- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,130
- Reactions
- 19,317
True but only if you trust the Chinese numbers.Italy is the place to check to validate figures
Mathematically, your death rate calculation is correct. However, there's reason to believe it much lower.
Given the number of cases in China, there are bound to be some undetected, potentially thousands. If they survived, nobody tested them. If not, you can be sure people asked if they died of coronavirus.
So deaths are added to the count, survivors are not.
Further, we have better medical care than China. It won't make a huge difference, but it'll definitely reduce the death rate in 1st world countries.
Those two factors alone should lower the death rate, the first much more than the second.
Or I'm just too optimistic...
True but only if you trust the Chinese numbers.Italy is the place to check to validate figuresMathematically, your death rate calculation is correct. However, there's reason to believe it much lower.
Given the number of cases in China, there are bound to be some undetected, potentially thousands. If they survived, nobody tested them. If not, you can be sure people asked if they died of coronavirus.
So deaths are added to the count, survivors are not.
Further, we have better medical care than China. It won't make a huge difference, but it'll definitely reduce the death rate in 1st world countries.
Those two factors alone should lower the death rate, the first much more than the second.
Or I'm just too optimistic...
I certainly hope you're right.....Those two factors alone should lower the death rate, the first much more than the second.
Mathematically, your death rate calculation is correct. However, there's reason to believe it much lower.
Given the number of cases in China, there are bound to be some undetected, potentially thousands. If they survived, nobody tested them. If not, you can be sure people asked if they died of coronavirus.
So deaths are added to the count, survivors are not.
Further, we have better medical care than China. It won't make a huge difference, but it'll definitely reduce the death rate in 1st world countries.
Those two factors alone should lower the death rate, the first much more than the second.
Or I'm just too optimistic...
isnt it the beauty of mandatory Super than even low paid workers in they 40 or 50ies while risking loosing their job in the next quarter will have lost more in the last 3 days than they will earn for the month, and probably lost more than their overall disposable income after mandatory expenses in the whole quarter.On the economic side something to consider is that the falls in markets are so widespread that there'd be very few people who haven't lost money.
It's not a "winners and losers" situation, there'd be very few winners out of this at the moment. The odd one but certainly not mainstream.
This reality won't encourage consumer spending.
Interest free loans from the government. SME's especially will need financial assistance to keep the lights on otherwise this could lead to a major financial contagion.Thinking about this more...
How is business going to handle sick leave?
Quarantine period alone would wipe out most business. Then if large numbers get hit the country would shut down.
Hopefully it fizzles out
I think the buy the dip crowd are still in that mode of thinking and there will be a big dead cat bounce as money managers buy up and shorts cover but if that can manifest into a resumption of the last few years upward market trajectory will remain to be seen.Adding the views of another eminence grise:
" ....the combination of warmer weather in the northern hemisphere and unprecedented containment measures could mean that the infection rate peaks at some point in the next few months. But the economic response will undoubtedly lag the virus infection curve, as a premature relaxation of quarantines and travel restrictions could spur a new and more widespread wave of COVID-19.
That implies, at a minimum, a two-quarter growth shortfall for China, double the duration of the shortfall during SARS, suggesting that China could miss its 6 per cent annual growth target for 2020 by as much as one percentage point. China’s recent stimulus measures, aimed largely at the post-quarantine rebound, will not offset the draconian restrictions currently in place.
This matters little to the optimistic consensus of investors. After all, by definition shocks are merely temporary disruptions of an underlying trend. While it is tempting to dismiss this shock for that very reason, the key is to heed the implications of the underlying trend. The world economy was weak, and getting weaker, when COVID-19 struck.
The V-shaped recovery trajectory of a SARS-like episode will thus be much tougher to replicate – especially with monetary and fiscal authorities in the US, Japan, and Europe having such little ammunition at their disposal. That, of course, was the big risk all along In these days of dip-buying froth, China’s sneeze may prove to be especially vexing for long-complacent financial markets.
Stephen Roach
- all this talk of V shaped recovery, or more realistically W, maybe U shaped.... But what if it's L-shaped (as in, going to L?)
was at the hospital today, visiting a bed bound relative .I hope the government is currently planning to mobilise ....
was at the hospital today, visiting a bed bound relative .
Got the distinct impression non urgents were being delayed, and wards cleared, bed by bed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?