[Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?]

1 minute ago, robmatic said:

The Imperial College model that drove the advice in the beginning was based on an estimated Infection Fatality Rate of 1%, which ties in with the results of the seroprevalence study that was carried out in Spain recently - they found an IFR of 1.1%. 

Got a link? Data review from yesterday gave an IFR range from published data significantly lower than that.

"Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.03% to 0.50% and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.40%"

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v1

 

[Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?]

1 minute ago, LandOfConfusion said:

It's always interesting when a scientist goes against the grain.

I've had a look and he raises lots of points, but two central ones pop out to me. The first is that most people will get infected eventually and all we are doing is delaying the deaths. To which I'd respond: er, yes? Where trying to stop the NHS from being overloaded and if we can keep the rate of infections low enough then we can manage this.

His second position seems to be that lockdown isn't data driven, i.e. that we have no evidence that it will work or does anything useful.  To that I'd say it hasn't happened before so naturally there is no data, only information from previous flu epidemics, which themselves showed that the introduction of lockdowns reduced the rate of infections and consequently deaths. That's not a 1:1 comparison but it's better then going "Oh well, lets' just see".

 

But of course all of this depends on your priorities. In the anarcho-libertarian 'economy first' scenario people dying, especially if they are retired or otherwise economically inactive isn't really a concern. And after all, they're going to die anyway so why worry?

Do you not think that is a bit unreasonable?

You can put no relevance to the economy whatsoever but it would still be reasonable to consider the number of deaths caused by people not getting to hospital with strokes etc, missed cancer diagnosis, then impact of a recession on cancer (estimated 500k extra deaths globally last time), impact on suicide levels etc. etc.

Its clear that (luckily) the death rate is lower than was estimated at the start when no data was available. As such is not reasonable to estimate the lock-down on a cost/benefit health analysis with the new data?

[What will collapse next....]

6 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Watch out for intu going bust at the end of June when they breach their debt covenants. 

They are getting desperate now and imo, they will be off for a long walk in the woods by the end of June.

Maybe. But you have to remember the banks will be incredibly forgiving on those covenants... as who wants a shopping centre now? what do you do as a bank, put it into auction? with no buyers? Running it yourself is a non-starter. 

From the banks perspective at this time its better to come to a solution that gives them a chance to trade out of it. If only so there is a market to sell into later on.

 

(long time lurker but sometimes on financial items i think input is needed)

[Do you genuinely believe we will see a HPC now ?]

https://www.barnardmarcusauctions.co.uk/auctions/19-may-2020/

Auctions showing no signs of a price crash yet. 

Might come but is very much dependant on this global depression actually occurring. For everyone's sake i hope thats not needed.