This is new but hasnt the common flu killed more people in this same timeframe?

The question is like asking whether Afghanistan is safer than the USA because fewer people die in Afghanistan each year. The primary reason is population size (USA 327.2M, AFG 32.2M), not the % chance of death per capita.

If the population of AFG grew 10X (the same size as the USA), it would have many more deaths than the US each year, because it has a higher number of deaths per capita (or a lower life expectancy) than the US.

Fewer people have COVID-19 than common flu. Hence, fewer deaths.

The case-fatality rate of COVID-19 is much higher than common flu. In other words, if you catch COVID-19, you have a higher % chance of death, than if you catch common flu. It is most dangerous for people who are old or have other diseases, people who are healthy and young are relatively safe.

What people and governments are concerned about is the combination of a high case-fatality rate, with a highly infectious disease.

It is still early days outside of China but take a look at the trend:

"The Washington State Department of Health will hold a press briefing on coronavirus at 8 p.m. PT (11 p.m. ET). No details given."

https://mobile.twitter.com/BNODesk/s...tm_name=iossmf

don't listen to uninformed "deep state" idiots..... like the president of the United States..... listen to CDC, WHO and all kinds of other G20 governments.

when do S&P futures trade?... is it only on an exchange (including european and asian ones)? or does it trade actively OTC?

seems often right on direction for the day but seems very understated. maybe that's only when the day's movement is so strong.

alternatively, does SPY, or equivalent, trade in europe, asia and australia? i can never completely figure this out. and then if i could, never sure how the conversion works.. it's been very frustrating trying to figure this out.

I don't see how a global pandemic that started in the country that Trump has criticized more than the last 4 presidents combined is going to be seen as his fault.

If anything, I think this is probably not a bad thing for Trump because there were some signs of weakening economic numbers already and now he can blame whatever issues arise on the virus and it'll be tough to refute.

"The reason the economy sucks is because of a virus that originated in China" a pretty easy argument to make.

Stop embarrassing yourself with political commentary. This sub is about making money and you're smart enough to do it regardless of a democrat hoax virus/pandemic/Bernie/rate cuts/etc...

so i did find some S&P 500 ETFs....

3140.hk... hong kong..... 21 dollars.

vusa ln.... big vanguard etf in london..... 43.42

spy is at 296 approx.....

hong kong dollar is about 1/8th us$
uk pound = 1.28 us$

so the international prices don't link just by the currency...... i'll have to dive into the prospectuses...

The issue of how coronavirus affects the US election is better suited to the politics forum. I made a thread there for discussion of how the virus will affect the US election.

Whilst the election result has implications for markets, this thread should be focused on (a) the virus and (b) markets, more so than (c) the political consequences of the virus.

We have to judge what scenarios are likely/probable for (a) before we can have an informed opinion about (c).

Discussing (c) when (a) is unclear is pointless.

Responding to Covid-19 — A Once-in-a-Century Pandemic?, Bill Gates, New England Journal of Medicine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2003762

Where is Bill Gates getting his 1% from? I would snap call 1% with the given information we have now.

Are saying it's too low or too high?

I think he's saying if he was offered 1% as the actual CFR for this pandemic, he would snap accept. Meaning he thinks it's higher.

IMO we still can't nail it down. It could be as low as 1% but that would require that the number of cases that are never diagnosed exceed the number of diagnosed cases by at least 2 or 3 to 1. It could be 3-4% or even higher if this "reinfection" thing is common and highly fatal but that doesn't really sound like a real concern so far.

Yes. I don’t think 1% is an awful guess but I do think it’s optimistic.

Diamond Princess data is absolute gold but there is simply not enough information.
If we had the age of everybody involved and how many of them are in serious condition after 10 days we could narrow the possible ranges of CFR effectively imo. I wonder why nobody is doing that.

Edit : The data gives that there no cases that went from not serious to serious which simply seems to good to be true so I’m just assuming that nobody is updating that.

Korean data gives me a CFR or 0,6% with low undetected cases due to agressive testing. It’s also in the first 7 days since **** got out of control so since deaths pile on during the third or even fourth week since symptoms begin it’s a safe bet that it’s higher than 0,6% .

Chinese data was running at 2% cfr, now its 3,5% and I’m estimating it will end somewhere around 5% cfr with huge underreporting bias.

Deaths recovered ratio is down to 7%. That means the death recovered ratio will meet the current cfr at the halfway point estimated by me.

Ok so this means that the original 2% of the Chinese data is actually 2,5 times higher.

That means that the original of the korean 0,6 multiplied by 2,5 gives a 1,5 CFR estimation.
If we add up the undetected bias we could go down to 1,2 perhaps ?

Yeah, it would be great if all authorities involved would publish data as it rolls in. The internet ******s would instantly analyze the **** out of it and we'd already know everything there is to know about this thing. Instead we'll have to wait months for data analysts to present their likely erroneous conclusions through their spokespersons who likely don't understand what they're talking about. And we'll never see a detailed dataset.

TEHRAN- TEDPIX, the main index of Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE), rose 10 percent during the past Iranian calendar week (ended on Friday)

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/445...s-10-in-a-week

Truly bizarre.

Imo this is just media being ******ed and spreading stupidity/fear. You don't catch the same virus twice, that's not how your immune system works. You either catch a different bug or you had it all along with symptoms improving.


Also, spanish flu data isn't worthwhile to compare to now as that time had so many other factors contributing to mass death.

-crowded ww1 hospitals naturally selecting for a deadlier virus to mass spread
-antibiotics were not invented yet leading to huge death numbers from secondary bacterial infections
-healthier people were actually dying in high numbers due to cytokine overload. something that clearly isn't the case now and is treatable. as a result...
-mortality was higher in 1918 for people in their 20s/30s than 50s/60s

The Contrairanian Investment Strategy:



https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/stock-market

It's not about corona, it's the irrational reaction to it:

This is my assumption too until I see a credible source (not a newspaper) saying otherwise.

So I think you are addressing the Bill Gates article/stats...

To your points:

1. Agree hospitals and medical treatment now > 1918. But capacity still big problem everywhere.

2. Disagree. Real world number of infections/deaths matter. Not a theoretical-identical-conditions-vacuum comparison. Therefore, take medical treatment as it exists in the real world at the time an outbreak occurs. Would the COVID-19 CFR be higher due to bacterial co-infection if antibiotics did not exist? I don't think I should care (unless we run out of antibiotics).

3. My understanding is cytokine storm occurs in many illnesses, including coronavirus in a minority of cases. Source: spoke to a cardiologist about this topic (note: not a virus specialist). Also read journal articles that back this up but am not a subject matter expert so I may be missing something or misinterpreting. Not trying to flex. If someone knows, or has sources, pls explain or link.

4. Not sure what your point is, can you elaborate?

Yeah I give that video a big thumbs down. Swine and Spanish flu comparisons don't really equate to today. And people know they aren't going to die, they are worried about their older relatives actually dying and the world economy.

Swine flu case fatality rate was less than 0.1%, corona virus is 10-20x that with an R0 that is equal at best and at worst 2x.

Also the swine flu didn't cause a worldwide recession while coronavirus likely will.

Spanish flu comparisons are just nonsense for reasons stated above. I'm not going after Bill Gates, I just think its important to know the specifics about the spanish flu rather than just quoting deaths/infections.


1. Agree hospitals can be overwhelmed in any era
2. I'm making the argument that had antibiotics been widely available 100 years ago, that the death rate would have dropped significantly. Same with cytokine reaction treatments.
3/4. Younger/healthier people died at a higher rate in 1918 because their healthier immune systems were more likely to produce a cytokine overload, which was a huge cause of death. Clearly that is not the case today with this virus. That combined with secondary bacterial infections, also being a massive cause of death, makes any comparison to the spanish flu nonsense.

Found this. Hopefully it's kept up-to-date: