Coronavirus Thread

[MWBATL]

Look at this and follow and read the links:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/the-unwisdom-of-crowding-out-wonkish/

Right now, we are running gigantic amounts of debt - and we were running them even before the virus hit. The reason is simple enough: the economy has never recovered from 2007-8 and we still need a lot of government spending to keep demand strong enough to avoid a new recession. (This is a moot point now, of course.) But government's deficits won't crowd out private investment, if the government can sell any bond it prints at a negative interest rate, taking inflation into account. And right now it can. The reason why private firms haven't been investing - they haven't, btw - is that they can't find investments that will turn a profit. So they "invest" by using their profits to buy back stock and keep their share price up; that's why markets have been going up. But that has little to do with the government's debts and a lot to do with income inequality and it's effects on demand. And because of this governments find themselves in an enviable position: all they have to do is sell bonds at an interest rate that is less then the long run rate of inflation. Then we roll over the bonds at a higher interest rate and use the leverage to pay off our old debts. Sorta like we've been doing since 2008. As long as demand and private investment is stagnant, this will work. If the economy was actually booming, it'd be a different story, but no such luck. Almost all the growth is in FIRE and not, you know, actual products.

Well, enough.

Same guy who predicted the stock market would NEVER come back after Trump was elected (as I posted earlier). Yeah, I'll believe him....

 

[GT_EE78]

The information actually matches what the conservative media is saying about the virus being in the US earlier than February, so this information can't be because of a political agenda.

It wasn't behind a paywall when I went to it. It was also republished by Yahoo in their news section. https://news.yahoo.com/amid-signs-virus-came-earlier-122540809.html

Thanks for the yahoo link, even when NYT has free articles i get blocked due to my security settings.
Nothing controversial there. I have no problem finding it believable that it could have been spreading much earlier.
too bad the guy hospitalized on christmas hasn't been able to get tested.
not sure what could be done differently anyway.Gotta put the fire out before investigating the arsonist,

 

[MWBATL]

Dr. Ioannidis is one of the professors of the Stanford study that has been widely criticized over the last week for having a biased sample, simple math errors and other issues.
He has a solid contrarian view, but his science behind it has not been very good to this point and littered with errors that shouldn't be made.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/coronavirus-antibody-studies-california-stanford

Cal Berkeley study out this week using alot of available Italian data to try to determine the fatality rate.
This paper also confirms what I know many on here have said that it it much more likely to kill at risk people.
it shows how the percentage of people that will die within an age group depends upon the age distribution of the population. in italy with its aging population a very high percentage of the deaths occur in the oldest population. In NYC on the other hand, while the highest death group is that same oldest population, the percentage of younger killed is higher 26% of undre 65 in NYC vs 10% under 65 in Italy.
This study also concludes the lowest possible infection fatality rate for COVID19 would be 0.5%.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-reports-of-low-fatality-rate-for-covid-19/

FWIW, I don't know yet whether shutting down colleges this fall is the right decision yet. I don't think the policy makers have the knowledge to make that decision yet.

I think the only thing infectious disease experts were very sure about early on was that travel had to be stopped as much as possible. Both locally and nationally. Otherwise the disease spreads to fast to be contained and the whole country gets overwhelmed. We were probably 1-2 weeks from it being too late. Instead it was somewhat contained in larger cities and areas that had travel as well as some locations like Albany where there were a large gathering where someone was already contagious so it spread. But stopping that movement of people kept the virus from spreading to alot of smaller and more separated areas.

i think some areas should be able to open up more, others will have to stay more locked down. The biggest thing is we need well thought out plans on how to move forward and expand smartly.

I do think the nursing care industry is going to really take it on the chin though. as more and more stories come out of large death tolls in these homes and hiding of bodies and whatnot, that industry is going to have to be reorganized. That is one area that is well known we are way undercounting as most states are lagging significantly on reporting on deaths from nursing homes.

Agree with you about the nursing home industry. As someone who has been through that mill with my parents, I have long viewed most nursing homes as being places people park their old relatives while they wait for them to die. Most nursing homes are simply....well, disgusting is the word that comes to mind. The smells, the quality of food. The ratio of staff to patients...everything is designed to be a holding pattern for people waiting to die. It is easily the most depressing thing you can imagine. Perhaps 10% or LTC facilities are different and well managed. But they are also out of most people's price range. So, there is little doubt in my mind this has and will continue to hit LTC facilities hard. The broader question (I hate to say it this way, but I suspect it is true) is whether anyone will really care beyond the superficial momentary shock and outrage. A huge amount of money is already being spent on keeping people alive in their last year of life........and my perception is that most folks don't really care and would never pay for that themselves.

Beyond that harsh view, while you are correct that the Stanford study had some poor science, it has also been somewhat confirmed by a later study out of USC about LA County showing much higher rate of infections and the study in NYC showing about 21% of the people there testing positive for antibodies.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-19-infections-los-angeles-county/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-virus-marker-in-13-9-suggesting-wide-spread

Bottom line is, like so many other things with this virus it is NOT yet known with certainty.

I also cannot decide if it is a good thing or a bad thing that there are lots more people already infected. On the one hand, that means this virus is more contagious than previously thought, and on the other hand it would mean it is far less deadly. Not sure that means any fewer risks or deaths.

My one (still) strong question is what the OVERALL death rate is doing. I don't really trust the coronavirus numbers, because honestly it is really hard to know how to attribute a death these days (you could tell me I am charge of counting and I wouldn't know how ot get a good count). The only thing that makes sense to me is to try to examine the overall increase in deaths in our society and see if that spike is as scary as it seems and what level of economic pain is worth taking.

By the way, here is an interesting website attempting to calculate the economic costs versus the health costs. It is sure to be controversial and I have NOT yet examined it to see how much sense it makes, but it is interesting as a concept so I thought I'd throw it out there....
http://pandemiccosts.com/?mod=article_inline

Completely agree that a phased opening approach makes the most sense, and that different areas should open at different rates.

I'd still feel much better if one of the FDA tests for treatment found something that worked .....but those tests are still ongoing, so we have to wait a bit ...

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Looking at CDC data for total deaths.

BLUF: you can argue that COVID-19 isn't making much of a difference or you can argue that the data isn't in. I'm in the middle and was surprised that the total deaths hadn't increased more even considering the time lag. Definitely worth following though.
We're going to have to wait for more info, until then, thank you to all posting on this site as civility has returned.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb

But here are the footnotes:
1. Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis, and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.
2. Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

4. Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for this week in 2020 compared to the average number across the same week in 2017–2019. Previous analyses of 2015–2016 provisional data completeness have found that completeness is lower in the first few weeks following the date of death (duh for uGag readers)

 

[MWBATL]

Looking at CDC data for total deaths.

BLUF: you can argue that COVID-19 isn't making much of a difference or you can argue that the data isn't in. I'm in the middle and was surprised that the total deaths hadn't increased more even considering the time lag. Definitely worth following though.
We're going to have to wait for more info, until then, thank you to all posting on this site as civility has returned.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb

View attachment 8258

But here are the footnotes:
1. Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis, and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.
2. Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

4. Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for this week in 2020 compared to the average number across the same week in 2017–2019. Previous analyses of 2015–2016 provisional data completeness have found that completeness is lower in the first few weeks following the date of death (duh for uGag readers)

Thanks for doing that digging and posting that information.......that actually makes me feel better (?), in the sense that the pandemic may indeed be raising our death rate as a nation significantly which would make the economic pain "worth it". [Did that make any sense?]

We'll have to wait for better information, it seems, which is what we seem to be saying over and over again with this bug.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@MWBATL Faced with the nursing home dilemma years ago my wife and I raced around Florida looking to find a decent place. People sitting in chairs that had crapped & pissed themselves, cleanliness issues, food that looked like garbage, etc. One place a lady had fallen over in her room & was crying for help, nurses were having a shift change huddle & when I questioned the manager she said “That’s Mr Smith & she falls all the time. We’ll get her in a minute. Let me show you the activities area”. We left.

1 out of 25 facilities we checked was good quality, 4 or 5 were ok. This in Florida that has fairly decent monitoring & regulations. Well staffed 24 hrs a day, I was able to drop by 3 different times unannounced and they showed me whatever I wanted to see, food was professionally prepared & the residents/ facility did not smell of feces & urine. Thank God we found what we found, but it was $6k/month for the basic round the clock care we needed plus expenses.

We received “no visitors” orders 2-3 times a year for outbreaks even at the place we liked. Can only imagine what it’s like now. I pray for anyone needing a nursing home where home care does not work. Tough position to be in.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Rare that the government produces anything useful but if you’re in the nursing home market I found this helpful & fairly accurate:

https://www.medicare.gov/nursinghomecompare/search.html?

 

[RonJohn]

Looking at CDC data for total deaths.

BLUF: you can argue that COVID-19 isn't making much of a difference or you can argue that the data isn't in. I'm in the middle and was surprised that the total deaths hadn't increased more even considering the time lag. Definitely worth following though.
We're going to have to wait for more info, until then, thank you to all posting on this site as civility has returned.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/hc4f-j6nb

View attachment 8258

But here are the footnotes:
1. Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis, and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.
2. Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

4. Percent of expected deaths is the number of deaths for all causes for this week in 2020 compared to the average number across the same week in 2017–2019. Previous analyses of 2015–2016 provisional data completeness have found that completeness is lower in the first few weeks following the date of death (duh for uGag readers)

That will be interesting data to keep up with. It looks like it will be 4 more weeks before we can see if the week ending 3/28 was anomalous or not. Another 4 or 5 to see how high 4/4 is. And it will be quite a while before we see how the recent weeks compare.

 

[takethepoints]

He may be correct, but the issue is one can’t believe anything he says. When one let’s ones political ideology color his judgment (either way) and shades everything in that light, you never know if this is the time he is calling it straight. The economist who cried wolf.

Remind me, if you would, of any scientist, not just any social scientist, whose decisions about what to study and what part of their findings to emphasize is not influenced by their personal predilections.

That has never been the criteria for assessing scientific truths. The criteria is whether the hypotheses or models used to study a state of affairs have been probed adequately enough for error that we can determine if the conclusions reached are supported by the data used. Then we can decide if the whole business was worth studying in the first place. If the models prove useful for studying a particular problem or set of problems and are fruitful for further work, then accept them as working hypotheses. If not, too bad.

I think you and some others here are laboring under a logical positivist view of science; i.e. that it is aimed at presenting "the truth" and that the theories used must adhere to mathematical expression. This simply doesn't describe how science works, especially science concerned with the states of affairs that are a) reactive or b) not subject to regular experimental verification. Mathematical expression is useful because it provides a common language for error assessment but that's all.

And Krugman is right a whole lot more then he is wrong. A good criteria for any scientist.

 

[takethepoints]

Same guy who predicted the stock market would NEVER come back after Trump was elected (as I posted earlier). Yeah, I'll believe him....

Now, come on. Are you saying that you don't believe sound analysis from experts because they are sometimes wrong about their predictions? You can't be that naive. Experts are wrong all the time; the question is whether they are right more then they are wrong and whether the 'fess up. Krugman did:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/?_r=0

He still thought that Trump would not lead us out of the economic wilderness - and, btw, he hadn't, even before the virus - but he admitted that he pulled the trigger way too soon. Bet you hadn't read about that in the sources you were reading. Maybe you should think again about trusting them.

 

[GoldZ]

This link may be old hat for some (mid- March), but I found it informative as to the: do-nothing approach, the hit it hard and reopen gradually approach, and the long term shut it down approach. It's long, but worth it imo.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

 

[MWBATL]

Maybe you should think again about trusting them.

Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding ANY source that I believe these days. The closest (imho) is the Wall Street Journal for factual reporting (you can skip the Op-Ed page if you are liberal), but there is NO TV source that I find credible at all anymore.....

 

[GTNavyNuke]

That will be interesting data to keep up with. It looks like it will be 4 more weeks before we can see if the week ending 3/28 was anomalous or not. Another 4 or 5 to see how high 4/4 is. And it will be quite a while before we see how the recent weeks compare.

Actually, next Saturday at the same time, I'm going to get the CDC data again and make a magic prediction where each week will end up. I'll only assume that the subsequent weekly percentage increase is the same as previous weekly percentage increases.

Some distribution reasons why that won't be exact, but it should be within a couple percent. Fun to follow to see how accurate that guess is. (Got to think about this while cleaning up the trash in the marsh, bored!)

 

[FredJacket]

Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding ANY source that I believe these days. The closest (imho) is the Wall Street Journal for factual reporting (you can skip the Op-Ed page if you are liberal), but there is NO TV source that I find credible at all anymore.....

I feel same way. Nobody is being very helpful. The cynical side of me thinks the media (TV particularly) stands to gain substantially from panic & managing to keep folks home (w no alternative programming... like sports) for as long as possible.

I hate to think that way & it certainly doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be taking measures to keep virus from spreading. It's simply that I don't feel empowered at all to weigh through the mountains of info to find the truth.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I feel same way. Nobody is being very helpful. The cynical side of me thinks the media (TV particularly) stands to gain substantially from panic & managing to keep folks home (w no alternative programming... like sports) for as long as possible.

I hate to think that way & it certainly doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be taking measures to keep virus from spreading. It's simply that I don't feel empowered at all to weigh through the mountains of info to find the truth.

It’s not cynicism @FredJacket it’s how they make money. When you don’t have something like an earthquake or tornado to report on you make up crap to increase viewership. I tried to use examples that could not get corrupted but you got global warming fanatics and anti-frackers politicizing those acts of God too.

 

[takethepoints]

Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding ANY source that I believe these days. The closest (imho) is the Wall Street Journal for factual reporting (you can skip the Op-Ed page if you are liberal), but there is NO TV source that I find credible at all anymore.....

I sympathize. The best thing to do, in my experience, is to look to peer revieved work. Admittedly, this is a problem with research on COVID-19 and its impact, since so much of the work is an afterthought to clinical efforts and won't be examined closely until the house isn't on fire. All the more reason to hold off on work by people who you know very well are angling for clicks. You might think Krugman is one of those, but it's wise to remember that he's a full prof at MIT and a "prize in honor of Alfred Noble" winner. When you read him, he could care less whether you click through to the ads. And neither could the NYT; they have him on board because of the aforementioned creds. Oth, listening to somebody like Kudlow, who has zero (that's nada, zilch, a nullity) credentials for economic and has been so consistently wrong that it is a standing joke among economists, is just asking for it.

 

[takethepoints]

Some here have poo-poo'ed the idea of US economic growth not recovering from 2007-8. Here's the graph:

That gap between the trend and the actual growth in per capita GDP amounts to better then $5T. And see that the present trend line is nowhere close to the slope of the line before 2007-8. We have gotten back to about where we were in 2008, but growth? Nah. Not really. Btw, the data is from FRED, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

 

[MWBATL]

Some here have poo-poo'ed the idea of US economic growth not recovering from 2007-8. Here's the graph:

View attachment 8261

That gap between the trend and the actual growth in per capita GDP amounts to better then $5T. And see that the present trend line is nowhere close to the slope of the line before 2007-8. We have gotten back to about where we were in 2008, but growth? Nah. Not really. Btw, the data is from FRED, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

With respect, that chart can be misleading. First of all, it is a long time period and blots out some of the declines and recoveries simply because of scale.

Most people's criticisms of the recovery in the Obama years was that it did not come close to matching GDP growth after a downturn.

That the current economy has managed to keep our GDP growth at or above the levels of the Obama recovery is rather remarkable as it is normally exceedingly difficult to generate strong economic growth 7 years after a recovery has started. Heck, that's often danger territory for a mild pullback....

But, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with coronavirus.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

With respect, that chart can be misleading. First of all, it is a long time period and blots out some of the declines and recoveries simply because of scale.

Most people's criticisms of the recovery in the Obama years was that it did not come close to matching GDP growth after a downturn.

That the current economy has managed to keep our GDP growth at or above the levels of the Obama recovery is rather remarkable as it is normally exceedingly difficult to generate strong economic growth 7 years after a recovery has started. Heck, that's often danger territory for a mild pullback....

But, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with coronavirus.

Agree belongs in the Economic thread. We were getting the "strong" "growth" of 2% only because we were running $1.4T / year deficits before this crap. Coupled with central bank abnormally low interest rates that were "required" since the economy was so "weak".

We have mortgaged our future.

But here's some good news about testing of the rhesus monkeys with more details than an earlier link. Looks like for the strain of COVID-19 they were immunized with, there was immunity 3 weeks later. Progress. Now testing people.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...nkeys-new-coronavirus-chinese-biotech-reports

 

[gtchem05]

This may have been posted before, but I thought it was funny and wanted to share.
https://medium.com/@noahhaber/flatten-the-curve-of-armchair-epidemiology-9aa8cf92d652