviously other factors would seem to matter, like where the virus shows up first and what population densities are. But the general pattern seems to be that warmer countries and warmer areas of the US are doing much better. Look at places like Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines. It's probably fair to say that none of those three have the best healthcare but they all have very low CV death rates.

Has anyone heard a reasonable explanation for this general pattern that is not specifically about warm weather?

I broke down and subscribed to the WSJ, and I must say it is refreshing to read articles with actual news and information....

Regarding the warmer temperatures, higher susceptibility of black and brown populations (which of course has quickly resulted in the word "racist" being floated): vitamin D may be playing a role. If you have dark skin, you are naturally at a disadvantage since you need more sun exposure to make the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. And warmer climates = more likely to spend time outdoors - plus of course the lockdown is not helping. Link to article (sorry I know it's paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/vitamin-d- ... 1587078141

The other article of interest from today:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hidden ... jem10point

Again, sorry about the paywall. quick summary, the caseload of non-coronavirus medical conditions that typically get people to the hospital, like heart attacks, strokes, kidney stones, acute renal failure, appendicitis etc, has dropped substantially, in some cases up to 90%. No one knows why. I think two possibilities:

1. People are toughing it out at home, in order to avoid ERs jam-packed with coronavirus cases. Not hard to understand this.

2. People subject to these conditions may be more susceptible to coronavirus, so they are getting sick with that instead.

This is leading to an opportunity for an extremely interesting study: of the patients who stayed home with these conditions, how do they fare compared to people who went to the ER? Do they do better or worse in terms of mortality and recovery? The author of the WSJ article automatically assumed they would do worse, but noted a large DROP in overall mortality in NY for the month of March.

It's a complicated question and this might be a good opportunity to ask it: under what circumstances does the medical encounter improve outcomes? Medicine, just to remind everyone, has become mainly about generating revenue, which means doing as many procedures as possible, the more invasive & expensive the better. Combine the adverse effects of these with straight out medical errors, and you may well end up seeing worse outcomes for some conditions if you go to the hospital vs. staying home. Plus, much of the evidence supporting medical interventions are based on shoddy science and/or biased studies, meaning the benefits are overstated.

If I had something looking like appendicitis I would definitely go to the ER, but for some other things the answer might be to stay home.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:23 am I broke down and subscribed to the WSJ, and I must say it is refreshing to read articles with actual news and information....

Every so often, the WSJ has a $1/mo promo that lasts for a month or two (it appears they have one going right now). I pick those up then cancel at the end. Every time, they offer to reduce the price for the subscription when I say I'm cancelling.

If I had something looking like appendicitis I would definitely go to the ER, but for some other things the answer might be to stay home.

I'm so glad my appendix exploded years ago, never have to worry about it again.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:35 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:23 am I broke down and subscribed to the WSJ, and I must say it is refreshing to read articles with actual news and information....

Every so often, the WSJ has a $1/mo promo that lasts for a month or two (it appears they have one going right now). I pick those up then cancel at the end. Every time, they offer to reduce the price for the subscription when I say I'm cancelling.

Good tactic! I took the $20/month for one year, and figured I would get them to extend my membership at that price using that technique. $40/month is really a bit much.

I just cancelled earlier this week (and just re-upped for $1 moments ago), I think they offered to let me do $15/month when I was cancelling.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:23 am I broke down and subscribed to the WSJ, and I must say it is refreshing to read articles with actual news and information....

Ha! They have a nice balance between the news reporting and the opinion pages at the WSJ. Some good journalism still exists.

I used to download their entire issues in PDF format (with watermarks) and save them. It's very peaceful to read that way, a static page. Almost as good as newsprint, and no ink stains. You still can. However, that only works on a large screen, really, and I've been reading more on a tablet.

There was an app that worked very well as a small device friendly newsreader for the WSJ and a few other publications. They were like an official third party displayer. Every once in a while (~8 months), it would just stop working, and I gave up deleting/reinstalling/trying again. Bluebird, or something, it was called.

Hmm...I'm not sure if I want to pay for any news subscription, but just for fun, I took a look and saw that students can get the WSJ Digital for $4/month. I've been known to take advantage of my daughter's student status for a couple of online subscription deals. In this case, the offer is month-to-month, and only good for as long as she's a student, and she'll be graduating this semester, so not much of a deal for me, but might be worth looking into for other parents here.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:28 pm Hmm...I'm not sure if I want to pay for any news subscription, but just for fun, I took a look and saw that students can get the WSJ Digital for $4/month. I've been known to take advantage of my daughter's student status for a couple of online subscription deals. In this case, the offer is month-to-month, and only good for as long as she's a student, and she'll be graduating this semester, so not much of a deal for me, but might be worth looking into for other parents here.

Here is the $1 for 2 months that others have been describing. I am tempted.


https://store.wsj.com/shop/US/US/wsjuel ... 64&tier_5=

Vinny

If this helps....

There were some special deals when I signed up that were surprisingly worthwhile. One offer was a case of Malbec wines (12 bottles) for ~$140 including tax & delivery. No strings or requirement to sign up for anything. The other was home delivery of the Saturday print edition for one year, for free. A real print newspaper! I haven't touched one of those in god knows how long.

BTW kinda funny that the one part of my post that got the comments was the fact of signing up for the WSJ. Good on everyone for doing that - good journalism is so rare and precious that it is absolutely worth supporting.

Boston homeless shelter tests 397 people for coronavirus, 146 test positive and none of them show any symptoms:

Link to article

Principle: Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s right.

In this case, I think you can make a reasonable argument for either side (WSJ, or the one who takes advantage of their offers) as being “guilty “. Seems to be very close to stealing, or at least unethical, in both cases. WSJ is probably price gouging with the “normal “ subscriber price. WSJ is having the “normal “ subscriber subsidize the bargain hunters. The bargain hunters intrinsically know they aren’t paying a fair price.

The solution seems to be for each individual to follow their conscience. If it bothers you, don’t do it “whatever the it is”. If it doesn’t bother you, it would be important to understand why; likewise if it does bother you.

My two cents.

When a large fraction of the users of a product resort to loopholes/scams or the black market (e.g., pirating), it generally indicates that the seller is charging a price above the true market price (i.e., the price is not accurately reflecting the true value that most customers are placing on the product).

In the case of WSJ, they are simply charging too much for their product. They’d make more money by charging a bit less, and as an added benefit, fewer people would be tempted to use loopholes/scams to get their product.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:53 pm If this helps....

There were some special deals when I signed up that were surprisingly worthwhile. One offer was a case of Malbec wines (12 bottles) for ~$140 including tax & delivery. No strings or requirement to sign up for anything. The other was home delivery of the Saturday print edition for one year, for free. A real print newspaper! I haven't touched one of those in god knows how long.

BTW kinda funny that the one part of my post that got the comments was the fact of signing up for the WSJ. Good on everyone for doing that - good journalism is so rare and precious that it is absolutely worth supporting.

I buy very good Malbecs at Costco for about $10 a bottle.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:17 pm When a large fraction of the users of a product resort to loopholes/scams or the black market (e.g., pirating), it generally indicates that the seller is charging a price above the true market price (i.e., the price is not accurately reflecting the true value that most customers are placing on the product).

In the case of WSJ, they are simply charging too much for their product. They’d make more money by charging a bit less, and as an added benefit, fewer people would be tempted to use loopholes/scams to get their product.

Isn't it pure capitalism if they make an offer you, you can accept their offer no matter how many times you do or what your intentions are? These are all HUGE corporations who make these offers. Don't shed any tears for them.

Let's look at it from the other side.

I just received in the mail a new bank credit card today. Let's say it's going to give me $100 if I spend $1,000 using it in the next 90 days.

First of all they don't start the 90 days from today. They started those 90 days from when I applied for the card and was accepted it. Wouldn't any of you believe that the 90 days should start when you can actually start using the card?

Second of all, do you think I'd get my $100 if either of the following occurred?

1) By day 90 I'd spent "only" $999.99.
2) ON day 91 I hit the $1,000.00 right on the nose.

In both cases these huge corporations would hold you to the exact penny or letter of their offer and NO $100! So, why shouldn't we do the same to them?

They'll take advantage of us at every turn if we do not fulfill every single term of their offer. Therefore, why should it be immoral or unethical for us to accept their offers if we fulfill all the terms of their offers? It was their decision to make the offer. We're simply accepting and complying with the terms of such offer.

Plus, you can bet that they are relying upon the built-inertia in all of us to NOT cancel after a trial period so that they can really start gouging us.


Vinny

I am taking credit classes at the local community college. Will look into WSJ!

Dr. Fauci Was a Basketball Captain. Now He’s America’s Point Guard.
His teammates in high school looked to Dr. Anthony Fauci for leadership. They’re still doing it more than 60 years later.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-fauci-w ... HmQZyDy15E

Note: I was able to access and read this article after following what was here: https://medium.com/paywall-hacks/how-to ... 5602c4c2ce

Vinny

Dwindling supplies of carbon dioxide from ethanol plants is sparking concern about shortages of beer,. . .

The lack of ethanol output is disrupting this highly specialized corner of the food industry, as 34 of the 45 U.S. ethanol plants that sell CO2 have idled or cut production, said Renewable Fuels Association Chief Executive Geoff Cooper.

CO2 suppliers to beer brewers have increased prices by about 25% due to reduced supply, said Bob Pease, chief executive officer of the Brewers Association. The trade group represents small and independent U.S. craft brewers, who get about 45% of their CO2 from ethanol producers.

“The problem is accelerating. Every day we’re hearing from more of our members about this,” said Pease, who expects some brewers to start cutting production in two to three weeks.link

Hello darkness my old friend.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:36 pm

Dwindling supplies of carbon dioxide from ethanol plants is sparking concern about shortages of beer...

Hello darkness my old friend.

And even worse...
Beef processors are closing U.S. plants, warn of beef shortages and hoarding

Fortunately, it looks like rib-eyes will still be available.

In addition to the two posts above, did someone already post an article talking about how bacon relies indirectly on restaurants? Beer, bacon and beef. This is like my holy trinity.

A desolate husk of a life. I welcome death.

barrett wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:50 am Here is the link to the table Vinny posted:

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

I believe that updates frequently throughout the day. I have heard that many are critical of the methodology of this and other sites, but the official numbers do eventually seem to more or less fall in line what I see on that table.

And here is the link to the table for the whole world:

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

I know this has been talked about elsewhere, but I find it notable that warmer countries and areas of the US are faring much better. Obviously other factors would seem to matter, like where the virus shows up first and what population densities are. But the general pattern seems to be that warmer countries and warmer areas of the US are doing much better. Look at places like Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines. It's probably fair to say that none of those three have the best healthcare but they all have very low CV death rates.

Has anyone heard a reasonable explanation for this general pattern that is not specifically about warm weather?

Vitamin D as WiseOne mentioned. And virii are less hardy in hot weather. Supposedly that’s why flu season is in the winter.

To be honest, I sort of... underestimated my level of degeneracy. I'm down to Jägermeister, Wild Turkey, and blackberry schnapps. The schnapps is mighty tasty with iced tea.

Vitamin D is also a very good explanation for the wintertime predominance of colds and flu. There is nothing about viruses to suggest that they are less active in warm weather. If anything, they would be MORE active.

I had an experience with vitamin D and a sinus infection that completely convinced me of its importance. I have always gotten severe, acute sinutisis after every cold for many years (like, > 30 years). I'd get fevers over 102, sometimes above 103, plus the usual head pain and it generally took about a month to get over it even with an antibiotic. I went to an ENT about sinus surgery, but I don't qualify because I would have to get 5 of these episodes per year.

Last time, I tried giving myself a megadose of vitamin D (10,000 IU). The sinus infection melted away literally within a few hours. By the next morning I was completely fine. Just one episode, true, but that was astounding. I've been taking vitamin D ever since.

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:48 pm In addition to the two posts above, did someone already post an article talking about how bacon relies indirectly on restaurants? Beer, bacon and beef. This is like my holy trinity.

Totally with you there!!

Food of the gods, bacon is. I just put in my Butcher box order. Getting 10 packages of their amazing, delicious bacon for $50. Plus a free extra package that I get in every box, since I took their "bacon for life" deal. Provided they have the supplies...fingers crossed. Pandemic or no pandemic, I will NOT do without bacon!

I'll also be set with beef/pork for a while. I'm definitely worried about supply disruptions. The online meat delivery services are out of most things, and I heard Butcher box won't take new customers. If any of you want me to send you a referral link in hopes of getting in anyway, PM me.