SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: THE ANT who wrote (5570)5/15/2020 11:02:27 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
Spain hails large-scale antibody study as a key tool in the fight against the coronavirus

The Spanish government has hailed a large-scale antibody study as a key tool in the fight against the coronavirus, but warned that any premature or irresponsible relaxation of restrictions could have “enormous consequences” given that only 5% of Spaniards have had the disease.
...

The study, which involved more than 60,000 people, revealed that around 5% of the population – about 2 million people – had had the coronavirus. It also showed that 33% of those who had caught the virus had not shown any symptoms.

“We think that the seroprevalence test we’ve carried out is the best that’s been done anywhere in the world so far. The most important conclusion we’ve reached is that it is vital to keep acting very prudently when it comes to this illness – there are still a lot of people who haven’t been exposed to the virus,” he said.

Duque said the pronounced geographical variations underscored the need for a region-by-region loosening of restrictions: while Murcia, Melilla, Asturias and the Canary islands showed an infection rate of less than 2%, the proportion rose to more than 10% in the regions of Madrid and Castilla-La Mancha.

“Right now, the only way to act is by making small changes when it comes to relaxing the conditions, by maintaining the distances between people, and by keeping up with the infection precautions,” he added.

“The consequences of acting irresponsibly could be enormous given that we know that only 5% of the population has some degree of immunity against the virus. That means that 95% don’t.”

Duque also dismissed talk of so-called “immunity passports” to allow more freedom of movement to those who had recovered from the disease. The science, he said, simply did not support such a move.

“From a personal scientific point of view, all I can say is that we don’t even know for sure that immunity exists, so we’re very far from all of that. We don’t have scientific information that guarantees that people with the antibodies are immune to future infections. So we’re very far from being able to take legal responsibility for that.”




To: THE ANT who wrote (5570)5/16/2020 2:59:08 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 13795
 
Why there won't be a second wave. Once people stare at the bill for the first, they will know the price they've paid and they will not buy into the second wave narrative.

The previous tweet only used OECD GDP data. EU just came out with their first draft GDP data for Q1. Adding this to the above gives this Europe-heavy graph





To: THE ANT who wrote (5570)5/24/2020 11:18:52 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 13795
 
Germany fits perfectly the theory


linkedin.com



To: THE ANT who wrote (5570)5/27/2020 2:15:02 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13795
 
If you are under 65, in reasonably good health and do not have a vitamin D deficiency, you have only a tiny chance of dying from COVID-19.

And if you are younger than 34, your chances of dying from the virus are so small as to be almost statistically undetectable.



'You are not going to die from COVID-19'COVID-19 resources should focus on elderly with underlying conditions, set rest of humanity free

Print By Richard W. Rahn - - Monday, May 25, 2020

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Good news (please see the accompanying table)! If you are under 65, in reasonably good health and do not have a vitamin D deficiency, you have only a tiny chance of dying from COVID-19. And if you are younger than 34, your chances of dying from the virus are so small as to be almost statistically undetectable. On the other hand, if you are 85 or older, are in a nursing home, have serious health problems and a vitamin D deficiency, you may be in real danger if you are exposed to the virus — but only a tiny portion of the population is in such a condition.

The U.S. population is about 330 million, and the number of people who die each year from all causes is about 2.85 million or a bit less than 1 percent. To date, less than 100,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19 or three-hundreds of 1 percent. (The peak in deaths appears to have already occurred but even if the number of deaths doubles from the current level, which is most unlikely, the total will be well under one-tenth of 1 percent).

Political leaders have shut down much of the world economy on the basis of bad information and the failure to ask the right questions. Any action to try to stop the spread of the virus should have been accompanied with a competent estimate of how many net lives would be saved by the action.

Net lives means how many people would die from COVID-19 compared to all of the additional lives lost through delayed diagnoses and treatments of cancer, heart disease and all other ailments due to the COVID-19 shutdown. The number of additional suicides and the misery of losing tens of thousands of small businesses, and the loss of liberty also needed to be factored in. Very little of any of that was done.

Early in the year, the leaders of the World Health Organization (WHO) said the virus was unlikely to be transmitted from human to human (given its animal origin) and probably would not be a big threat. It soon became apparent that WHO had been wrong, and the threat was real. The folks at WHO were soon exposed as Chinese puppets — Communists lying? Who would have thought? A group out of Imperial College in the U.K., promoted a model that forecast 2 million or so deaths in the U.S. and millions elsewhere from the virus.

This caused panic among the medical, political and media elites, which resulted in the worldwide shutdown. The model turned out to be deeply flawed, overstating the likely death toll by over 20-fold (aka gross incompetence, or worse).

The fraudulent model was neither closely examined initially, nor rejected because it served certain political and media interests. Political opponents of President Trump were quick to blame him for not acting quickly enough, while ignoring the fact that when he shut down China travel on Jan. 31, they had criticized him for overreacting.

The media loved the story because fear sells newspapers and increases TV ratings, and they could blame it on the hated Mr. Trump. But as is typical with the many in the media, they did not think beyond stage I, and as the economy was needlessly sent into the tank, advertisers withdrew. Circulation and ratings may be up, but fewer advertisers are paying the freight, so many of those who promoted the panic are and will be losing their jobs. Ah, divine justice.

Serious scholars, like Professor Anne Marie Knott of Washington University in St. Louis, a mathematician who also understands economics, has prepared a very clear short presentation, “Why you haven’t caught COVID-19,” explaining how the data demonstrates that most people, especially the young, will never contract the virus and for those who do, most will have a totally benign or mild reaction.

Her presentation may be found on YouTube at: Anne Marie Knott: Why you haven’t caught COVID-19. Again, the only real danger is for a very small percentage of people over 65, except for those 85 and older, who have other serious problems. Ms. Knott’s analysis clearly shows that the costs of the shutdown are greatly exceeding the benefits.

Mr. Trump, the political leaders in both parties, and particularly the mainstream media were too easily seduced by well-meaning “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci. Most of the medical experts, understandably, have a very narrow focus and do not fully consider total costs and benefits of their recommendations and actions.

Now that we have sufficient global data and “petri dish” experiments (from U.S. Navy and commercial cruise ships that were quarantined for more than 14 days) to understand the real risks to various groups) there is no longer justification for most restrictions on those under 65. Resources should be concentrated on the elderly with underlying conditions — and the rest of humanity should be allowed to go free and resume normal lives.

• Richard W. Rahn is chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Improbable Success Productions.