Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
Agreed with all of that - except it's arguable about whether the world ever had a genuine chance to prevent the spread of infection.
Trump won, if anything, because he tapped into real, visceral, anger. You don't get that, you get nothing.
He did. And he needs to again in order to be re-elected. So the only way he gets re-elected is to have NOT delivered for his base. Since if he has they will no longer be angry and brimful of fears to be exploited. Luckily for him he hasn't delivered (as if) and therefore there is still plenty of anger to go around. It gives him a squeak for November. But Sanders will likely do better from the anger than Trump will. Sanders appeals to TWO types of Angry Americans. Those angry at the crass inequalities of life in the US. And - and this is key and IMO what will swing it - the many millions who are angry, who are absolutely fuming (not to mention mortally embarrassed) about having a solid gold jerk as their president.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump did win because he won middle America, but I think part of that was he speaks the less PC more abasive kind of language Joe the Plumber type individuals have all their lives. His mocking and name calling is much more identifiable to many of that demographics.
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
Okay, to be more specific, he won because he won the rust-belt. The disaffected largely white working class vote swung right behind him.
I can assure Mr W.O. that had absolutely bugger all to do with humour.
I genuinely think this shtick of having a nickname for everybody and then the media getting all outraged about this kind of behaviour was to his advantage.
All those rustbelt (former) factory workers I am sure all had a nickname, given to them by coworkers for less than positive reasons. It weirdly makes this billionaire bloke more relatable than the uptight "you are a load of deplorables) Clinton.
Exactly
And a not-unreasonable trans-Atlantic synergy occurred with both Vote Leave and the 2019 GE.
To be able to mock and abuse people and get away with it, which many of the Trump base have longed for and delight in his doing, in modern western politics you have to present that through the medium of humour. If Trump name-called and abused as often as he does without resorting to humour, as an equally frequent get-out, he would have got nowhere. The medium he uses to do this is New York humour, which is actually more culturally native to Bernie Sanders than to him. That's the beginning and end of the relevancy of this point, really.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
We need this virus to die out. Fast.
And within two or three more, it would resume again. A six month setback to the world economy, even several percentage points of global GDP, is a historical blip, not the end of the world.
And the subsequent recovery would be rapid.
You need to get a grip.
Lol. I’ve been proven right with every single “panicky” prediction I’ve made so far.
I‘ve never said this would be the end of the world. Indeed my constant refrain is that, if it is pretty bad, the best thing we could do is accept and adapt. 2% of humanity dying, mainly the old and infirm, is sad but it isn’t doomsday.
But if it does happen it will change the way we live me think for a very long time
You were right on that, as was I. You are wrong on your analysis of the correct response.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
We are looking at something none of us has experienced. A significant and dangerous pandemic. No one under 100 can remember similar.
Unless JackW can recall the Spanish flu
Not the same thing but this is still absolutely nothing compared to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At least we understand this too.
I don’t think comparisons with AIDS make much sense or offer many lessons. The diseases are too different.
I said it was different but it offers lessons on the importance of a healthy understanding, prevention, treatment and not panicking in a senseless manner.
In our lifetimes (well most of ours) that was a new, shocking, deadly and rapidly spreading and at the time it was an untreatable pandemic. "A significant and dangerous pandemic" as was your words. Yes the mechanism of how it spread is completely different as I said, but it was arguably much more severe.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
At the time, we really should think about the likes of poor TSE who might not get his iPhone 12 this year...
Is he doing better than 2016 or are his opponents just more divided?
About the same as last time: After IA, NH and NV in 2016 he had 51 out of 103 pledged delegates. Today he has 45 out of 101 pledged delegates.
The main difference between now and 2016 is, last time Sanders' main rival was a clear favourite, and he surprised many that he stayed in the race as long as he did. Viewing it from today, Sanders is the most likely candidate to top the table of pledged delegates, the big question is will that be enough to win a contested convention?
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
At the time, we really should think about the likes of poor TSE who might not get his iPhone 12 this year...
Crikey are we on 12 now? I`m still using a 5 - is this OK?
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
It might well disappear (relatively) in the summer and return next winter.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
At the time, we really should think about the likes of poor TSE who might not get his iPhone 12 this year...
Crikey are we on 12 now? I`m still using a 5 - is this OK?
To admit such a thing on PB, it is akin to admitting to regularly travelling by peasant wagon, flying economy and eating Hawaiian pizza's.
More seriously, I thought Apple stopped upgrading anything less than a 6 and so lots of things have stopped working.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
We need this virus to die out. Fast.
And within two or three more, it would resume again. A six month setback to the world economy, even several percentage points of global GDP, is a historical blip, not the end of the world.
And the subsequent recovery would be rapid.
You need to get a grip.
Lol. I’ve been proven right with every single “panicky” prediction I’ve made so far.
I‘ve never said this would be the end of the world. Indeed my constant refrain is that, if it is pretty bad, the best thing we could do is accept and adapt. 2% of humanity dying, mainly the old and infirm, is sad but it isn’t doomsday.
But if it does happen it will change the way we live me think for a very long time
If you care to look back, you'll see that I was taking seriously the pandemic potential of this thing before you. It is your absurd emotional response which I take issue with.
As far as changing the way we live, will it significantly ? Certainly it might change social attitudes in China, and it might persuade people to take simple personal hygiene practices more seriously, but as far as we are concerned ?
The most significant post pandemic effect of the 1918 flu was to introduce more women into the workplace, particularly in the US (which had not seen the same manpower impact from WW1 as had Europe), as it disproportionately killed young men. And that was a more devastating disease.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
It might well disappear (relatively) in the summer and return next winter.
I agree. I think its complete elimination is unlikely but the world wide death rate is already dropping. On the positive side this may encourage those pumping money into a vaccine to keep going. I suspect that this is going to become a periodic nuisance that we will have to learn to live with. Like many other forms of flu really.
We are looking at something none of us has experienced. A significant and dangerous pandemic. No one under 100 can remember similar.
Unless JackW can recall the Spanish flu
Not the same thing but this is still absolutely nothing compared to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At least we understand this too.
I don’t think comparisons with AIDS make much sense or offer many lessons. The diseases are too different.
I said it was different but it offers lessons on the importance of a healthy understanding, prevention, treatment and not panicking in a senseless manner.
In our lifetimes (well most of ours) that was a new, shocking, deadly and rapidly spreading and at the time it was an untreatable pandemic. "A significant and dangerous pandemic" as was your words. Yes the mechanism of how it spread is completely different as I said, but it was arguably much more severe.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
It might well disappear (relatively) in the summer and return next winter.
I agree. I think its complete elimination is unlikely but the world wide death rate is already dropping. On the positive side this may encourage those pumping money into a vaccine to keep going. I suspect that this is going to become a periodic nuisance that we will have to learn to live with. Like many other forms of flu really.
It will be at least several weeks before you can draw such a conclusion.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
At the time, we really should think about the likes of poor TSE who might not get his iPhone 12 this year...
Crikey are we on 12 now? I`m still using a 5 - is this OK?
I can trump that! I'm using a 4!
(I smashed my Samsung Galaxy S9+ and dug this out of the back of a drawer until I can send off to get my phone repaired).
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
Because poor is real and matters. Relative to the world we are all in this country rich, even those on Universal Credit are rich compared to most of the world.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
At the time, we really should think about the likes of poor TSE who might not get his iPhone 12 this year...
Crikey are we on 12 now? I`m still using a 5 - is this OK?
To admit such a thing on PB, it is akin to admitting to regularly travelling by peasant wagon, flying economy and eating Hawaiian pizza's.
More seriously, I thought Apple stopped upgrading anything less than a 6 and so lots of things have stopped working.
Still working fine as far as I can tell.
I do fly economy and like pineapple on pizza (when accompanied by chillis) but have so far eschewed peasant wagons (unless you include my A1).
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message me again when the Indians who actually live there stop referring to it as Bombay.
The wealthy and well-educated Indians that are the extreme minority do use Bombay in my experience. I have no idea what the majority of Indians who live there call it.
Bombay. They also call the train station VT, not whatever it was renamed to.
Apparently it's Mumbai in the local languages and always has been. I took CR's advice and looked it up!!
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
There's many reasons why I would say these Corbyn comparisons are far and potentially treacherously off-base, to use an american phrase, but I think one of the biggest ones is important cultural differences with the US.
Trump's stock-in-trade, for example, apart from megalomania, is a kind of wisecracking, scattergun New York humour. Most of his tweets are suffused with it, or attempts at it. He's a New Yorker of the same generation as Bernie Sanders.
However, this "New York humour" is actually to a large extent New York Jewish humour, and Sanders, while ostensibly more serious and less of a comic than Trump, is closer to this cultural orginating point. He's lightened his campaigning style and decided to take more of the kind of informality he was known for in Burlington, and as soon as he's done that people have started to draw comparison with figures like Larry David - and it then emerged that Larry David was his second cousin. Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so. This more relaxed face of Sanders is a key reason why he's doing better than 2016.
Is he doing better than 2016 or are his opponents just more divided?
He's running a better campaign. Although there were fewer candidates at this stage, he faced a very divided democratic opposition to him in 2016 too. The party was less shaped in his image than now, and Clinton was about as unpopular as people were nervous of him.
He's done two very important things - reach out to African-American voters, and try and return closer to the informality of his style as a younger politician.
Whether that will be enough to beat Trump I don't know, but he looks closer than any of the other candidates, according to all the latest polling.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
The latest figures from China are pretty positive but I would defy any health system in the world to cope with an additional 80K patients in a single city. Especially when the infection rate of medical staff themselves seems pretty high. Asking for help is a pretty reasonable response.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
It might well disappear (relatively) in the summer and return next winter.
I agree. I think its complete elimination is unlikely but the world wide death rate is already dropping. On the positive side this may encourage those pumping money into a vaccine to keep going. I suspect that this is going to become a periodic nuisance that we will have to learn to live with. Like many other forms of flu really.
It will be at least several weeks before you can draw such a conclusion.
There is a very clear and familiar trend. Of course that trend is being largely set by China where the infection is more mature and a second peak cannot be ruled out. But its hopeful.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
I think this goes back to the difference between blind panic and laying out the situation in a rational way.
The WHO team indicated that the positive news coming out of China has some face validity. I'll go off that for now because that makes me feel a bit better. If that is not the case, then that is a worry but not an immediate worry. The virus is out there now so what goes on in China is only now of indirect interest.
We are looking at something none of us has experienced. A significant and dangerous pandemic. No one under 100 can remember similar.
Unless JackW can recall the Spanish flu
Not the same thing but this is still absolutely nothing compared to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At least we understand this too.
I don't think that's an unreasonable comparison actually. Both viruses, both pandemics. I guess one is an airborne flu-type transmission, the other through body-to-body contact secretions. Coronavirus kills maybe 2% who contract it: though as Sean points out, who the hell can trust the Chinese on this? Iranian figures are much more worrying.
HIV/AIDS is incurable, but see below, and has caused devastation in parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS has killed c. 32 million people globally https://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/ or 0.004% of the population.
HIV is also now containable through anti retrovirals, which thank goodness are open to patent. These make transmission all-but-impossible for those who use them correctly. There are also trials taking place to see if they work as a form of prophylaxis (PReP) and results seem to be encouraging.
If Coronavirus does indeed become a pandemic then it could kill far more than HIV/AIDS.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
A guy in Miami went for a test. Finished with a bill of thousands of dollars, of which his insurance would only pay part. He was negative, had ordinary flu.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
I think this goes back to the difference between blind panic and laying out the situation in a rational way.
The WHO team indicated that the positive news coming out of China has some face validity. I'll go off that for now because that makes me feel a bit better. If that is not the case, then that is a worry but not an immediate worry. The virus is out there now so what goes on in China is only now of indirect interest.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
We are looking at something none of us has experienced. A significant and dangerous pandemic. No one under 100 can remember similar.
Unless JackW can recall the Spanish flu
Not the same thing but this is still absolutely nothing compared to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At least we understand this too.
I don't think that's an unreasonable comparison actually. Both viruses, both pandemics. I guess one is an airborne flu-type transmission, the other through body-to-body contact secretions. Coronavirus kills maybe 2% who contract it: though as Sean points out, who the hell can trust the Chinese on this? Iranian figures are much more worrying.
HIV/AIDS is incurable, but see below, and has caused devastation in parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS has killed c. 32 million people globally https://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/ or 0.004% of the population.
HIV is also now containable through anti retrovirals, which thank goodness are open to patent. These make transmission all-but-impossible for those who use them correctly. There are also trials taking place to see if they work as a form of prophylaxis (PReP) and results seem to be encouraging.
If Coronavirus does indeed become a pandemic then it could kill far more than HIV/AIDS.
I think that the most worrying aspect of the WHO conference is the absence of evidence of asymptomatic/mild cases in the community. That might suggest a much higher death rate than has been assumed to date. Of course it may also show an absence of testing.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Yes I believe it, because I believe that they managed in time to prevent it spreading there with a ruthless brutality. And I believe if it spreads elsewhere they will be similarly ruthless in quarantining wherever it does hit next - more ruthless than the Italians ever would be.
The country may have 1.3 billion people in it but that doesn't mean all 1.3 billion are on top of each other or were all interacting on a daily basis with Wuhan. Its a country with an area of 9.6 million square kilometres, more than double the entire EU put together.
I suspect your average westerner probably travels more than your average Chinese peasant (despite their growth as a country their poor are still very poor).
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
If there is widespread coronavirus in the US it is going to raise a hell of a lot of very serious questions about the country's healthcare system. It's all very well you having great insurance, but that counts for very little if others are not being tested and treated.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
If you don’t test for Coronavirus, it appears like you haven’t got Coronavirus. Simple.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Chinese New Year 'finished' Feb 8th although a lot of people would expect to stay on a week or so longer. That takes us to 15th plus, so Chinese-Americans who went 'home' for New Year will now be coming back. That might alter the US figures. Similar thoughts about Canada.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/25/cdc-coronavirus-test/ Problems with a government-created coronavirus test have limited the United States’ capacity to rapidly increase testing, just as the outbreak has entered a worrisome new phase in countries worldwide. Experts are increasingly concerned that the small number of U.S. cases may be a reflection of limited testing, not of the virus’s spread. While South Korea has run more than 35,000 coronavirus tests, the United States has tested only 426 people, not including people who returned on evacuation flights. Only about a dozen state and local laboratories can now run tests outside of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta because the CDC kits sent out nationwide earlier this month included a faulty component...
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Yes, either you day trade and try and time the slumps as @IanB2 is doing or just hold your pension long.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
It’s not just those tweets. The stats coming out of China are nonsensical.
One day last week they reported eleven new cases of Coronavirus, in all of China outside Hubei. That’s 1.3 BILLION people, in a nation riddled with this virus, and they got 11 cases in a day, which is less than on a single cruise ship.
No one believes this. As I said on here about 10 days ago, China’s policy is to sacrifice Hubei, quarantine it, let it burn, then pretend no one outside Hubei has the bug, so they can restart the economy. One way they do this is by restricting testing of Coronavirus eg just to people from Hubei who travelled out.
I do not deny China has made heroic and draconian efforts to control this bug. And things would be a lot worse if they hadn’t. But I do not trust their data.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
At $3000 for a negative test result is it any wonder ?
The combination of the US Health Care system and this virus is something I'm glad that I'm going to observe from a distance.
And yet, when it comes to unnecessary medical tests... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120300337 ...Consistent with prior work, we find direct costs of malpractice fines and insurance explain little of the high cost of healthcare in the US. However, the high private cost of medical education interacts with high malpractice risk in an interesting way: It leads doctors to (i) demand high wages and (ii) use excessive diagnostics to mitigate risk (“defensive medicine”). The agency problem that arises because patients cannot judge the efficacy of tests allows them to be over-prescribed. Together, these factors increase costs far more than direct malpractice costs. Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK. The mechanisms emphasized in our model can largely explain the difference...
And to think the health debate in the US regularly obsesses over the cost of drugs.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Yep, well that's what I told him. I said at the time, either he should be in for the very long game or sell and re-buy later.
I've only ever made money on the stock market, weirdly. Weirdly because I'm still smarting from my utter cock-up over the 2019 General Election.
We are looking at something none of us has experienced. A significant and dangerous pandemic. No one under 100 can remember similar.
Unless JackW can recall the Spanish flu
Not the same thing but this is still absolutely nothing compared to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. At least we understand this too.
In terms of death rate yes, if left untreated then HIV infection has an almost 0% survival rate after 10 years.
But in terms of number contageousness and the number of people affected COVID-19 is more serious than HIV. The chances of becoming infected with HIV via unprotected sex with someone HIV+ is between 10 and 20%. We can spend all day with an HIV+ person and know we won't get infected. That is not true with a COVID-19 positive person.
Infection rate in itself is not too important, but infection rate and survival rate together is very important. In two months of COVID 19 almost 3000 peope have died. The figures for HIV are much harder to find, but for comparison in the US where the outbreak was centred deaths due to AIDS were first diagnosed in 1980 and by the end of 1981 265 deaths had been diagnosed as AIDS, and in 1982 it was 853. In this respect COVID-19 is having a much bigger impact than HIV.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Exactly , it is always best to ride it out, it will go back up as fast or faster as it came down. I have lost a lot this week but it will come back for sure. Bit like your house , the value is only a concern if you have to sell it.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
It's because they are not that much interested in curing poor people.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
I think this goes back to the difference between blind panic and laying out the situation in a rational way.
The WHO team indicated that the positive news coming out of China has some face validity. I'll go off that for now because that makes me feel a bit better. If that is not the case, then that is a worry but not an immediate worry. The virus is out there now so what goes on in China is only now of indirect interest.
Well, if you just want to feel better that’s fine
But I will remain skeptical of Chinese data, not least because their initial reaction to the disease was to lie about it, and arrest the doctors who reported it.
My doubts may be “conspiracy theory garbage” but I see that they are shared by this economist and Carnegie scholar in Hong Kong
Cool. If you are sceptical of it then I understand that too. I am sceptical but I am also optimistic on THAT.
But please understand this. From everything we know so far, the Chinese approach (which mimics classic Public Health Interventions but taken to another level) is what works. It's what worked in 1918. It's probably what worked for various plagues over millenia.
So please stop repeating this nonsense about everyone just cracking on like normal. We have all got a part to play in this and part of that is educating each other. Pass the message on.
Neither of those disprove the claim that China has not got this under control.
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
I think this goes back to the difference between blind panic and laying out the situation in a rational way.
The WHO team indicated that the positive news coming out of China has some face validity. I'll go off that for now because that makes me feel a bit better. If that is not the case, then that is a worry but not an immediate worry. The virus is out there now so what goes on in China is only now of indirect interest.
Well, if you just want to feel better that’s fine
But I will remain skeptical of Chinese data, not least because their initial reaction to the disease was to lie about it, and arrest the doctors who reported it.
My doubts may be “conspiracy theory garbage” but I see that they are shared by this economist and Carnegie scholar in Hong Kong
Cool. If you are sceptical of it then I understand that too. I am sceptical but I am also optimistic on THAT.
But please understand this. From everything we know so far, the Chinese approach (which mimics class Public Health Interventions but taken to another level) is what works. It's what worked in 1918. It's probably what worked for various plagues over millenia.
So please stop repeating this nonsense about everyone just cracking on like normal. We have all got a part to play in this and part of that is educating each other. Pass the message on.
By the way, the 'paper losses' trope is as old as the houses and pretty-much nonsense.
Its not nonsense, its tried and tested and long term true. Paper losses (like paper gains) are immaterial until you sell.
Its more of an issue for houses as negative equity can then become a real concern, but so long as you're not borrowing to invest in the stock market that's not a concern here.
If there is widespread coronavirus in the US it is going to raise a hell of a lot of very serious questions about the country's healthcare system. It's all very well you having great insurance, but that counts for very little if others are not being tested and treated.
On topic, this is kind of a perfect storm for Bernie
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Exactly , it is always best to ride it out, it will go back up as fast or faster as it came down. I have lost a lot this week but it will come back for sure. Bit like your house , the value is only a concern if you have to sell it.
Sorry but this is really crap advice. Do you guys actually share trade?
Of course, in one sense, it's right. Always buy long term if you're an amateur investor. But if you buy at the top of a bull run and hit a massive slide then you will be wasting money. It's much better to call the market, sell and re-buy. If my friend had listened to me he'd have made a small fortune although we are nowhere near the bottom of this crash.
For crash it will be. A long, long, long bear run. IF coronavirus continues the current trajectory then the global stock markets will not return to pre-Christmas levels for a very long time. And I mean years.
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
At $3000 for a negative test result is it any wonder ?
The combination of the US Health Care system and this virus is something I'm glad that I'm going to observe from a distance.
And yet, when it comes to unnecessary medical tests... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120300337 ...Consistent with prior work, we find direct costs of malpractice fines and insurance explain little of the high cost of healthcare in the US. However, the high private cost of medical education interacts with high malpractice risk in an interesting way: It leads doctors to (i) demand high wages and (ii) use excessive diagnostics to mitigate risk (“defensive medicine”). The agency problem that arises because patients cannot judge the efficacy of tests allows them to be over-prescribed. Together, these factors increase costs far more than direct malpractice costs. Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK. The mechanisms emphasized in our model can largely explain the difference...
And to think the health debate in the US regularly obsesses over the cost of drugs.
Drug prices are obvious - the products are identical across the world so the price should be roughly equivalent.
Doctors salaries are almost a Veblen good (he/she must be good at that price)
In the UK I think tests are rationed by the time they take as much as anything else. The US carefully cram as many tests as possible into a single appointment (here it is usually can you come back then for this test and again for the next one).
By the way, the 'paper losses' trope is as old as the houses and pretty-much nonsense.
Its not nonsense, its tried and tested and long term true. Paper losses (like paper gains) are immaterial until you sell.
.
It's absolute rubbish. It's the Dennis Healey argument. Junk. It's not how markets work and it particularly comes unstuck when you have a prolonged bear run.
As I say, I've never lost money on the stock market. I get some things wrong but tying up investment at the top of a long bear run is sheer stupidity.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
If he is overweight Tesla he may well be up over the last two months, unlikely to be significantly down.
If there is widespread coronavirus in the US it is going to raise a hell of a lot of very serious questions about the country's healthcare system. It's all very well you having great insurance, but that counts for very little if others are not being tested and treated.
On topic, this is kind of a perfect storm for Bernie
I agree. If the private sector health service is shown to completely fail in addressing Covid-19 with ridiculous co-payments and restricted testing his policies on health will look a lot more sensible. It does unquestionably emphasise that the health of the whole herd is in all of our interests.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
It's because they are not that much interested in curing poor people.
Poor and old people..... both apply ..... are likely to be more susceptible to Convid-19. As in 1919-20 it's a more serious condition if the patient already has something else.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
If he is overweight Tesla he may well be up over the last two months, unlikely to be significantly down.
Yeah I've been following Tesla carefully and they're down 10% in 3 days. It looks grim because a number of analysts were already suggesting it's a bubble about to burst. After all, Tesla was still posting losses through 2019. Considering their Shanghai manufacturing base I reckon they're in big trouble. They out sank the Dow yesterday by a factor of 2x.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
The logic of that doesn't quite work. If there's a global pandemic then travel restrictions and quarantine, surely, serve little or no purpose?
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
It's because they are not that much interested in curing poor people.
Poor and old people..... both apply ..... are likely to be more susceptible to Convid-19. As in 1919-20 it's a more serious condition if the patient already has something else.
'has something else' does that include a rhinovirus infection ?
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Exactly , it is always best to ride it out, it will go back up as fast or faster as it came down. I have lost a lot this week but it will come back for sure. Bit like your house , the value is only a concern if you have to sell it.
There is a difference between riding out the market ups and downs, which is good advice since the investors timing is rarely good enough to cover the transactional and opportunity costs, and holding when with strong certainty you can see a major downturn coming
For Gordon Brown, someone was poor if they fell below a certain percentage of median income. This conveniently allowed him to design a spreadsheet policy aimed at "lifting people from poverty", i.e. juggling them over an arbitrary line. But whatever that did in the spreadsheet their circumstances in reality were not much different. If they were poor before, so they remained. This was a sham. Absolute poverty however is easily recognised.
But on the general point - "poor" is absolute but "rich" is relative - there is no logic there.
If you live on the streets of London, utterly penniless, reliant on the kindness of strangers or scavenging in restaurant bins to eat, you are poor.
If you now get given (rent free) a tiny little room to live in, with a bed and water and power, and a daily allowance of £3 to live on, you are still poor - very - but you are considerably less poor than before.
Another way to express "less poor" is "richer". That is simply our language. Like "not as tall" is the same as "shorter". Donald Trump is shorter than Tyson Fury. Is this statement untrue because Donald Trump is tall? Of course not. It's true because height is relative. Exactly the same applies to wealth.
So, you are richer now in your small room with your daily allowance than you were on the streets but you are "much poorer" - or "far less rich" - than the commuter with a steady white collar job and some savings and a semi in Purley with the mortgage half paid off.
And our Purley commuter likewise is relatively (very) poor compared to the Mayfair Hedge Fund Manager or to Prince Charles.
And (sadly) all of the above are rich when compared to the person caught up in famine in the Yemen.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Exactly , it is always best to ride it out, it will go back up as fast or faster as it came down. I have lost a lot this week but it will come back for sure. Bit like your house , the value is only a concern if you have to sell it.
Sorry but this is really crap advice. Do you guys actually share trade?
Of course, in one sense, it's right. Always buy long term if you're an amateur investor. But if you buy at the top of a bull run and hit a massive slide then you will be wasting money. It's much better to call the market, sell and re-buy. If my friend had listened to me he'd have made a small fortune although we are nowhere near the bottom of this crash.
For crash it will be. A long, long, long bear run. IF coronavirus continues the current trajectory then the global stock markets will not return to pre-Christmas levels for a very long time. And I mean years.
I did a case a lot of years ago for a large scale potato farmer who was convinced that he must know far more about the futures market than those clever cloggs in London. He lost everything but what was particularly tragic was the mutual bewilderment between the farmer and our expert trader. As far as the latter was concerned at the maximum you worked out if you were up or down when the metaphorical bell went each day. So far as the farmer was concerned you could work out where you were when you harvested your potatoes in the autumn.
People who are investing for the long term should not try to second guess the market. They are not adequately informed or skilled enough. They should pay someone else to do it for them though.
By the way, the 'paper losses' trope is as old as the houses and pretty-much nonsense.
Its not nonsense, its tried and tested and long term true. Paper losses (like paper gains) are immaterial until you sell.
.
It's absolute rubbish. It's the Dennis Healey argument. Junk. It's not how markets work and it particularly comes unstuck when you have a prolonged bear run.
As I say, I've never lost money on the stock market. I get some things wrong but tying up investment at the top of a long bear run is sheer stupidity.
If you're a professional stock trader who can spot the top of a bear run maybe.
If you're an amateur saving for your retirement? Absolutely not the case! And people who hold on through the drop and the following recovery won't lose money either.
If you're a day trader who's never lost money then that doesn't say very much, either you don't trade much or you've held on for long enough to recover, or you've just been very lucky. Most amateurs trying to out trade the professional day traders are on a hiding to nothing and simply gain because the market gains in general, little evidence they outgain those who simply invested then held on.
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
They’re not letting it spread. Their policies are severe.
But no one is able to explain the remarkable low number of cases outside Hubei. 11 in a day out of 1.3bn people, with a disease this contagious? Do you believe that?
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
It's because they are not that much interested in curing poor people.
Poor and old people..... both apply ..... are likely to be more susceptible to Convid-19. As in 1919-20 it's a more serious condition if the patient already has something else.
What's so worrying is the situation in South Korea, Iran and Italy. The rapid take-off outside of China is of deep concern.
I think Sean's right and I suspect it may be how we go. Trying to contain this may prove impossible. Best hope is that anti-viral drugs or a vaccine work.
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
At $3000 for a negative test result is it any wonder ?
The combination of the US Health Care system and this virus is something I'm glad that I'm going to observe from a distance.
And yet, when it comes to unnecessary medical tests... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120300337 ...Consistent with prior work, we find direct costs of malpractice fines and insurance explain little of the high cost of healthcare in the US. However, the high private cost of medical education interacts with high malpractice risk in an interesting way: It leads doctors to (i) demand high wages and (ii) use excessive diagnostics to mitigate risk (“defensive medicine”). The agency problem that arises because patients cannot judge the efficacy of tests allows them to be over-prescribed. Together, these factors increase costs far more than direct malpractice costs. Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK. The mechanisms emphasized in our model can largely explain the difference...
Oh man!
Overtesting leads to many many more people being wrongly diagnosed (false positives) because no test is 100% accurate. False positives lead to patients beleiving they have a serious illness when they do not, often involving unpleasant secondary diagnosis methods. In some cases patients are given unnecessary medication or surgery unnecessarily.
The worst scenario is when a disease has low general prevelance in society and a test is made with little or no symptoms present, such as screening tests. If you test positive after a routine smear test or a routine prostate test, chances are it is a false positive, don't worry about the screening test but do go for further testing.
Of course to the American system it is in both the doctor's and insurance companies' interests to test as much as possible, as it brings in more money. The litigation costs for lack of diagnosis is high, but litigation due to a false positive result is negligible,
Your conspiracy nonsense is just rambling garbage.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
Current FDA regulations mean that only the CDC can currently run the test, even though many hospitals with decent diagnostics capability could do so quite easily. I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
The American health industry is the best funded in the world but it seems peculiarly ill placed to deal with this. It's troubling.
Isn't that because it's much more reactive than other systems?
It's because they are not that much interested in curing poor people.
Poor and old people..... both apply ..... are likely to be more susceptible to Convid-19. As in 1919-20 it's a more serious condition if the patient already has something else.
'has something else' does that include a rhinovirus infection ?
Probably. The evidence from 1919-20 is that someone who wasn't already in 'good health' was more likely to die than someone else, and a lot of the lads came back from the trenches with all sorts of undisclosed complaints. Then, too, poor medical systems across the world meant people with 'minor' complaints which would have carried them off sooner or later, but the flu exacerbated the risk.
America, a land of 340m people, also has remarkably few cases. That’s probably because they aren’t testing yet.
At $3000 for a negative test result is it any wonder ?
The combination of the US Health Care system and this virus is something I'm glad that I'm going to observe from a distance.
And yet, when it comes to unnecessary medical tests... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120300337 ...Consistent with prior work, we find direct costs of malpractice fines and insurance explain little of the high cost of healthcare in the US. However, the high private cost of medical education interacts with high malpractice risk in an interesting way: It leads doctors to (i) demand high wages and (ii) use excessive diagnostics to mitigate risk (“defensive medicine”). The agency problem that arises because patients cannot judge the efficacy of tests allows them to be over-prescribed. Together, these factors increase costs far more than direct malpractice costs. Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK. The mechanisms emphasized in our model can largely explain the difference...
Oh man!
Overtesting leads to many many more people being wrongly diagnosed (false positives) because no test is 100% accurate. False positives lead to patients beleiving they have a serious illness when they do not, often involving unpleasant secondary diagnosis methods. In some cases patients are given unnecessary medication or surgery unnecessarily.
The worst scenario is when a disease has low general prevelance in society and a test is made with little or no symptoms present, such as screening tests. If you test positive after a routine smear test or a routine prostate test, chances are it is a false positive, don't worry about the screening test but do go for further testing.
Of course to the American system it is in both the doctor's and insurance companies' interests to test as much as possible, as it brings in more money. The litigation costs for lack of diagnosis is high, but litigation due to a false positive result is negligible,
The US has some of the best doctors and best medical technology on the planet. And by far the best funding. And the most screwed up clusterfuck of a health system.
I didn't call this right and have apologised to Eadric. However, I did warn a good friend of mine two months ago to sell out of his over-exposure on the stock market. When he asked me why, I said I had a hunch we were about to hit a big correction. I met up with him three or four weeks ago and he told me it didn't matter as TESLA shares were holding up and making him a nice profit. Oh dear ...
No oh dear, he's right, so long as he's in no hurry to sell his shares. If you're investing for the long term, say for your retirement in decades, then holding on to your shares through corrections and slumps is a better technique than second guessing everything.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Exactly , it is always best to ride it out, it will go back up as fast or faster as it came down. I have lost a lot this week but it will come back for sure. Bit like your house , the value is only a concern if you have to sell it.
Sorry but this is really crap advice. Do you guys actually share trade?
Of course, in one sense, it's right. Always buy long term if you're an amateur investor. But if you buy at the top of a bull run and hit a massive slide then you will be wasting money. It's much better to call the market, sell and re-buy. If my friend had listened to me he'd have made a small fortune although we are nowhere near the bottom of this crash.
For crash it will be. A long, long, long bear run. IF coronavirus continues the current trajectory then the global stock markets will not return to pre-Christmas levels for a very long time. And I mean years.
You obviously know nothing about buying shares whatsoever. Trying to guess the market almost always loses you money. If you look over 20 years missing the 12 - 20 best days of the market will lose you over 90% of the profits. You need a magic ball to guess those 20 days. It is fools like you that cost friends money.
Will Trump suspend the Nov election for the virus ?
Does he have the power?
IIRC the power to change the date of an election rests with Congress and then the states have to ratify that decision by two thirds.
I know Pulpstar was joking but being serious there'd be little purpose in delaying the election from the autumn. Theoretically (without extending Trumps term of office) you could delay until December or even January but why bother?
The start of November is before the winter flu season gets really bad and if this does follow the trends of the winter flu and dies down somewhat but re-emerges with a vengeance next winter then a delay of a few weeks or months would be pointless and counter productive. It would have to be a delay of at least six months to a year.
By the way, the 'paper losses' trope is as old as the houses and pretty-much nonsense.
Its not nonsense, its tried and tested and long term true. Paper losses (like paper gains) are immaterial until you sell.
.
It's absolute rubbish. It's the Dennis Healey argument. Junk. It's not how markets work and it particularly comes unstuck when you have a prolonged bear run.
As I say, I've never lost money on the stock market. I get some things wrong but tying up investment at the top of a long bear run is sheer stupidity.
If you're a professional stock trader who can spot the top of a bear run maybe.
If you're an amateur saving for your retirement? Absolutely not the case! And people who hold on through the drop and the following recovery won't lose money either.
Normally your advice would be sound. Ride out the downs and ups and play the long game.
However, this doesn't work with the once-in-a-generation bear run. Coronavirus has the potential to wipe out stock values for 5 to 10 years. Quite seriously. We could have a situation where we don't see the pre-Christmas peaks this side of 2025.
If this were Betfair Exchange, Mike Smithson and Robert and the other savvies on here would absolutely NO WAY tie up losses on that basis.
It's only because most people don't really know how to work stocks and shares that they get into this 'paper loss' mentality. As I say, fine in normal circumstances. But coronavirus MAY take us well outside the experiences of most of us.
Comments
Tweet 1) Just because the number contracting the virus every day is getting slightly smaller, it does not mean that it is not still a nightmare for those treating patients on the frontline.
Tweet 2) Given all the effort to contain this - why would they then allow foreigners back in to reinfect their population? They won't.
The tragedy is that the world did not lock down outgoing movement from China when it had the chance.
To be St Louis means to lock down.
To be Philadelphia is to 'keep calm and carry on'.
Poverty should be a real thing we wish to eliminate but then what is poverty? If having a Samsung Galaxy S8 instead of a Samsung Galaxy S10 is what makes you impoverished then the term has become meaningless. If struggling to put food on your table is what makes you impoverished then the term has meaning.
Today's figures from SK are also better as are those from Singapore. This disease has some way to go and there are some concerns such as Iran (who seem to have infected quite a lot of the ME) and Africa(where very little seems to be known) but I think that it is an overstatement to say the battle against a pandemic is lost.
In our lifetimes (well most of ours) that was a new, shocking, deadly and rapidly spreading and at the time it was an untreatable pandemic. "A significant and dangerous pandemic" as was your words. Yes the mechanism of how it spread is completely different as I said, but it was arguably much more severe.
After IA, NH and NV in 2016 he had 51 out of 103 pledged delegates.
Today he has 45 out of 101 pledged delegates.
The main difference between now and 2016 is, last time Sanders' main rival was a clear favourite, and he surprised many that he stayed in the race as long as he did. Viewing it from today, Sanders is the most likely candidate to top the table of pledged delegates, the big question is will that be enough to win a contested convention?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/130-killed-mali-ethnic-attack-fulani-village-190324081752188.html
Coronavirus could well be cascading through the Congo right now.
More seriously, I thought Apple stopped upgrading anything less than a 6 and so lots of things have stopped working.
It is your absurd emotional response which I take issue with.
As far as changing the way we live, will it significantly ?
Certainly it might change social attitudes in China, and it might persuade people to take simple personal hygiene practices more seriously, but as far as we are concerned ?
The most significant post pandemic effect of the 1918 flu was to introduce more women into the workplace, particularly in the US (which had not seen the same manpower impact from WW1 as had Europe), as it disproportionately killed young men.
And that was a more devastating disease.
(I smashed my Samsung Galaxy S9+ and dug this out of the back of a drawer until I can send off to get my phone repaired).
I do fly economy and like pineapple on pizza (when accompanied by chillis) but have so far eschewed peasant wagons (unless you include my A1).
He's done two very important things - reach out to African-American voters, and try and return closer to the informality of his style as a younger politician.
Whether that will be enough to beat Trump I don't know, but he looks closer than any of the other candidates, according to all the latest polling.
Why would the Chinese let the disease spread unquarantined outside of Hubei? For shits and giggles? To save face? And then what? They know better than anyone how serious this is, the idea they'll deliberately let it spread elsewhere is just bullshit.
There is a very clear and familiar trend. Of course that trend is being largely set by China where the infection is more mature and a second peak cannot be ruled out. But its hopeful.
https://twitter.com/juliaoftoronto/status/1232350346787332098
The WHO team indicated that the positive news coming out of China has some face validity. I'll go off that for now because that makes me feel a bit better. If that is not the case, then that is a worry but not an immediate worry. The virus is out there now so what goes on in China is only now of indirect interest.
What a cretin Trump is.
HIV/AIDS is incurable, but see below, and has caused devastation in parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS has killed c. 32 million people globally https://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/
or 0.004% of the population.
HIV is also now containable through anti retrovirals, which thank goodness are open to patent. These make transmission all-but-impossible for those who use them correctly. There are also trials taking place to see if they work as a form of prophylaxis (PReP) and results seem to be encouraging.
If Coronavirus does indeed become a pandemic then it could kill far more than HIV/AIDS.
I can't see the Trump pushing hard to change that any time soon.
Edit/is the rest of China warmer?
The country may have 1.3 billion people in it but that doesn't mean all 1.3 billion are on top of each other or were all interacting on a daily basis with Wuhan. Its a country with an area of 9.6 million square kilometres, more than double the entire EU put together.
I suspect your average westerner probably travels more than your average Chinese peasant (despite their growth as a country their poor are still very poor).
That might alter the US figures.
Similar thoughts about Canada.
People over analyse losses but they don't matter unless they're realised by selling the shares, unless they become worthless by the company going broke or incapable of recovering.
Problems with a government-created coronavirus test have limited the United States’ capacity to rapidly increase testing, just as the outbreak has entered a worrisome new phase in countries worldwide. Experts are increasingly concerned that the small number of U.S. cases may be a reflection of limited testing, not of the virus’s spread.
While South Korea has run more than 35,000 coronavirus tests, the United States has tested only 426 people, not including people who returned on evacuation flights. Only about a dozen state and local laboratories can now run tests outside of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta because the CDC kits sent out nationwide earlier this month included a faulty component...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120300337
...Consistent with prior work, we find direct costs of malpractice fines and insurance explain little of the high cost of healthcare in the US. However, the high private cost of medical education interacts with high malpractice risk in an interesting way: It leads doctors to (i) demand high wages and (ii) use excessive diagnostics to mitigate risk (“defensive medicine”). The agency problem that arises because patients cannot judge the efficacy of tests allows them to be over-prescribed. Together, these factors increase costs far more than direct malpractice costs. Specifically, physician salaries plus diagnostic tests comprise 4.04% of GDP in the US, compared to only 2.3% in the UK. The mechanisms emphasized in our model can largely explain the difference...
And to think the health debate in the US regularly obsesses over the cost of drugs.
I've only ever made money on the stock market, weirdly. Weirdly because I'm still smarting from my utter cock-up over the 2019 General Election.
But in terms of number contageousness and the number of people affected COVID-19 is more serious than HIV. The chances of becoming infected with HIV via unprotected sex with someone HIV+ is between 10 and 20%. We can spend all day with an HIV+ person and know we won't get infected. That is not true with a COVID-19 positive person.
Infection rate in itself is not too important, but infection rate and survival rate together is very important. In two months of COVID 19 almost 3000 peope have died. The figures for HIV are much harder to find, but for comparison in the US where the outbreak was centred deaths due to AIDS were first diagnosed in 1980 and by the end of 1981 265 deaths had been diagnosed as AIDS, and in 1982 it was 853. In this respect COVID-19 is having a much bigger impact than HIV.
Global recession, and on an epic scale, is absolutely inevitable if this continues the current trajectory.
But please understand this. From everything we know so far, the Chinese approach (which mimics classic Public Health Interventions but taken to another level) is what works. It's what worked in 1918. It's probably what worked for various plagues over millenia.
So please stop repeating this nonsense about everyone just cracking on like normal. We have all got a part to play in this and part of that is educating each other. Pass the message on.
Someone get Andrew Neil on the phone, stat.
Its more of an issue for houses as negative equity can then become a real concern, but so long as you're not borrowing to invest in the stock market that's not a concern here.
Of course, in one sense, it's right. Always buy long term if you're an amateur investor. But if you buy at the top of a bull run and hit a massive slide then you will be wasting money. It's much better to call the market, sell and re-buy. If my friend had listened to me he'd have made a small fortune although we are nowhere near the bottom of this crash.
For crash it will be. A long, long, long bear run. IF coronavirus continues the current trajectory then the global stock markets will not return to pre-Christmas levels for a very long time. And I mean years.
Doctors salaries are almost a Veblen good (he/she must be good at that price)
In the UK I think tests are rationed by the time they take as much as anything else. The US carefully cram as many tests as possible into a single appointment (here it is usually can you come back then for this test and again for the next one).
As I say, I've never lost money on the stock market. I get some things wrong but tying up investment at the top of a long bear run is sheer stupidity.
1) People who take their phones to the bog.
2) People who flush with the lid up and not down.
I’m quite happy to suspend my opposition to the death penalty for these people.
But then, I may be a shade old-fashioned. I was genuinely considering buying myself some quills the other day.
If you live on the streets of London, utterly penniless, reliant on the kindness of strangers or scavenging in restaurant bins to eat, you are poor.
If you now get given (rent free) a tiny little room to live in, with a bed and water and power, and a daily allowance of £3 to live on, you are still poor - very - but you are considerably less poor than before.
Another way to express "less poor" is "richer". That is simply our language. Like "not as tall" is the same as "shorter". Donald Trump is shorter than Tyson Fury. Is this statement untrue because Donald Trump is tall? Of course not. It's true because height is relative. Exactly the same applies to wealth.
So, you are richer now in your small room with your daily allowance than you were on the streets but you are "much poorer" - or "far less rich" - than the commuter with a steady white collar job and some savings and a semi in Purley with the mortgage half paid off.
And our Purley commuter likewise is relatively (very) poor compared to the Mayfair Hedge Fund Manager or to Prince Charles.
And (sadly) all of the above are rich when compared to the person caught up in famine in the Yemen.
It's all relative. Geoff.
People who are investing for the long term should not try to second guess the market. They are not adequately informed or skilled enough. They should pay someone else to do it for them though.
If you're an amateur saving for your retirement? Absolutely not the case! And people who hold on through the drop and the following recovery won't lose money either.
If you're a day trader who's never lost money then that doesn't say very much, either you don't trade much or you've held on for long enough to recover, or you've just been very lucky. Most amateurs trying to out trade the professional day traders are on a hiding to nothing and simply gain because the market gains in general, little evidence they outgain those who simply invested then held on.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-brazil-confirms-first-covid-19-case-in-south-america-11943575
Every continent now has it except Antarctica.
What's so worrying is the situation in South Korea, Iran and Italy. The rapid take-off outside of China is of deep concern.
I think Sean's right and I suspect it may be how we go. Trying to contain this may prove impossible. Best hope is that anti-viral drugs or a vaccine work.
IIRC the power to change the date of an election rests with Congress and then the states have to ratify that decision by two thirds.
Overtesting leads to many many more people being wrongly diagnosed (false positives) because no test is 100% accurate. False positives lead to patients beleiving they have a serious illness when they do not, often involving unpleasant secondary diagnosis methods. In some cases patients are given unnecessary medication or surgery unnecessarily.
The worst scenario is when a disease has low general prevelance in society and a test is made with little or no symptoms present, such as screening tests. If you test positive after a routine smear test or a routine prostate test, chances are it is a false positive, don't worry about the screening test but do go for further testing.
Of course to the American system it is in both the doctor's and insurance companies' interests to test as much as possible, as it brings in more money.
The litigation costs for lack of diagnosis is high, but litigation due to a false positive result is negligible,
And the most screwed up clusterfuck of a health system.
The start of November is before the winter flu season gets really bad and if this does follow the trends of the winter flu and dies down somewhat but re-emerges with a vengeance next winter then a delay of a few weeks or months would be pointless and counter productive. It would have to be a delay of at least six months to a year.
However, this doesn't work with the once-in-a-generation bear run. Coronavirus has the potential to wipe out stock values for 5 to 10 years. Quite seriously. We could have a situation where we don't see the pre-Christmas peaks this side of 2025.
If this were Betfair Exchange, Mike Smithson and Robert and the other savvies on here would absolutely NO WAY tie up losses on that basis.
It's only because most people don't really know how to work stocks and shares that they get into this 'paper loss' mentality. As I say, fine in normal circumstances. But coronavirus MAY take us well outside the experiences of most of us.
As indeed Eadric has been telling us.