You're not factoring in demographics. What kind of passengers are on a
cruise ship? We have no idea how many in South Korea or Germany were
infected, and never even knew it. It's quite possible that half of the
UK currently is, or was.
On 3/26/20 10:49 AM, Stefan Dobrev wrote:
*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/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
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM
Henry Spencer
<hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26
AM ken mason
<laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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