Gyroscopic Investing

Two Pet Cats Have Tested Positive for Coronavirus and We Don’t Like This One Bit

https://www.themarysue.com/coronavirus-kitties-oh-no/

dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:17 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:36 am ...
We’ve got cleaner air, fewer car accidents, fewer murders...

One correction: I did read that there are more auto-ped deaths. With fewer cars on the road, some drivers are blowing stop signs, driving too fast and, whoops, killing pedestrians.

Probably more pedestrians around too.

Xan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:21 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:17 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:36 am ...
We’ve got cleaner air, fewer car accidents, fewer murders...

One correction: I did read that there are more auto-ped deaths. With fewer cars on the road, some drivers are blowing stop signs, driving too fast and, whoops, killing pedestrians.

Probably more pedestrians around too.

More targets, yes. One article said they are jaywalking more often and more likely than before to be intoxicated.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:05 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:03 pm Two Pet Cats Have Tested Positive for Coronavirus and We Don’t Like This One Bit

https://www.themarysue.com/coronavirus-kitties-oh-no/

Yet another reason to have dogs instead.

Harsh

I assume most have seen the NY antibody testing results, showing about 10x more people have already had it than have tested positive?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-yor ... -says.html

With math, that means the current death rate is at least 10x lower than if doing the calc with the number of cases that are positive.

Which makes it currently not that much worse than a bad flu year, according to Denninger.

Agree? Don't?

Pritzker just shut IL through the end of May. Personally, I am done with this. Time for healthy people to risk getting back to normal.

I had heard that the antibody tests are picking up antibodies from other coronaviruses, not just Wuhan. Could that be (at least part of) the explanation?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:37 pm I assume most have seen the NY antibody testing results, showing about 10x more people have already had it than have tested positive?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-yor ... -says.html

With math, that means the current death rate is at least 10x lower than if doing the calc with the number of cases that are positive.

Which makes it currently not that much worse than a bad flu year, according to Denninger.

Agree? Don't?

Pritzker just shut IL through the end of May. Personally, I am done with this. Time for healthy people to risk getting back to normal.

I'd not seen the report.

Though it means the death rate is 1/10th what was thought how does the infection rate per 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 compare to those getting the flu?

And, what would the infection rate have been if life was "normal" like it was during the flu season we have every year?

Valid questions?

What do you describe as "healthy"?

Finally, where is Elmhurst hospital? From somewhere else I got a report from someone related to a doctor there that most of the death victims have been male AND obese? Anyone else seen this combination reported elsewhere?

Vinny

Vinny

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:07 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:09 pm Assuming this chart is accurate (from Mish's blog), this puts it into more perspective for me.

There's an even better indicator, because counts of coronavirus deaths are subject to a ridiculous # of issues - overcounting based on positive testing, undercounting based on limited testing etc: examining total mortality and comparing to previous year's #s:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mortality- ... 1587558540

In NYC, mortality during the peak caseload in late March/early April was as much as 2.5x normal. It remains to be seen whether these deaths were simply advanced by a few months, but it seems more likely that the people dying of COVID could have lived for at least a few years with a decent quality of life, based on #s for life expectancy from a given age.

<Snip cat stuff>

Cortopassi -- 2.5x normal mortality.

Doesn't sound like a normal flu season.

What would numbers be without SIP, more mask wearing, etc.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:41 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:37 pm I assume most have seen the NY antibody testing results, showing about 10x more people have already had it than have tested positive?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-yor ... -says.html

With math, that means the current death rate is at least 10x lower than if doing the calc with the number of cases that are positive.

Which makes it currently not that much worse than a bad flu year, according to Denninger.

Agree? Don't?

Pritzker just shut IL through the end of May. Personally, I am done with this. Time for healthy people to risk getting back to normal.

I'd not seen the report.

Though it means the death rate is 1/10th what was thought how does the infection rate per 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 compare to those getting the flu?

And, what would the infection rate have been if life was "normal" like it was during the flu season we have every year?

Valid questions?

What do you describe as "healthy"?

Finally, where is Elmhurst hospital? From somewhere else I got a report from someone related to a doctor there that most of the death victims have been male AND obese? Anyone else seen this combination reported elsewhere?

Vinny

Elmhurst is a neighborhood in Queens.
Yes, most of the fatalities have been obese and most have been male. I think the combination of those two would also be a majority.

It sounds like we know enough to make the best decision for ourselves. If you're young and healthy, no restrictions! But if you're old, sickly, or obese, or you have to have close contact with any of them, you can stay quarantined.

That should be like... *crunches numbers*... 7% of the US population that can dis-quarantine without worrying about it!

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:41 pm
What do you describe as "healthy"?

If I had to pick one thing, I suppose a BMI not in the obese range.

There could be a lot of good coming out of this eventually, if it goes the right way, or really bad the wrong way.

My opinion here. One way it could be good, is we could come out of this and actually see that carbs and vegetable oils (soybean esp.) are the main culprits to being obese, or we could double down and say people aren't exercising enough and that's the reason.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:15 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:41 pm
What do you describe as "healthy"?

If I had to pick one thing, I suppose a BMI not in the obese range.

My working assumption is that if the researchers use bodyfat % instead of BMI, they'd figure out that BMI is mostly irrelevant, and it's all about the bodyfat %. BMI is just easier to calculate.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:15 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:41 pm
What do you describe as "healthy"?

If I had to pick one thing, I suppose a BMI not in the obese range.

There could be a lot of good coming out of this eventually, if it goes the right way, or really bad the wrong way.

My opinion here. One way it could be good, is we could come out of this and actually see that carbs and vegetable oils (soybean esp.) are the main culprits to being obese, or we could double down and say people aren't exercising enough and that's the reason.

You are questioning the whole American way of life! Don't Americans have "the right" to be obese with not only them but the rest of society paying the consequences of their choices to exercise these rights?

VInny

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:36 am

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:15 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:41 pm
What do you describe as "healthy"?

If I had to pick one thing, I suppose a BMI not in the obese range.

My working assumption is that if the researchers use bodyfat % instead of BMI, they'd figure out that BMI is mostly irrelevant, and it's all about the bodyfat %. BMI is just easier to calculate.

What do you recommend for individual use for bodyfat %? I have the cheap plastic calipers and an electronic device. But I've read to not rely upon the accuracy of either. That the only true measure is floating in some tank? Which, of course, is NOT a solution for any of us on a personal level.

Last year I took part in a study at the University of Massachusetts and they had all kinds of things attached to my body while I was performing various tasks plus they were using a lot of expensive equipment. When it came to that bodyfat % I think I came out at 6%. They told me to not put a ton of credence into all the readings that they were getting on me with all their expensive equipment.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:43 am What do you recommend for individual use for bodyfat %? I have the cheap plastic calipers and an electronic device. But I've read to not rely upon the accuracy of either. That the only true measure is floating in some tank? Which, of course, is NOT a solution for any of us on a personal level.

Just measure your waist with a tape measure. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. That's about the best proxy for body fat you can find. This works even if you are gaining muscle from working out.

To calibrate your tape measure to body fat, look up a bunch of pictures on the internet for different body fat percentages and compare yourself in the mirror. That is more accurate than a DEXA scan or a water tank weighing. Just be honest with yourself when you compare what you see in the mirror. Most people are surprised to find out that they aren't really as ripped as they think they are...

Once you have a good idea of where you are, the tape measure will tell you whether you are going up or down.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:50 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:43 am What do you recommend for individual use for bodyfat %? I have the cheap plastic calipers and an electronic device. But I've read to not rely upon the accuracy of either. That the only true measure is floating in some tank? Which, of course, is NOT a solution for any of us on a personal level.

Just measure your waist with a tape measure. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. That's about the best proxy for body fat you can find. This works even if you are gaining muscle from working out.

To calibrate your tape measure to body fat, look up a bunch of pictures on the internet for different body fat percentages and compare yourself in the mirror. That is more accurate than a DEXA scan or a water tank weighing. Just be honest with yourself when you compare what you see in the mirror. Most people are surprised to find out that they aren't really as ripped as they think they are...

Once you have a good idea of where you are, the tape measure will tell you whether you are going up or down.

That is NOT good news for me!

I'm either 5'8" or 5'8 1/2'. Weight 155. Yet several years ago I was so dismayed to go to a store to buy new Levis and have my waist size be 34 1/2". Maybe 35 1/2"! Last year there was no way I could even squeeze in any way into my 32" Levis. I've not tried more recently to either tape measure myself or whether I can fit into those 32" Levis. But all what you say (sadly) makes sense.

Vinny

is that true of men's sizes as well? i know women's sizes (in the us ) have gotten bigger.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:20 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:11 am several years ago I was so dismayed to go to a store to buy new Levis and have my waist size be 34 1/2". Maybe 35 1/2"! Last year there was no way I could even squeeze in any way into my 32" Levis. I've not tried more recently to either tape measure myself or whether I can fit into those 32" Levis. But all what you say (sadly) makes sense.

Vinny

It's even worse than you think. Clothing manufacturers have been slowly enlarging sizes so people don't 'feel' fat. Thus, a pair of jeans 30 years ago with a 32" waist is probably what they call a 34" waist now.

You forget who you are addressing! Many of my Levis ARE from 30 years ago!

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:11 amI'm either 5'8" or 5'8 1/2'. Weight 155. Yet several years ago I was so dismayed to go to a store to buy new Levis and have my waist size be 34 1/2". Maybe 35 1/2"! Last year there was no way I could even squeeze in any way into my 32" Levis. I've not tried more recently to either tape measure myself or whether I can fit into those 32" Levis. But all what you say (sadly) makes sense.Vinny

May be time to pare down the pear so you can fit your pair into an old pair.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:48 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:11 amI'm either 5'8" or 5'8 1/2'. Weight 155. Yet several years ago I was so dismayed to go to a store to buy new Levis and have my waist size be 34 1/2". Maybe 35 1/2"! Last year there was no way I could even squeeze in any way into my 32" Levis. I've not tried more recently to either tape measure myself or whether I can fit into those 32" Levis. But all what you say (sadly) makes sense.Vinny

May be time to pare down the pear so you can fit your pair into an old pair.

I do suffer from the all too common male affliction wherein ANY excess fat takes the express lane to the stomach area! By the way my picture (ready to hit the ball!) IS from last summer therefore you can see the extent of this affliction.

Vinny

Wow I didn't realize that sizes were getting bigger, but it makes sense. I'm back to a size 8 in women's, which is what I used to wear 20 years ago - but I'm not yet down to the same weight I was then. I was wondering about that.

Obesity is only one of the risk factors for COVID complications though - and it's only morbid obesity (BMI > 40). A few extra pounds isn't the issue. Other important risk factors are diabetes, COPD, immunocompromise, cardiac disease, and a history of asthma. The disturbing thing about this is that one risk factor may be unlucky genes. A few people regardless of age or health status are getting horrifically sick and dying from a dramatic autoimmune response that happens as the patient is actually getting better from the viral illness.

As far as overall mortality though and whether it compares to flu...we don't know yet. It may be that when all is said and done, the overall mortality of COVID will be comparable to and maybe even not as bad as the flu given the numbers. The problem is that it is striking a naive population and the mortality is occurring all at once. With the flu, it's spread out over several months, and because the flu virus mutates every year with mostly minor antigenic shifts, most people have partial immunity even without a vaccine. I expect that eventually, COVID will settle down to become another of the many flu-like viruses we all deal with every year. The question is how long that settling will take. And of course, for how much of that "settling" period we need to stay locked down.

There’s an article a few pages back about this plague as a tidal wave while the flu is gentle waves of..death.

I feel for the people who want to let everybody “healthy” back outside. I wonder though: if only part of the population is released, are at-risk people going to go back to work for fear of losing their jobs to a younger person? What if you have an ideal Body Mass Index and lung problems?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:18 am The disturbing thing about this is that one risk factor may be unlucky genes. A few people regardless of age or health status are getting horrifically sick and dying from a dramatic autoimmune response that happens as the patient is actually getting better from the viral illness.

Soon, all of my conspiracy theories will be proven true.

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:33 am I feel for the people who want to let everybody “healthy” back outside. I wonder though: if only part of the population is released, are at-risk people going to go back to work for fear of losing their jobs to a younger person? What if you have an ideal Body Mass Index and lung problems?

I'd say, if at risk people want to go back to their jobs, nobody should be stopping them. The government doesn't prevent other people from doing risky things, right? 40+ year old women still get pregnant, racecar drivers still race cars around speedways, and morons still jump off of high things with parachutes.

I tend to agree. Well, I think at some point this summer, they should lift the quarantine for everyone, and retirees and those who can afford it will stay home if they feel like staying home. Some people are just going to be caught in the second wave. They're screwed.