[AR] Re: ... Coronavirus
- From: Stefan Dobrev <Stefan.Dobrev@xxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:49:55 +0100 (CET)
Od: "Rand Simberg" <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Komu: "arocket" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Odoslané: štvrtok, 26. marec 2020 16:26:43
Predmet: [AR] Re: ... Coronavirus
...
It would appear that the death rate from this bug is much less than one
percent
in a country with the facilities and drugs to treat it. It's likely about one
in a thousand. This will become quickly apparent once large-scale testing
occurs.
Ehm, take a look at the death rates at countries like South Korea and Germany,
both of which are doing a very aggressive testing (i.e. the infection rate is
not a large multiple of the detected cases).
It started low-ish in both of them, but creeps upwards (in S. Korea > 1.4% now,
Germany at 0.5% but rising) - the delay between infection and the actual deaths
is 2-3-4+ weeks, which skews the statistics quite a lot when the infections are
rising sharp.
Diamond Princess is another case in point, where all disembarking passengers
were tested. 712 infected, 10 deaths, 15 still (after many weeks) in intensive
care, for a death rate of 1.4%, possibly rising further.
0.1% is a wishful thinking ... sadly, quite prevalent
Stefan
On 3/26/20 6:09 AM, Jake Anderson (Redacted sender jake for DMARC) wrote:
Ok I'll do it your way.
Total value of the US stock market is 34 trillion.
If one death is caused by a $10Million loss (citation needed) then at a
fairly
conservative 1million American deaths nets you 10 trillion in paper losses
before you have equality.
I mean this doesn't really seem plausible given the dow(used as a proxy for
total market) has grown by ~25% in one year several times without
spontaneously
creating life, it doesn't seem all that plausible it going down by the same
amount would lead to near a million deaths. It also seems like a million dead
people would show up in the news.
Further to that looking at data for death rates, 2002 had the dow shrink by
16%
(after 3 consecutive -ve years, near 50% reduction) but had a lower death
rate
(8.5 per 100,000) than 1999 where it again had a 25% growth (8.9)
2008 had a 33% reduction in the dow, also correlated with the lowest death
rate
since the 50s of 8.1
So I'm going to say the assertion that the stock market has any significant
relation to deaths is wrong.
[ https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate ;|
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate ] ;[
https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart ;|
https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart ;]
Indeed I haven't actually done the maths on it but it looks at first
impressions
that bear markets correlate with a reduction (or more rapid reduction) in the
death rate. I won't swear to that, just how the graphs look to my eye.
(S&P500 is similar to the dow, dow was just the first I grabbed)
Am I thinking better now?
On 26/3/20 9:19 pm, David Summers wrote:
OK, well you're upset and not thinking very well. I hope you and yours get
better soon, and wish you the best.
Let's game this out. Currently, poor people are running out of food. Maybe
they
can stretch it for a few months. Corona virus will be here for 18 months
even
in the case of magic level vaccines. I'll point out here that we have
vaccines
for the flu, and we still lose 100,000 per year to it in the US alone. None
of
the poor will survive 18 months without work. You can say we will just give
them free food - OK, now you are enslaving the farmers, because they have to
work for that food and because no one else is allowed to work, they can't
get
anything in return. In humans, this will lead to fewer farmers, etc. We
cannot
shut society down for long enough to stop the virus - even after 18 months,
the
virus will still be here.
Given that, what should we do? That is the question, and it has little to do
with stock options. Social distancing while still working is probably the
best
scenario. Maybe some jobs are now gone forever - bars, dance clubs, cruise
ships, etc. But others can adapt (much larger spacing in restaurants, more
isolation of older people, etc.)
Don't assume that people that think differently than you are evil. That will
just lead to war, which you won't win. (You think Trump is bad? Who do you
think is elected after the intellectuals keep the working poor and middle
class
out of a job for 18 months? That is exactly how Hitler got elected.)
Thanks!
-David Summers
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:42 PM Jake Anderson < [
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;| dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
It's complicated because people don't typically enjoy being left to die in
their
fluids over the course of a few weeks to protect stock options. Despite
assurances by those with said stock options that it's really better for
society
this way.
I understand maths too, I also understand how at these levels you can make
statistics say pretty much anything you want to so it's very important to
see
who is saying them. Further I know enough about the science of economics to
know that it's half made up and a lot of the rest is guesswork. Not the
best
basis for making life and death predictions on IMO.
If you want a purely rational economic argument then nobody over 60 with a
net
worth less than the likely cost of treatment should be treated. When you
run
out of money you die. Also insurance should be suspended for people
unlikely to
recover to preserve the funds for young healthy people and the owners of
insurance companies.
Why do we even have healthcare for people over 60? Their grand kids are
typically grown enough not to need extended family daycare. Yet these
people
consume the majority of healthcare costs. They are just a burden on the
economically viable young people.
That's not the world I want to live in.
On 26/3/20 6:29 pm, David Summers wrote:
You are under no obligation to spend any money to save my life. Society is
marginally better off if you save my life spending $100k. Society is
worse off
if you spend $100m to save my life.
Why is this complicated? I am not evil because I understand math. The
reality
was there before the math, the math merely describes it. Emotive
reasoning does
not change reality.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 9:24 PM Jake Anderson < [
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;| dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ] >
wrote:
I guess the equations are different in America than the rest of the
world.
So much freedom.
Should we kill you if I can prove it's good for the economy too?
On 26/3/20 6:08 pm, David Summers wrote:
Speaking very roughly, for every $1-10 M lost someone dies. They die
because we
couldn't get the cancer treatment, or the process wasn't as safe as it
could
be, etc. So by wiping out a trillion dollars, long term you have kill
100k to
1m people unless we dig ourselves out.
Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology, doesn't
matter
without the money to deploy it. And money is not something that can be
arbitrarily created or stolen. Theft and printing money destroys it,
rather
than create it. Basic economics.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:58 PM Jake Anderson < [
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;| dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ] >
wrote:
Sorry dad, trumps stockmarket portfolio is going down so you need to
die.
On 26/3/20 4:22 pm, roxanna Mason wrote:
Today one week later:
657 infections, 12 deaths, 43 recovered.
Were's the age vs deaths data? If it's disproportionately the elderly
and health
compromised then maybe its time to get back to work and let herd
immunity do its
job.
[
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
|
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM Henry Spencer < [
mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM ken mason < [
mailto:laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx ;|
laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
Observation: One of the largest population
country with the lowest infection rate is India -
Over a billion people with only 244 infected 5
deaths 20 received. Why?
India and Pakistan are now both on lockdown, desperately hoping to
flatten
the peak enough that their limited medical resources can more-or-less
cope. It hasn't been done particularly skillfully in either country,
and
they've got big problems with very large numbers of poor people who
don't
have enough safety margin to handle being out of work for weeks, but
they're trying.
Henry
Other related posts: