phorid

CDC. (2017, June). National Pandemic Influenza Plan -- 2017 Update. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...-planning.html and https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...ort-2017v2.pdf

nk15

Reports of price gouging and measures to deal with them:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/go...cid=spartanntp

GadgetFreak

That seems, unsound.

l etoile

I’m in the process of a clean-up. As we’ve posted before, this thread is meant to be a resource for reporting on the virus. Fear-mongering, speculation and arguing do not serve the thread’s purpose. Please discontinue those lines of discussion.

l etoile
sr moderator

invisible

Transfer included?

invisible

[Redacted reference to deleted post] Your chances to die in car accident are much higher, yet you don’t ask people to pay you to get in a car.

Above is an illustration of how average people estimate risks incorrectly. This is well known phenomenon in Finance when people trying to minimize risks.

And with the current situation we have another manifestation of misguided risk analysis. Even BBC started to pay attention:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51731422

PanAmWT

The Official Coronavirus Numbers Are Wrong, and Everyone Knows It

Because the U.S. data on coronavirus infections are so deeply flawed, the quantification of the outbreak obscures more than it illuminates.
ALEXIS C. MADRIGALMARCH 3, 2020
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...avirus/607348/

Public health legend Anthony Fauci says working with the White House during an outbreak can be difficult because politicians can cause complacency in their attempts to 'calm people down'

https://news.yahoo.com/public-health...153616731.html

MSPeconomist

The article says that Ford has banned all BUSINESS travel, not all air travel. Employees are apparently free to travel as they wish for leisure. There's a big difference and it would be hard to imagine an employer banning legal travel being done during an employee's free time, for example to attend the wedding or funeral of a close relative.

tauphi

While an employer can't ban personal travel outright, they could do so indirectly by e.g. requiring employees who're returning from certain areas (China, Italy, etc.) to self-quarantine for 14 days before going into the office.

narvik

This story from Switzerland is baffling:

A Swiss Member Of Parliament (solely) wore a face mask whilst at work in the federal parliament building a few days ago, and was immediately reprimanded for doing so.
Initially just kicked out of the room, a compromise was struck and she was given permission to come back for voting only.

She returned yesterday -again wearing a face mask- to vote, and removed her mask to briefly speak regarding her voting decision. In the process of removing the mask her eye glasses fell off and shattered on the ground.
Apparently her co-workers observing this found this amusing and "reported it with a touch of Schadenfreude".

Amazing how cultures differ so greatly in acceptability of wearing face masks!
(And I wouldn't be surprised if they'll all wear masks in a few weeks!)


Reported in the Swiss "tabloid" Blick (in German):
https://www.blick.ch/news/politik/be...d15779738.html

yosithezet

This is exactly what our company is doing.

invisible

The same here. Plus the new rule is that we need to notify HR on any international travel, including personal.

babe11

Hello FT'rs,

My home base is Tampa and this Tampa Bay Times article is very concerning: Florida Keeps Quiet on CoronaVirus Patient who flew through Tampa Airport

It's ridiculous that something as simple as telling us the airline(s) and flight number(s) these two travelers flew on would be withheld from the public. I travel through TPA every week!

trueblu

I think these examples are missing the point. Some actions have immediate returns on risk: e.g. helvetic making a shed-load of money (for me on my academic salary it's an awful lot!) on some option bets on the market. He took a calculated risk, and he won, he could have lost, but either way, results were almost immediately apparent. The poisoned pill example is also a case in point. But what if we modify the experiment just a teeny bit: that 1/million pills will cause an awful but 100% predictable death, in exactly 5 years with no indication as to what will happen in the interim? The actual risks are exactly the same: but you won't know whether you 'won' or 'lost' the bet...you'll just have to wait it out, for 5 years. I would hazard far fewer people would take that bet, or need a higher threshold to do so.

That's what we're facing with global climate change (the bet changes to your grandkids will have an awful life 50 years' hence), or COVID-19: do I take a personal hit: whether it's for my leisure pursuits, productivity of my workplace, educational opportunities for my children etc, for some potential gain -- and especially if that potential gain is not obviously apparent: I might get COVID-19 anyway, so what's the point of getting it now or in April (despite the fact that delay would ease infrastructure burdens). Furthermore, the risks aren't 1/million, they are much, much shorter than that.

tb

PS as mentioned, I think Iran will be an informative case study (if we get data) for what happens if you don't mitigate...I would estimate 100k cases in Iran by now, if 50% in Tehran, that's 0.5% point prevalence. Remember, most models predict that eventually minimum of 10% and probably >50% total infected (although with mitigation, the hope is point prevalence will be under 5-10%). If the prevalence really is as high as 0.5%, that would grow to 10% in under 2 weeks...if we see total infrastructure collapse in Tehran in that time, that's a salutary lesson. Qom is already under severe strain: hospitals are full, including makeshift tent hospitals. It's population is just over 1M, and it's probably already over 1% prevalence...

Visconti

RE: Jar Scenario

I wouldn't play, because unlike, say, a baseball game, there's ZERO utility of satisfaction from playing aside from dying and monetary compensation where I could far more effectively accrue elsewhere without mortality risk. Now, if you stuck a gun to my head and forced me to play, it would be the odds picking the death pill balanced with the economic value of my life, the value of XX years of income for my expected life span. I assume this is what H was doing when he instinctively shot out his number.

As to the known risks of the coronavirus, there are certain risks one must take. You have to earn a living. You need to ensure your family enjoys life and continue to do all the things that make life worth living. In my baseball scenario, there's a risk where I may die from a car accident on my way to the stadium, eat a poisoned hot dog, and a foul ball smashing into my frontal lobes; and, this in addition to the coronavirus and whatever other unknown pathogen risks. I understand them and take those risks with my daughter because we enjoy it and the moments we share will last a life time. Why would I play the jar?

The virus risk as estimated by the Pros aren't speculation, but based on their best educated guess, guidance if you will, on what they think will happen. All plans are made with future projections. It doesn't mean they have to be right, but their educated guess is valuable, since it's better than mine, a layman. And, you can't suck and still be paid for doing what you do after 10+ years, so I assume all the experts in the industry are all equally well qualified. That's why folks like TB get the big bucks!