Comments by RandomMember (page 33)

We could start with randomized testing to get a much better grasp of things like the case fatality rate. And, no, catching up with S Korea on a per capita testing rate is not insurmountable.

Fed balance sheet rose to $4T under Bernacke and it's now over $6T over a decade later. I guess the fed balance sheet will never be unwound in my lifetime. Bitcoin down today but gold is up. Glad my stock portfolio is up -- but feel sorry for 10,000 families that rushed into San Antonio food bank today: https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Thousands-hit-hard-by-coronavirus-pandemic-s-15189948.php

@Warrior your claim about Lupus patients is plain bullshit. You should spend 30 seconds online and do some fact checking.

Unit of electrical current

^^^ hope you're right

That's true about retirees and voting -- but it would occur after the election. This was written before the virus scare: https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/

@Whodey: "...we need to keep it up long enough to build a large percentage of people who have recovered from the disease and built a herd immunity..." ________________ Makes sense, and if we did randomized testing we could get an approximation of how many people have recovered with immunity. After three months, I don't know why we still lag behind other countries in per capita testing?

@Loper: "Who knows what will become of social security," ______________________ I was thinking along the same lines. I might be in denial, but I do think the medical emergency will pass in time with some combination of herd immunity, vaccines, or anti-viral drugs. But when this all clears we'll have to deal with the massive deficit spending of the CARES act. Don't be surprised if the deficit spending is used as an excuse to cut SS and Medicare. That may be difficult if the Dems control at least the House -- but GOP will be far more likely to choose austerity if they control all three branches of government.

“Start talking on the phone, have video chats, sext or have phone sex if that’s your thing,” _________________ Well, that's not my thing and I'm certainly not going to pay for it. Mongering is out for the time being, especially for married guys.

^^^ well that's what I assumed but Subramanian was too chickenshit to say so. Both of you should take your chloroquine since we don't have any more ventilators.

I admit I don't follow the LA Times since leaving, and it did change hands, but it ranks fourth place among all media in Pulitzer Prizes. Please tell me what else qualifies as shitrag @Supra because your opinion is so important to me.

I guess everyone has their own tolerance for risk. In my case it doesn't make any sense to get std testing 3x per year and ignore covid19. Hopefully the antibody tests will be available soon but not sure how reliable the tests will be or whether it proves immunity. I've quit for now. Good info on hotels.

New article and I thought it was pretty good. Too bad it's behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/business/stock-market-predictions-coronavirus-shiller.html?auth=linked-google It's by Robert Shiller and gives his perspective on the stock market. Some excerpts: "Predictions for the Coronavirus Stock Market A Nobel laureate is cautiously positive about the market for the long run but worries about how long that will need to be. I believe the pandemic’s effect on stock prices today is better understood as a series of emotional responses to unique events. People are trading stocks with their cellphones on their living room couches with the television news blaring about the pandemic. There is widespread foreboding, not just about the economy but about the possibility of grave illness or death in the weeks ahead. People are seeking reassurance from homespun investment advice, like the old nostrum that the percentage of stocks in your portfolio should be equal to 100 minus your age, come what may. If you are 60, for example, you should hold 40 percent stocks, under this rule. But this advice isn’t grounded in any scientific truth about financial markets. I don’t object to it, however. For psychological reasons, it may be a good idea to follow some rule as long as it doesn’t defy common sense. And the 100 minus your age stock market rule has some virtues: It impels older people to take fewer risks, yet encourages them to take limited action in market downturns, buying just enough to restore the stock balance after market declines. Taking some action may make people feel better. Let’s hope that the current pandemic does not reach proportions so tragic that will similarly blossom into a narrative that is remembered for decades, with the power of depressing stock prices for a long time. I think there is a risk that could happen but I don’t expect that it will. On balance, I’d emphasize that the stock market is not as expensive as it was just a month ago. Based on history we would expect to see it to be a reasonable long-term investment, attractive at a time when interest rates are low. As a practical matter, my advice is to look at your portfolio to make sure that it is not so heavily weighted to stocks that further losses would be unbearable. Otherwise, I’d try not to worry too much about the stock market. Most likely, it will do moderately well in the coming years, even if there is a risk that you will need to be very patient. I would worry more about keeping one’s family safe from the coronavirus."

@Ski: "Be interesting when they test everybody and find out the death rate is similar to .. the flu." ____________ The case fatality rate *is* estimated to be similar to the flu. But it's more contagious and there's no vaccine yet.

Same news as @Justin's post in NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/health/coronavirus-antibody-test.html

Alan Blinder (former Fed vice-chair) wrote an editorial in the WSJ, early on, stating that pouring money into testing is more important than the stimulus itself. Makes sense.

That does look encouraging @Justin -- antibody test with on-site results in minutes. We can start handling the lockdown with a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. I'd love to get the antibody test, myself. Some of the estimates I've read are 6x asymptomatic exposures for every confirmed case.

Dr Fauci is receiving death threats from right-wing groups: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/anthony-faucis-security-is-stepped-up-as-doctor-and-face-of-us-coronavirus-response-receives-threats/2020/04/01/ff861a16-744d-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html ...for having the courage to stand up to pseudo-science and bullshitting.

"...combined with the fact that it is low risk of being serious in younger people." ______________ I don't how reliable the reports are, but I've read several articles about lung damage in recovering Covid patients across all age groups. I broke it off with my long-term SB and I got a text yesterday from another I've known for several years who's been going to college in San Diego. I also told her that I'm not sugaring and the most important reason is to avoid bringing the disease home. Strip clubs are out for now. I might return if a reliable serology test becomes available and there's solid evidence that antibodies == immunity. I Agree with @25 that recovery won't occur anytime soon.

@FTS - FWIW the Spanish Flu killed about 1/4 of the world's population and had minimal effect on the stock market.

@mark: awesome!!!

@Joker: "..dugan is TUSCL's version of Lindsey Graham." _____________________ lol, that ain't no compliment. One of my favorites, Steve Schmidt (ex-GOP pundit), called Graham a "pilot fish" -- i.e, a little fish that follows the direction of big fish.

I prefer best of both worlds -- living in suburbs with easy drive into the city. Seems to be a functiin of age and younger people prefer the city. Couldn't care less about quality of nearby strip clubs

I told my long-term SB that we should stop meeting for a couple of weeks. But realistically I don't see the level of risk changing for months. So it's probably over and I'm not too happy about it. I can't risk binging this home...

I'm guessing how Fauci arrived at 100k to 200k deaths: If herd immunity kicks in when 50% or 60% of the population gets the disease and the case fatality rate is 0.1% that gives about 170K deaths. Very grim, but an order-of-magnitude better than earlier estimates. The 0.1% case fatality comes from one of Fauci's articles in NEJM.