Gyroscopic Investing

WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:05 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:43 am

WiseOne wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:36 am

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:25 am During a lockdown, people that stay locked down and socially isolated had less cases and deaths than those that did not stay isolated.

Please cite the source for this data and the actual numbers? I'm interested to see it, because that conflicts with data already out there e.g. there is no difference in coronavirus mortality between states that locked down early vs. late. Plus that would conflict with the info from NY that few hospital cases consisted of people going to work (17%) and taking public transportation (4%).

The states that locked down early vs late is meaningless, because the states that locked down late mostly did not have a problem early. There is no data in reopening early vs late. My state is the guinea pig for that. If 2-3 weeks from now our data looks good, then my theory will be proven wrong. Until such time though, there is no real data to support your case.

Your statement (bolded above) is incorrect.

Your arguments are based primarily on your emotional response to the situation. While that's understandable, it's not terribly helpful to the rest of us. Hard data is what we would prefer to debate on.

The data about other countries opening up is more fitting than data about states locking down. My problem with your example is that it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:15 pm As for the easing of the lockdown, though, did pmward say anything so crazy? It seems like he was just saying he didn't like the abrupt change from a careful rollout to a free-for-all and he's kind of getting beaten up over it. Maybe an endorsement from me is undesirable, but I thought it made total sense.

Thank you dualstow. I'm glad to hear that at least one person has been listening to what I'm actually saying without drawing conclusions.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:13 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:48 pm Food production should be considered "essential". My gripe here is with things like shopping malls, movie theaters, massage parlors, bars, etc. Things that are definitely not essential. These things have no reason to open right now, especially into weekly data that is still trending worse.

Then I'm curious what you think should be done for the owners of malls, theaters, massage parlors, bars and restaurants. And their employees. Should we just allow them all to go bankrupt and say, "oh, well"? Should the employees just remain unemployed indefinitely? Because if all those businesses fold, there won't be enough jobs for all the people it displaces. So what exactly is your better plan?

They have their time to open up, when the data supports it. Right now it does not. Why do those things have to open THIS week? Why can't they wait a couple more weeks to see how our phase one opening went? In the meantime, yes the government should help those affected individuals and businesses. If they can print money to bail out big corporations and inflate a gigantic wealth gap, they can print money to bail out some small businesses and employees in a humanitarian crisis. Some businesses may fail. But, eventually, we get a vaccine or some medical treatments and the humanitarian crisis ends. Then, as always happens, the recovery begins and new movie theaters, massage parlors, bars, etc replace the old ones, and the jobs come back. Our economy is not that fragile that it's going to completely and irrevocably implode because of this.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:15 pm As for the easing of the lockdown, though, did pmward say anything so crazy? It seems like he was just saying he didn't like the abrupt change from a careful rollout to a free-for-all and he's kind of getting beaten up over it. Maybe an endorsement from me is undesirable, but I thought it made total sense.

I had to go back and look for the original comments, so thanks for pointing that out. I agree with pmward's confusion over the sudden change in strategies. It's odd to say the least, and I personally am inclined to agree that a staged rollout makes more sense. I just disagree with the characterization (which I admittedly picked up later in the conversation out of context) that one side is for saving lives and one side is for making money. IMO to frame the complex issues in those terms is not very constructive and does the entire debate a disservice.

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus.

If the curve has been flattened (meaning the peak of the bell-shaped curve did not rise above hospital capacity), no it won't.

Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity? Or do some folks reading this thread believe that we can completely eradicate the virus within a reasonable timeframe before that happens?

If everyone agrees that the virus will inevitably spread until herd immunity is reached, then shortening or lengthening the shutdown won't change that fact, and it won't significantly change the number of people who become infected.

If the end result doesn't change, how is it a balancing act?

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:21 pm

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus.

If the curve has been flattened (meaning the peak of the bell-shaped curve did not rise above hospital capacity), no it won't.

Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity? Or do some folks reading this thread believe that we can completely eradicate the virus within a reasonable timeframe before that happens?

If everyone agrees that the virus will inevitably spread until herd immunity is reached, then shortening or lengthening the shutdown won't change that fact, and it won't significantly change the number of people who become infected.

If the end result doesn't change, how is it a balancing act?

No I do not think it's the case that it is inevitable that it has to rip through the population. They are already doing human trials on a vaccine. It's very likely that if this proves safe and effective they will fast track it. I read an article somewhere (wish I would have bookmarked it in hindsight) with the company stating that if the trial goes well and the FDA is cooperative it could be ready to go to mass market by as early as the fall. This will not be a normal slow foot dragging vaccine turnaround. Likewise for any potential treatment drugs. The FDA is going to be a lot more cooperative in getting these things to market ASAP. I have enough hope in our pharmaceutical companies and the FDA that I think it's worth fighting and not just resigning ourselves to Darwin just yet. I guess this is an important point, as this belief obviously strongly influences all of my opinions in this thread. I'm willing to have a bit of patience.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:13 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:48 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:43 pm I've read (somewhere) that the drop in food production will primarily affect exports to third-world countries, where the lack of available food could by itself kill as many as the virus.

Food production should be considered "essential". My gripe here is with things like shopping malls, movie theaters, massage parlors, bars, etc. Things that are definitely not essential. These things have no reason to open right now, especially into weekly data that is still trending worse.

Then I'm curious what you think should be done for the owners of malls, theaters, massage parlors, bars and restaurants. And their employees. Should we just allow them all to go bankrupt and say, "oh, well"? Should the employees just remain unemployed indefinitely? Because if all those businesses fold, there won't be enough jobs for all the people it displaces. So what exactly is your better plan?

If too many potential customers are too concerned, sick, or dead to go, same effect.

I think behaviors are going to change no matter what and many of these will go out of business.

The way I'm reading your position:

* Reopen everything, no restrictions

* If offered a "comparable" job, people have to take it or lose unemployment
(No safety equipment or health accomodations need be provided or allowed by the company)

* Business cannot make safety accomodations
(No changes to fixed costs, so need to try to bring in same revenue. Less customers means less revenue, so no social distancing, employees wearing masks scares people away.
Providing PPE for employees isn't in the budget. Customers don't want to wear masks, and may attack employees of asked our required to).

I personally think consumer behaviors will change enough that not all business will survive even after reopening.

As for what I would do, I think it's complicated, I'm not an expert, and I haven't read the Obama era pandemic response plan.

Other countries seen to be doing more of an ongoing UBI for their citizens to carry them through the worst of it. Gets money or quickly. If people have money (especially poor), they will spend it. Spending will mean jobs. If UBI, don't lose it when go back to work, so can survive while no work. Can do better if have work.

Yang for president! Oh, nevermind.

I'd have spent less on big businesses - if I'm supposed to have an emergency fund, they should have. Spend more of that on small businesses and UBI. Stocks are risky.

I'd like leadership to take things I consider important seriously (PPE / masks!, social distancing) and set a good example for their followers. Don't be hypocritical.

* Has the White House reopened for tours?

* Can we ask get tested as much as they are?

* Don't require people to take off masks when meeting with them.

* Speak out against those who are jerks basic safety precautions.

Mandatory paid sick leave. You want me to go out when I know employees have to choose between being able to buy food or stay home sick?

I like WiseOne's Medicare for all idea as a starting point. Haven't looked deep enough at where I think cutoff point should be.
People who survive shouldn't be bankrupt.
Shouldn't have to not get treatment or testing due to lack of insurance or money.

Co-ordinated purchasing to save money on PPE / medical supplies during the emergency. States bidding against each other and then the feds either outbid them or confiscate.


I'm lucky to still have a job.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:21 pm Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity?

I don’t know, but I hope that’s not the case.

What if the next bug is more ebola-like, except slow enough that it doesn’t burn itself out in one little village?

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:27 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:21 pm Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity? Or do some folks reading this thread believe that we can completely eradicate the virus within a reasonable timeframe before that happens?

No I do not think it's the case that it is inevitable that it has to rip through the population.
[...]
I have enough hope in our pharmaceutical companies and the FDA that I think it's worth fighting and not just resigning ourselves to Darwin just yet. I guess this is an important point, as this belief obviously strongly influences all of my opinions in this thread. I'm willing to have a bit of patience.

I agree -- it's a very important point, and it's good to know your position on it. Far too often I see various coronavirus strategies discussed in government, in the news, etc., and people aren't explicitly saying whether they assume it's possible to eradicate the virus before herd immunity is reached (or at all). It's a crucial assumption to communicate.

It would be amazing if a vaccine becomes available as early as this fall. But to be completely honest, since I'm a healthy 40-year-old with no known risk factors for Covid-19, I would probably rather take my chances with the virus than with a vaccine that was rushed to market at warp speed. Seems like my odds of complications due to Covid-19 would be quite a bit lower than my odds of complications due to a vaccine that was rushed to market with historically unprecedented speed.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer in general, just an anti-warp-speed-vaxxer.

This video game could be the key to finding a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus

https://sea.mashable.com/tech/9459/this ... d-19-virus

Just saw it being played on Nova.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 8:45 pm This video game could be the key to finding a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus

https://sea.mashable.com/tech/9459/this ... d-19-virus

Just saw it being played on Nova.

Wow, that is really cool!!!

"The game has shown to be very effective. In 2011, players managed to help researchers decode the AIDS virus which was a problem for scientists for years.

University of Washington has stated that they will take the most effective solutions and apply them in real-world tests.

Who said gaming can't save the world?"

pmward wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:42 pm It's just that other people in the thread have come to me with discussion, whereas you just came to me as an arrogant asshole throwing insults at me from the onset with no attempt to even open up any form of dialogue.

Funny enough, I was going to say that at least here we all kinda "know" each other and so we usually just throw ideas at each other and try to convince "you to think like I do" instead of descending into nonsense insults. But then my inner voice made fun of me for being a sappy pussy and snapped me out of it. The fact that I'm writing this right now is tearing me apart inside.

You have a nice discussion here. Making incorrect assumptions from statistically significant evidences is one thing, but trying to make conclusions out of small testing sample set and in such short time frames is completely different thing... As far as I can see there are approx. 10M tests done as of yesterday for US (330M) and IMHO that gives plenty of free space for all sort of approximations and future projections .. But I guess the amount of testing that can be admitted as statistically significant is yet another story.. Where I live we are doing really great as well - less testing - less cases, COVID-19 is beaten to death.. yupieee In short - less statistics and data - more space for people's hopes and fears (and rising VIX)...

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:04 am IMG_3433.JPG

What was he sitting on, a dull Iron Maiden?

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:21 pm Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity?

Yes, this is exactly what is expected to happen. Fauci, Cuomo and others have stated as much. "Flattening the curve" is about reducing the height of the peak, not reducing the total area under the curve. Lockdowns cannot and will not prevent infection over time, only delay it. i.e. it will not "save lives". They will assuredly hurt people in a different way though. The different approaches to lockdown simply reflect different abilities to understand these concepts on the part of governors and mayors making the decisions.

Agree with Xan, MangoMan and others about the silliness of trying to categorize businesses as "essential" vs. "not". All businesses are essential to someone. Just for starters, there's the business owner, the owner's family, the landlord who isn't getting rent paid, the landlord's family, employees of the business, charities depending on donations from these people, the town/city/state depending on them paying their taxes, someone who needs goods or services provided by that business that the governor sitting in his mansion didn't think about, etc.

Take this example: a store selling mattresses. Mattresses aren't essential, right? You only buy them every 20 years or so, so a few months won't make a difference. Well, what if you fell and hurt your back, and now you need a new mattress that doesn't aggravate your back pain? You need to go to a store to try them out to find the one that works best. Well, you can't, so you have to live with the back pain. You can't get physical therapy either, since gyms and PT centers are all closed. Which means you'll turn to alcohol and narcotics to deal with it. What's the essential and not essential items in this story?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 9:46 am

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:21 pm Can we all agree that the virus will inevitably spread throughout the population until it "burns out" via herd immunity?

Yes, this is exactly what is expected to happen. Fauci, Cuomo and others have stated as much. "Flattening the curve" is about reducing the height of the peak, not reducing the total area under the curve. Lockdowns cannot and will not prevent infection over time, only delay it. i.e. it will not "save lives". They will assuredly hurt people in a different way though. The different approaches to lockdown simply reflect different abilities to understand these concepts on the part of governors and mayors making the decisions.

Agree with Xan, MangoMan and others about the silliness of trying to categorize businesses as "essential" vs. "not". All businesses are essential to someone. Just for starters, there's the business owner, the owner's family, the landlord who isn't getting rent paid, the landlord's family, employees of the business, charities depending on donations from these people, the town/city/state depending on them paying their taxes, someone who needs goods or services provided by that business that the governor sitting in his mansion didn't think about, etc.

Take this example: a store selling mattresses. Mattresses aren't essential, right? You only buy them every 20 years or so, so a few months won't make a difference. Well, what if you fell and hurt your back, and now you need a new mattress that doesn't aggravate your back pain? You need to go to a store to try them out to find the one that works best. Well, you can't, so you have to live with the back pain. You can't get physical therapy either, since gyms and PT centers are all closed. Which means you'll turn to alcohol and narcotics to deal with it. What's the essential and not essential items in this story?

More people can live for longer without a new mattress vs food and water, so can see prioritizing to limit interactions.

And yes, there are a lot of important items not considered essential that negatively impact people.

>> Lockdowns cannot and will not prevent infection
>> over time, only delay it. i.e. it will not "save lives".

While possibly true, not intuitively obvious to me. I would think it could have lives by:
(Ok, postpone death, we all die)

* Don't overwhelm medical facilities, so can get needed treatment
(Especially early on)

* Less need for emergency medical in general with fewer accidents, etc

* Time to learn how to best treat with available resources / medicines, as well as preventative measures (Vitamin D! People making masks, ...)

* Magic may happen and a cure / vaccine find quickly (I'm not backing on this, but possible...)

I’m not sure how to phrase this, but Isn’t there also a kind of critical mass of infection that we’d hit with no lockdown at all?

Can you elaborate on what you mean, using whatever terms make the most sense to you?

The Covid-19 death curves that the epidemiologists have shown us are all shaped roughly like bell curves — steep rise in the beginning, slower rise as peak approaches, peak is reached, then a tapering off.

The area under the curve (total number of deaths) remains the same whether the curve has a higher peak that occurs sooner or a lower peak that occurs later — provided the peak does not exceed hospital capacity.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 2:07 pmprovided the peak does not exceed hospital capacity.

I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated either. How many of the people who go on ventilators are actually saved as opposed to dying in the following, say, month anyway? To me this is the big question and I can't find that anyone has even asked it, apart from that fellow with the oddly-colored website whose name escapes me at the moment.

The point of the lockdown is to save people who can be saved with proper medical attention (particularly with a ventilator) but who would die without it. But how much difference does medical intervention actually make?

I think we're owed some solid numbers on that if we're expecting to continue any form of lockdown.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 2:07 pm Can you elaborate on what you mean, using whatever terms make the most sense to you?

I’ll try. I’ll work on it.

pmward, Here is an article from Arizona that is pretty good. Well I think so because they say what I've been thinking for several weeks. Namely that the only measure that means anything is hospitalizations. And they say AZ has been trending down.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/hea ... 61c883890c

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:06 pm pmward, Here is an article from Arizona that is pretty good. Well I think so because they say what I've been thinking for several weeks. Namely that the only measure that means anything is hospitalizations. And they say AZ has been trending down.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/hea ... 61c883890c

Interesting. Though considering our new cases and deaths are still both trending up (today was our 2nd largest increase in new cases to date) I'm not sure how sustainable that is. It seems like it may be more of a red herring than anything.

EDIT: I also wonder about if this has a lot to do with our large snow bird population, it is mid May, and April-May is about the time of the year that they fly back north for the summer. We have a large retiree population year round, but it is especially high in the winter through April-May timeframe.

pmward wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:30 pm

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:06 pm pmward, Here is an article from Arizona that is pretty good. Well I think so because they say what I've been thinking for several weeks. Namely that the only measure that means anything is hospitalizations. And they say AZ has been trending down.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/hea ... 61c883890c

Interesting. Though considering our new cases and deaths are still both trending up (today was our 2nd largest increase in new cases to date) I'm not sure how sustainable that is. It seems like it may be more of a red herring than anything.

EDIT: I also wonder about if this has a lot to do with our large snow bird population, it is mid May, and April-May is about the time of the year that they fly back north for the summer. We have a large retiree population year round, but it is especially high in the winter through April-May timeframe.

As the article said, case counts are not worth much. The more you test, the more cases you count. And deaths are not real time reporting, and are subject to bias and error both ways. Hospitalizations tell the story.

pmward wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:30 pm

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:06 pm pmward, Here is an article from Arizona that is pretty good. Well I think so because they say what I've been thinking for several weeks. Namely that the only measure that means anything is hospitalizations. And they say AZ has been trending down.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/hea ... 61c883890c

Interesting. Though considering our new cases and deaths are still both trending up (today was our 2nd largest increase in new cases to date) I'm not sure how sustainable that is. It seems like it may be more of a red herring than anything.

EDIT: I also wonder about if this has a lot to do with our large snow bird population, it is mid May, and April-May is about the time of the year that they fly back north for the summer. We have a large retiree population year round, but it is especially high in the winter through April-May timeframe.

Surprisingly I've not kept up on it....but given Arizona's now "liberal" policy (of which I share your concern)….is it being talked about as being one of the places where a disproportionate amount of baseball games would be played given that it already has all the facilities there that are used for spring training? Plus, on top of it them being much smaller than major league parks would not be an issue if there are not going to be fans in attendance.

Vinny

Hmmm, a combination of hospitalizations and deaths seen like useful information.

In related news --

"
As first reported on NPR, as many as 15 to 20 out of every 100 tests may produce falsely negative results. A subsequent study released this week indicated that the test could be missing as many as 48% of infections.
"

One way to get the count down -- push a great that falls half the time!

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... virus-test