The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: bthewalls on February 25, 2020, 03:30:38 PM
-
Personally I’m just sick of the media sensationalism of this new flu.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
Baz from Northern Ireland....
-
Mortality rate is much higher with each progressively older age group. If it doesn't get you, it might get someone close to you.
-
Personally I’m just sick of the media sensationalism of this new flu.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
Baz from Northern Ireland....
You might feel sicker if you contract it. I read a while ago that while 2% were dying of coronavirus, 10% were in hospital.
I don't know stats for Ireland, crunching numbers from America's CDC, flu fatality rate is much less than than 1%. Roughly 0.1% in 2018-19, for example (34,157 / 35,520,883). Are Irish really 10 times more susceptible to flu than Americans? If not, it looks like covid-19 is about 20 times more fatal per case than flu.
Feel as little empathy as you want, but try not to cough on other people.
-
Personally I’m just sick of the media sensationalism of this new flu.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
Baz from Northern Ireland....
I got the ordinary flu a couple of decades ago as a healthy 30 something. I have very nasty memories of it all going as usual until that one night I spent sitting up in bed breathing very carefully and wondering whether to call for an ambulance.
Also, I saw some figures out of China that had 80% of the COVID19 infected who got mechanical ventilation died. If this thing gets you bad, chances are high the medics won't be able to save you whatever they do.
Hoping for the best, but I think I'll get that draft Will signed in the next few days just in case.
-
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it.
You are very wrong about your flu mortality rate. Seasonal flu mortality rate varies by season but is usually quoted as ~0.1% worldwide.
-
Pros: good for natural selection, the environment (reducing overpopulation and travel), savers (stocks going on sale), news ratings, healthcare industry
Cons: bad for retirees, contractees or people who are fearful or empathic.
Seems to me that there is likely to be a negative correlation between <your age> and <your 'bring it on mutha fucka'-ness>.
Since I'm median age for my country, I should probably abstain from voting.
-
I think if you look at the numbers you see people that already have health issues make up a bunch of the deaths and how old you are. Keep your immune system healthy and your body knows what to do with this type of stuff. The immune system is a wonderful thing as it knows exactly what to do at the right time. Don't be afraid to play in the dirt every once in a while as a healthy immune system needs tested every now and then.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
-
I've played enough Pandemic to know that all we need to do is get three red cards and go to China to stop it.
-
R0 for the Corona virus is not known yet, but I'm seeing a range of estimates that go up as high as 6.6.
For the sake of comparison, ebola's R0 was 2, and SARS had an R0 of 4.
-
Personally I’m just sick of the media sensationalism of this new flu.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
Baz from Northern Ireland....
I got the ordinary flu a couple of decades ago as a healthy 30 something. I have very nasty memories of it all going as usual until that one night I spent sitting up in bed breathing very carefully and wondering whether to call for an ambulance.
Also, I saw some figures out of China that had 80% of the COVID19 infected who got mechanical ventilation died. If this thing gets you bad, chances are high the medics won't be able to save you whatever they do.
Hoping for the best, but I think I'll get that draft Will signed in the next few days just in case.
I got H1N1 and felt like I was going to die.
I had to drag my virtually lifeless corpse across the floor to go to the bathroom for a solid week, then I got opportunistic pneumonia. Overall, I was utterly non functional for 6 weeks, and was fatigued for an additional month after that. It sucked balls.
I got it AGAIN!!! two years later still working in a hospital. Not nearly as bad, but I recognized it right away and got it confirmed.
I'm not even a little bit worried about dying from coronavirus, and I'm not at all worried about my investments, and I'm not stocking up on food or meds any more than I normally do, and I'm definitely not worried about any impact on DH's job, and my job doesn't matter as I'm retiring anyway.
I'm not too worried about my immunocompromised mom because she's an old pro at being prepared and doing what she can to protect herself, and if she gets it, then what will be will be, like when she contracted whooping cough from visiting the hospital I worked at when there was an outbreak (Seeing a theme here? Don't go to hospitals during viral outbreaks if you can avoid it).
I mean, I worry about her dying from all sorts of shit, not just nasty viruses, so worrying about my mom is just kind of a low-grade constant stress, so this doesn't really change anything.
Do I expect there to be some impact on me? Sure, probably. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'm fairly confident that it won't be anything that I can't roll with.
I have an upcoming trip to Europe that could feasibly be affected, but that's not a huge deal. I canceled a trip for this year already and lost a huge deposit I made because of serious health issues last year. Cancelling vacations and losing money is unpleasant, but no big deal and totally manageable.
The people who will be most affected by this are the most vulnerable. The least healthy will be the most at risk for direct affects of the virus, and those with the least robust lifestyles will be the most affected by the possible systemic disruptions.
These are the same people who are most affected by the railway blockages right now in Canada.
So yes, I am very very concerned for those who are medically and economically vulnerable. I'm not sure panic helps them in any way, but I am deeply concerned for the affects on them.
For me? I can't even come up with a personal risk that I should be actively vigilant about beyond my normal precautions.
-
China put out a research paper with figures I saw summarized in a BBC article, and match the website mentioned by wienerdog. There's a 3:2 ratio of men to women dying from the virus, which means the 80 year old death rate probably looks like 18% (men) and 12% (women), rather than the overall 15%. Age is a huge factor, but for people in their 30s it's 1 in 500 according to that data - rare, and similar to the normal flu.
Since this is the investment's forum, it's worth saying the risk to the markets is more severe. I have no idea how many factories are idle, with all the workers at home. Hubei is a hub for automobile manufacturing, meaning there are cars made elsewhere that can't be finished. They need parts from a supply chain that's broken. When the virus hits a new town, the place goes on lockdown, which stops a lot of economic activity. During the SARS outbreak, the market impact was -8% I heard, and until this week the stock market impact was nothing like that. Now Mon/Tuesday the market fell almost -8% in two days, so it's catching up... but the hit to economic output has to be larger.
There's also places that are ignorant or suppressing information. 8 deaths and only 43 cases? Iran's data makes no sense. Next day, the number of cases doubled... and the health minister who didn't believe in quarantine... has quarantined himself because he caught it. Now that Iran is reporting 15 deaths, I hope they realize the problem is in the hundreds... South Korea has fewer deaths, but a thousand cases so far. Denying there's a problem can spread it further... and the economic problem could grow.
-
China put out a research paper with figures I saw summarized in a BBC article, and match the website mentioned by wienerdog. There's a 3:2 ratio of men to women dying from the virus, which means the 80 year old death rate probably looks like 18% (men) and 12% (women), rather than the overall 15%. Age is a huge factor, but for people in their 30s it's 1 in 500 according to that data - rare, and similar to the normal flu.
Since this is the investment's forum, it's worth saying the risk to the markets is more severe. I have no idea how many factories are idle, with all the workers at home. Hubei is a hub for automobile manufacturing, meaning there are cars made elsewhere that can't be finished. They need parts from a supply chain that's broken. When the virus hits a new town, the place goes on lockdown, which stops a lot of economic activity. During the SARS outbreak, the market impact was -8% I heard, and until this week the stock market impact was nothing like that. Now Mon/Tuesday the market fell almost -8% in two days, so it's catching up... but the hit to economic output has to be larger.
There's also places that are ignorant or suppressing information. 8 deaths and only 43 cases? Iran's data makes no sense. Next day, the number of cases doubled... and the health minister who didn't believe in quarantine... has quarantined himself because he caught it. Now that Iran is reporting 15 deaths, I hope they realize the problem is in the hundreds... South Korea has fewer deaths, but a thousand cases so far. Denying there's a problem can spread it further... and the economic problem could grow.
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
-
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
In theory indexing everything should be able to do so except for a absolute crash to zero. So yes but it is Human nature to worry and... The news likes to poke the pig!
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Should we be worried, no. Should we watch and invest more if we can... yes.
All prepared, is relative to where some of us are on the FIRE journey, but in general yes, as far as the markets are concerned anyway.
Am I missing something?
If so, then we all are.
There, easy answers I think.... Meh, I am going to not worry and "Buy The DIP!"
-
Keep your immune system healthy and your body knows what to do with this type of stuff.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....[snip]
Guess I shouldn't have gotten pregnant.
I mean....easy for a generally healthy person to say just be healthy, but people don't always have a choice about their immune system. So heck yeah, I'm somewhat worried because I'm immune compromised right now, who knows if there will be an outbreak in 2 months when I'm at the hospital for the delivery, and then I'll have a tiny newborn with no immune system who along with the elderly is in the most vulnerable population. (And as pregnant woman, I'm very limited in what drugs I can safely take right now if I do get it.) At least with the flu there's something I can do about it, such as get my annual flu shot, which decreases the risk of death and the severity of the illness.
But my 3 yo in daycare is a petri dish, so saying "don't worry, just wash your hands frequently!" is beyond frustrating naiveté optimism to hear because those folks have clearly never seen a preschooler in action touching/licking everything just to see what it is/what will happen. Sure they are learning to cough in their elbow, but in reality their motor skills aren't so great so most of the time they are coughing in each others/my face all day, every day because well, petri dish a la Diamond Princess.
I'm not going to run around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling (and I happily took advantage of the drop to fund my son's 529 in part yesterday), but some understanding that not everyone can be so blasé would be nice.
-
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
I guess if this turns into a recession which on average takes a couple of years to rebound from (post WW2) that could definitely impact some plans to retire. Unless you've done a heavy glidepath into bonds (like 80%), this could definitely affect those people. SORR risk is also a problem if you haven't planned for it. We see questions on the forum every week from people who don't know what that is.
-
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
I guess if this turns into a recession which on average takes a couple of years to rebound from (post WW2) that could definitely impact some plans to retire. Unless you've done a heavy glidepath into bonds (like 80%), this could definitely affect those people. SORR risk is also a problem if you haven't planned for it. We see questions on the forum every week from people who don't know what that is.
[/quote]
Yeah, but that's not usually questions from people who are actually ready to retire, it's from people on their path of figuring out what steps they will need to take to account for sequence of return risk.
Realistically, I expect any reasonae Mustachian who has done more than a few weeks of research on the matter to understand pretty well that SORR is something they need to account for before they up and quit forever to live off of their investments.
This population is more likely to be wildly over prepared for a black swan event than under prepared.
I can, however, see someone who is very close to retiring choosing not to pull the plug right now just because it's too much of a test of their intestinal fortitude, but again, that would be a symptom of being over prepared as opposed to actually being overly vulnerable to market impacts.
-
R0 for the Corona virus is not known yet, but I'm seeing a range of estimates that go up as high as 6.6.
For the sake of comparison, ebola's R0 was 2, and SARS had an R0 of 4.
I thought about mentioning this but I don't know how good the current estimates are.
For reference H1N1 R0 was ~1.5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404).
-
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
Yes we are supposed to be prepared, and no we aren’t as prepared as we want to think we are. Until you’ve watched your wealth drop like a stone and Soldiered On, you don’t really know how you’ll react.
I think I’ll do just fine if this plays out like I think it might. I’ve been quieter of late about my views on equities in general and cap weighted US index funds in particular. My opinion hasn’t really changed though and if we see a black swan event, I’m in a good position to buy while on sale.
-
IMO the reporting on the virus has been over the top. Secondly, I don't really trust the info coming out of China, which makes it harder to ascertain risk. I realize people are dying, but flu kills thousands in the USA each year.
For those who have been tracking this much more closely: is this "just another" flu strain?
-
For those who have been tracking this much more closely: is this "just another" flu strain?
The mortality rate is ~20x higher than flu and the R0 (how many people get it, how infectious it is) is higher, but we don't know exactly how much higher yet.
-
This is the first post I've seen with someone talking about re-watching all of Game of Thrones as a positive thing. Season eight ruined it all for me.
Also, I'm not worried about the Coronavirus given my own personal geography (IL). I was at the international terminal of ORD over the weekend picking someone up and I saw a surprising amount of face masks (maybe 1 in 20 people), so clearly my view is not shared by everyone.
-
By the time you think you need to take precautions, you've probably already been exposed.
-
Even if this strain turns out to be equal to the flu, the chance to completely contain a new disease is worth a lot. Imagine if we had had the chance to stop transmission of the flu when it first appeared.
-
R0 for the Corona virus is not known yet, but I'm seeing a range of estimates that go up as high as 6.6.
For the sake of comparison, ebola's R0 was 2, and SARS had an R0 of 4.
I thought about mentioning this but I don't know how good the current estimates are.
For reference H1N1 R0 was ~1.5 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545404).
Had to look up R0:
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
-
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
.
Have you ever had the flu? I had it once, in my twenties, and I have never wished for death more. I felt so bad and hurt so much that I WANTED to die, but was too weak to do anything about it. If it had lasted any longer than 3-4 days, I probably would have died because I wasn't even eating or drinking--that's how sick I was.
Some people get the flu and it's no big deal. But some strains are worse than others. Don't be too quick to assume it's going to be like getting a bad cold.
oh, and with a respiratory ailment, please don't take codeine without someone knowing you're doing that. If a bug gets into your lungs, you want everything working and not tamped down with opiates.
-
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
Yes we are supposed to be prepared, and no we aren’t as prepared as we want to think we are. Until you’ve watched your wealth drop like a stone and Soldiered On, you don’t really know how you’ll react.
I think I’ll do just fine if this plays out like I think it might. I’ve been quieter of late about my views on equities in general and cap weighted US index funds in particular. My opinion hasn’t really changed though and if we see a black swan event, I’m in a good position to buy while on sale.
Okay...sure...
But that just supports my point that we *should* have plans in place to anticipate this kind of thing in our investing lifetime. I never once said that people should find those plans easy, just that we should all have them.
-
You won’t feel so cavalier if your older relatives start dropping like flies. I had pneumonia at 45 when I was in excellent health. I was knocked down for a month. Fast forward 20 years and I now have 2 chronic conditions and my husband has one.
-
China put out a research paper with figures I saw summarized in a BBC article, and match the website mentioned by wienerdog. There's a 3:2 ratio of men to women dying from the virus, which means the 80 year old death rate probably looks like 18% (men) and 12% (women), rather than the overall 15%. Age is a huge factor, but for people in their 30s it's 1 in 500 according to that data - rare, and similar to the normal flu.
Since this is the investment's forum, it's worth saying the risk to the markets is more severe. I have no idea how many factories are idle, with all the workers at home. Hubei is a hub for automobile manufacturing, meaning there are cars made elsewhere that can't be finished. They need parts from a supply chain that's broken. When the virus hits a new town, the place goes on lockdown, which stops a lot of economic activity. During the SARS outbreak, the market impact was -8% I heard, and until this week the stock market impact was nothing like that. Now Mon/Tuesday the market fell almost -8% in two days, so it's catching up... but the hit to economic output has to be larger.
There's also places that are ignorant or suppressing information. 8 deaths and only 43 cases? Iran's data makes no sense. Next day, the number of cases doubled... and the health minister who didn't believe in quarantine... has quarantined himself because he caught it. Now that Iran is reporting 15 deaths, I hope they realize the problem is in the hundreds... South Korea has fewer deaths, but a thousand cases so far. Denying there's a problem can spread it further... and the economic problem could grow.
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
I agree with you but I think times like this may people reassess their approach. Gold is a classic example. In times like this it probably goes up. I still wouldn't hold it because I don't believe times like this last very long. Then you are stuck with a poorly performing asset.
-
You won’t feel so cavalier if your older relatives start dropping like flies.
Yes, with some younger ones here and there as well, because it's still far more fatal than the regular flu, and there's no vaccine.
-
Christ guys..must apologise...caffeine and Chevy chase sense of humour.
-
The flu is no joke. It is common. but anyone who has ever has had an acute case of it can tell you it is no picnic. Even for a healthy person it makes one feel like they are about to die. Aches, pains, chills, sensitivity to light, feeling of having swallowed glass shards and not wanting to eat or drink anything. And it lasts the better part of a week. For people who are not healthy the flu is deadly.
This corona virus apparently often results in pneumonia.so Ill people have trouble breathing and have a secondary infection. And they are hacking and coughing contagious droplets of sputum everywhere.
-
But my 3 yo in daycare is a petri dish, so saying "don't worry, just wash your hands frequently!" is beyond frustrating naiveté optimism to hear because those folks have clearly never seen a preschooler in action touching/licking everything just to see what it is/what will happen.
In case it's reassuring, for people ages 10-39 there's only a 1 in 500 chance that someone who catches the coronavirus dies from it. There's been zero deaths for children ages 0-9. Children just seem to shrug it off, often without symptoms.
Here's the CDC assessment for coronavirus and pregnancy - but just to warn you, it's basically "we don't know".
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/pregnancy-faq.html
-
At 65 I would prefer to live 20 more years but I am super happy that young people and kids aren’t dying. I would die before seeing that happen.
-
I've had really bad flu before....once is Thailand and it was really really bad....but know what, it's a distant memory.
However, I think ray dalio has called this one wrong cause he said corna would be a blip....given the scale of corporate debt I reckon were about to see a major correction...I'm actually ok with that cause I want to buy cheap.
On a sombre note...we're all gonna die at some point...Anthony demello used to meditate on his passing so that he could accept it more and prevent fear of death from controlling him in life! ....I've done this myself and recommended it
Baz
-
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
Yes we are supposed to be prepared, and no we aren’t as prepared as we want to think we are. Until you’ve watched your wealth drop like a stone and Soldiered On, you don’t really know how you’ll react.
I think I’ll do just fine if this plays out like I think it might. I’ve been quieter of late about my views on equities in general and cap weighted US index funds in particular. My opinion hasn’t really changed though and if we see a black swan event, I’m in a good position to buy while on sale.
Okay...sure...
But that just supports my point that we *should* have plans in place to anticipate this kind of thing in our investing lifetime. I never once said that people should find those plans easy, just that we should all have them.
Yes we *should*, but I'm an older person (50s) who WAS quite close to hitting my number. I've been listening to people for the past few years tell me that I'm investing for the next 30 years, not for the next 5. That makes sense and I took on additional risk for that. But it doesn't make me feel any better right NOW.
My feelings may also be more acute than usual because I've been waiting to jump into the "Race from $2M to $4M" group. I jumped into that group for ONE DAY and then had to leave.
I guess my comment really boils down to "it's different when it's about ME ME ME". ;)
Will I make any changes? Not really because I think my plan is still the best for me. It does help to talk about things though with people who are not panicking
-
I just posted in another thread about reoccurrence of COVID-19 after being cured and likely community spread now occurring in the U.S.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/coronavirus-preparedness/msg2569312/#msg2569312
And regarding mortality rates:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate
39 or yonger, the death rate 0.2%.
in their 40s, it is 0.4%
in their 50s, it is 1.3%,
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
-
Yes we *should*, but I'm an older person (50s) who WAS quite close to hitting my number. I've been listening to people for the past few years tell me that I'm investing for the next 30 years, not for the next 5. That makes sense and I took on additional risk for that. But it doesn't make me feel any better right NOW.
@BlueHouse I guess the one thing that might help you is that pulling the plug when the market is at a higher than historical average CAPE can be risky for sequence of returns risk. Read BigErn's Early Retirement Now as he had a couple posts about it. Still sucks if you were super close.
I need to fund another six figures into a 529 and I will probably drop a bunch of it into equities if this keeps up. So I have a little incentive to buy a fire sale.
-
I just posted in another thread about reoccurrence of COVID-19 after being cured and likely community spread now occurring in the U.S.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/coronavirus-preparedness/msg2569312/#msg2569312
And regarding mortality rates:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate
39 or yonger, the death rate 0.2%.
in their 40s, it is 0.4%
in their 50s, it is 1.3%,
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
I would take these rates with a grain of salt, scientists are saying it's way too soon to determine the actual fatality rates. They need a lot more data and time for the rates to be statistically signifcant. Total infections are likely already in the several hundreds of thousands.
-
New York Times' The Daily, and Vox's Today Explained both have good episodes out right now about the coronavirus.
The short version is it's too soon to tell, but it could potentially be pretty bad...or not.
-
New York Times' The Daily, and Vox's Today Explained both have good episodes out right now about the coronavirus.
The short version is it's too soon to tell, but it could potentially be pretty bad...or not.
Sounds like every episode of CNBC.
-
At 65 I would prefer to live 20 more years but I am super happy that young people and kids aren’t dying. I would die before seeing that happen.
you are just too sweet! yeah, i was really relieved to see that my 18-month-old son may have more resistance to COV than me. i am, however, pretty worried about out 60-something good friend who works with kids. she is already really prone to respiratory illnesses so I don't know that she would fare well if exposed to COV.
-
I just posted in another thread about reoccurrence of COVID-19 after being cured and likely community spread now occurring in the U.S.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/coronavirus-preparedness/msg2569312/#msg2569312
And regarding mortality rates:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate
39 or yonger, the death rate 0.2%.
in their 40s, it is 0.4%
in their 50s, it is 1.3%,
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
Cool...ta for stats
-
Ray Dalia said this would be a significant but short market drop....like sars
Keep the faith people, accept mortality of human life, prepare to scope the sale.
-
Massy, seeing kids or young people die is heartbreaking. I have lived a good life. I love life and am taking precautions but the flu kills children and I am good friends with 2 people that lost kids and nothing is worse. That’s probably the only good thing about this virus is that it’s not killing children.
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
-
China put out a research paper with figures I saw summarized in a BBC article, and match the website mentioned by wienerdog. There's a 3:2 ratio of men to women dying from the virus, which means the 80 year old death rate probably looks like 18% (men) and 12% (women), rather than the overall 15%. Age is a huge factor, but for people in their 30s it's 1 in 500 according to that data - rare, and similar to the normal flu.
Since this is the investment's forum, it's worth saying the risk to the markets is more severe. I have no idea how many factories are idle, with all the workers at home. Hubei is a hub for automobile manufacturing, meaning there are cars made elsewhere that can't be finished. They need parts from a supply chain that's broken. When the virus hits a new town, the place goes on lockdown, which stops a lot of economic activity. During the SARS outbreak, the market impact was -8% I heard, and until this week the stock market impact was nothing like that. Now Mon/Tuesday the market fell almost -8% in two days, so it's catching up... but the hit to economic output has to be larger.
There's also places that are ignorant or suppressing information. 8 deaths and only 43 cases? Iran's data makes no sense. Next day, the number of cases doubled... and the health minister who didn't believe in quarantine... has quarantined himself because he caught it. Now that Iran is reporting 15 deaths, I hope they realize the problem is in the hundreds... South Korea has fewer deaths, but a thousand cases so far. Denying there's a problem can spread it further... and the economic problem could grow.
I keep asking the same question when this is mentioned and no one ever seems to answer me, but shouldn't all of our investment strategies already be designed to withstand a major market upset? Isn't that the entire point?
If so, then why should any of us be concerned about the market affects of this, no matter how profound they are? Aren't we all supposed to be prepared for exactly this kind of thing?
Am I missing something?
Why do you assume my portfolio isn't "designed to withstand a major market upset"? Isn't that a loaded question?
Your post has a complaint ("no one ever seems to answer me") and assumptions ("why should any of us be concerned") that don't seem related to what I posted.
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'd posit that, in terms of the big picture:
- it seems to spread like crazy. At least as contagious as ordinary flu. Maybe more so, as people appear to be contagious before early symptoms.
- it's already out of China, bigly. Europe, Aussie, Asia, Middle East and now US...
- it's definitely bad if you get it. Especially if you're old, or immune compromised, and it is killing more men than women.
How bad? Seems to kill about 1% based on public data (so, ~10x ordinary flu rate in USA, but 'normal' flu mortality is higher in developing countries, so...) and maybe 2% (but note lack of good early medical treatment may be behind early high mortality rates in China)
- on the plus side, kids don't seem as badly affected. On the bad side, reports you can get it twice FFS
So... actionable? Market/investment wise, just going to get some cash for short term panic contingency. (You should have had a normal flu vaccine too btw.) My 70/30 FIRE ship is always ready for stuff happening. Maybe a trip to Costco tomorrow for some staples. Ensure car is gassed up.
Wash my hands a lot. Avoid shaking hands. Basically 'really bad flu season' preparations.
If I was old, and already had issues with my health (esp lungs), a solid plan B for a run to a cabin in the woods would not be a stupid idea, as those numbers above could be right (or worse) and it'd be like playing Russian roulette.... But then how long do you wait to come outta da woods?
This thing could rip through retirement complexes and assisted care facilities, especially if it doesn't die down in the spring. Watch out for your parents and grandparents!
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
Here's a 2015 article that says 68% of Chinese men are smokers while only 3% of female Chinese are. I'm no scientist, but surely this is a contributing factor?
https://qz.com/521662/68-of-chinese-men-are-smokers-and-millions-will-die-because-of-it/
-
Really interesting about who smokes in China - I wish reports broke out smokers vs non-smokers. I've also read that some diseases have an influence, but no specific numbers. Maybe over time..
In the spirit of the thread, it may help to remember other things kill far more people each year than COVID-19. Don't worry so much about the virus that you stop paying attention while driving! Even in the city of Wuhan, less than 1 in 100 people caught the virus... sure, tens of thousands - but still unlikely overall.
For those who agree with OP ("bring it on"), maybe it's worth buying equities at a discount? According to morningstar, VTI fell -11.76% over this week (except Friday). The market has estimated the future as accurately as possible, and decided on a -12% discount. I don't know what happens next, the current environment seems to fit Warren Buffet's advice to be "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
-
For those who agree with OP ("bring it on"), maybe it's worth buying equities at a discount? According to morningstar, VTI fell -11.76% over this week (except Friday). The market has estimated the future as accurately as possible, and decided on a -12% discount. I don't know what happens next, the current environment seems to fit Warren Buffet's advice to be "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
Many/most in this community are already greatly invested in the stock market. Not much ability to be greedy at this point if you had already bought into the “put it all in VTSAX” mantra.
-
The market has estimated the future as accurately as possible, and decided on a -12% discount. I don't know what happens next, the current environment seems to fit Warren Buffet's advice to be "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
Dow dropped another 1000 points this morning. It just keeps going down. Don't try to catch a falling knife. The worst is yet to come.
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
If you're not a smoker, it may all even out (reference earlier post in this thread).
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
If you're not a smoker, it may all even out (reference earlier post in this thread).
Well crap.
I already bought a bunch of new clothes.
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
If you're not a smoker, it may all even out (reference earlier post in this thread).
Well crap.
I already bought a bunch of new clothes.
Pro tip: if you're turning 70 next month, catch the coronavirus now while your odds of surviving are better. ;)
-
Pro tip: if you're turning 70 next month, catch the coronavirus now while your odds of surviving are better. ;)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/4bb1788036cd61c1875ab12019b87854/tenor.gif?itemid=5531529)
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
thats so funny ....
-
it must be tough for high risk people in the middle of this public hysteria.....personally Id rather get it early while I can still get a hospital bed for a few weeks!
these 'scary' statistics showing death rate by age are probably proportional to normal flu vs age categories...
for anyone who is really shitting it you can buy an island off the remote county donegal in ireland for couple 100k...all you need is a well and a fishing rod and your good to go.
i reckon the market drop will stablize as the day traders cash in.....im gambling that the ray dalio statement of this being a significant but short drop like SARS will be right.....unless it mushrooms into other economic issues....
alternatively we might all die and these no point worrying about anything (arent we all going to die anyway?!)....if so I would recommend something like the following https://youtu.be/M4nFSdNNFQw
-
I have to admit it’s weird being older with 2 chronic conditions. How did this even happen:)) ? We are not panicking but glad we are retired so we can limit our exposure.
-
Over 20 vaccins are being developped right now. Several are already in testing phases.
A lot of anti-viral drugs are being tested and quite a few seem promising. I don't think we'll be able to contain the spread, but I think the death rate (% wise) will fall in the coming weeks and months in developed nations with good healthcare systems.
Probably a lot of people are infected without any symptoms and stay undetected, so actual rates might already be overestimations. Plus in China the hospitals were overcrowded and people were probably not getting optimal treatment...
The chance of getting the virus are quite low. Chance of getting it + dying are a lot lower even. Be careful, but worrying about it is doing more harm than good.
-
the main thing is its a great time to buy stock! and even tesla!!!
isnt this what everyone is waiting for?
-
personally Id rather get it early while I can still get a hospital bed for a few weeks!
I wouldn't. My risk of death might go up from getting infected a 2nd time. There is new data coming out saying people are getting re-infected again so this might be hard for the body to create an immune response. There are rumors (not data to back it) that some re-infected are just dropping dead due to their white blood cells attacking the body.
-
Well then, In the words of the wise Klingon warrior.....perhaps today is a good day to die.....
-
personally Id rather get it early while I can still get a hospital bed for a few weeks!
I wouldn't. My risk of death might go up from getting infected a 2nd time. There is new data coming out saying people are getting re-infected again so this might be hard for the body to create an immune response. There are rumors (not data to back it) that some re-infected are just dropping dead due to their white blood cells attacking the body.
Zombies
-
This is a good time to gain body weight, so that if you do get infected, your body will be able to have energy to fight it off.
-
This is a good time to gain body weight, so that if you do get infected, your body will be able to have energy to fight it off.
I'm good, thanks.
-
Zombies
Living in the Rockies, I'm at the very least keeping an eye on how long CV19 takes to make it here. Like a trial run. We're supposed to be the last bastion for the zombie apocalypse, we got a lot to prove!
-
...
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
That 3:2 ratio of men to women means that for any age group, men have 1.5x the risk of dying from coronavirus.
in their 60s, men 4.3% .. women 2.9% (4.3/2 + 2.9/2 = 3.6)
in their 70s, men 9.6% .. women 6.4% (9.6/2 + 6.4/2 = 8)
in their 80s, men 17.9% .. women 11.9% (17.9/2 + 11.9/2 = 14.8)
I'll be identifying as a woman until this blows over.
(It's a joke, try not to be offended)
I larfed.
-
Personally I’m just sick of the media sensationalism of this new flu.
For those with severe health issues and immune system problem it’s tough, as is normal annual flu which kills 1 percent who contract it. I would say I empathise but I have very low empathy so I won’t lie....
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
Baz from Northern Ireland....
Hold my beer
-
Well well....interesting news....looks like we have a suspected case of corona where I live...Derry Northern Ireland..
Goddamit....this is my finest hour...I will find this person and source this virus to see if I can with stand it....
If there are no more posts from me you’ll all know the outcome...
-
Fuck it...bring it on....paracetamol and ibuprofen is in....codeine to pass a few days....rewatch all of game of thrones and drink fluids.....see you all in 2 weeks if I don’t die and prepare for market drop to avail of a sale....
.
Have you ever had the flu? I had it once, in my twenties, and I have never wished for death more. I felt so bad and hurt so much that I WANTED to die, but was too weak to do anything about it. If it had lasted any longer than 3-4 days, I probably would have died because I wasn't even eating or drinking--that's how sick I was.
Some people get the flu and it's no big deal. But some strains are worse than others. Don't be too quick to assume it's going to be like getting a bad cold.
oh, and with a respiratory ailment, please don't take codeine without someone knowing you're doing that. If a bug gets into your lungs, you want everything working and not tamped down with opiates.
Sounds nasty, must have been Man Flu!
-
Is there any evidence yet whether the higher risk for older people is due only to their being older or, instead, is due to more of them having pre-existing conditions?
Asking for a friend.
-
Is there any evidence yet whether the higher risk for older people is due only to their being older or, instead, is due to more of them having pre-existing conditions?
Asking for a friend.
Honestly, no. We don't know enough. It likely is a combination though.
-
Well well....interesting news....looks like we have a suspected case of corona where I live...Derry Northern Ireland..
Goddamit....this is my finest hour...I will find this person and source this virus to see if I can with stand it....
If there are no more posts from me you’ll all know the outcome...
Haha, thanks for the laugh. God's speed young man.
-
I read a half sane article today that the stats for mortality focused proportionally heavier within age groups whose symptoms were more severe.
Those who have less severe symptoms are not fully represented in the data...it’s fecking biased data!.....
-
For those who agree with OP ("bring it on"), maybe it's worth buying equities at a discount? According to morningstar, VTI fell -11.76% over this week (except Friday). The market has estimated the future as accurately as possible, and decided on a -12% discount. I don't know what happens next, the current environment seems to fit Warren Buffet's advice to be "fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
Many/most in this community are already greatly invested in the stock market. Not much ability to be greedy at this point if you had already bought into the “put it all in VTSAX” mantra.
And I've always hesitated at the idea of investing every dollar I have the second I have it. Hence I keep a pretty robust "e-fund" that does cover six months of Bay Area living expenses, but it also serves as a cash reserve for when sales like this come along.
I'm a bargain hunter. At the grocery store, when looking for new shoes, etc. Why wouldn't I be one when I'm shopping for investments?
Does anyone else consider it less than optimal planning to not be prepared for such an event if you are so invested in the concept of FIRE?
I can hear it already...... "But but but.... you missed out holding cash!!"
I've still been buying plenty of (expensive) equities at regular intervals, but not as much as I could have over the past couple years.
With all that said, what is happening now at this point in the game matches my tolerance for risk.
-
And I've always hesitated at the idea of investing every dollar I have the second I have it. Hence I keep a pretty robust "e-fund" that does cover six months of Bay Area living expenses, but it also serves as a cash reserve for when sales like this come along.
I'm a bargain hunter. At the grocery store, when looking for new shoes, etc. Why wouldn't I be one when I'm shopping for investments?
Does anyone else consider it less than optimal planning to not be prepared for such an event if you are so invested in the concept of FIRE?
I can hear it already...... "But but but.... you missed out holding cash!!"
I've still been buying plenty of (expensive) equities at regular intervals, but not as much as I could have over the past couple years.
With all that said, what is happening now at this point in the game matches my tolerance for risk.
It is certainly true that the final return is dependent on the initial price. Warren Buffett hasn't made any major acquisitions in four years, presumably because stuff is too expensive. It's not like he doesn't have the cash on hand.
However, I don't know of a reliable way to figure out when the market itself is on sale. That's not necessarily true for individual stocks. BRK does seem to be on sale, for example. So now where are back to where in where in, what October? Is the market on sale now, but wasn't back then? Was it risky then, but not now?
-
And I've always hesitated at the idea of investing every dollar I have the second I have it. Hence I keep a pretty robust "e-fund" that does cover six months of Bay Area living expenses, but it also serves as a cash reserve for when sales like this come along.
I'm a bargain hunter. At the grocery store, when looking for new shoes, etc. Why wouldn't I be one when I'm shopping for investments?
Does anyone else consider it less than optimal planning to not be prepared for such an event if you are so invested in the concept of FIRE?
I can hear it already...... "But but but.... you missed out holding cash!!"
I've still been buying plenty of (expensive) equities at regular intervals, but not as much as I could have over the past couple years.
With all that said, what is happening now at this point in the game matches my tolerance for risk.
It is certainly true that the final return is dependent on the initial price. Warren Buffett hasn't made any major acquisitions in four years, presumably because stuff is too expensive. It's not like he doesn't have the cash on hand.
However, I don't know of a reliable way to figure out when the market itself is on sale. That's not necessarily true for individual stocks. BRK does seem to be on sale, for example. So now where are back to where in where in, what October? Is the market on sale now, but wasn't back then? Was it risky then, but not now?
Buffett has also said that he is only interested in slaying elephants.
-
I read a half sane article today that the stats for mortality focused proportionally heavier within age groups whose symptoms were more severe.
Those who have less severe symptoms are not fully represented in the data...it’s fecking biased data!.....
Well yes, "confirmed" cases are coming almost exclusively from those being hospitalized, hence the data is already biased towards those who are in bad shape to begin with. It would be like looking at the mortality rate of the flu for only those who are hospitalized. The total number of infections is likely several orders of magnitude higher, and hence the mortality rate is likely much lower than the data would indicate. I read that the estimated mortality rate is closer to 0.6%.
-
I can hear it already...... "But but but.... you missed out holding cash!!"
I've still been buying plenty of (expensive) equities at regular intervals, but not as much as I could have over the past couple years.
With all that said, what is happening now at this point in the game matches my tolerance for risk.
In the end YOU, not a bunch of internet strangers, YOU have to be comfortable with your investments. There are a handful of posters on this forum who we’re/are not so keen on being heavily invested in (US) equities. I’m one of them. I’m now in a position to invest as a result of being very low equities exposure and will be diving in if prices get to somewhere in the range I think they should be. Perhaps I should feel vindicated this week? To some extent I do. But for the most part I don’t. Because I missed out on a LOT of gains in the mean time. In retrospect, I should have piled 100% into equities from about 2009. By the time I recognized the error of my ways, the market was already at nosebleed valuations.
We are where we are. We can’t change the past and can only control how we react to the present.
-
I read a half sane article today that the stats for mortality focused proportionally heavier within age groups whose symptoms were more severe.
Those who have less severe symptoms are not fully represented in the data...it’s fecking biased data!.....
Well yes, "confirmed" cases are coming almost exclusively from those being hospitalized, hence the data is already biased towards those who are in bad shape to begin with. It would be like looking at the mortality rate of the flu for only those who are hospitalized. The total number of infections is likely several orders of magnitude higher, and hence the mortality rate is likely much lower than the data would indicate. I read that the estimated mortality rate is closer to 0.6%.
I'm also now wondering whether if resources (medical staff, hospital beds, ICU, ventilators) are in short supply the younger and more economically active part of the population might be getting priority?
-
New York Times' The Daily, and Vox's Today Explained both have good episodes out right now about the coronavirus.
The short version is it's too soon to tell, but it could potentially be pretty bad...or not.
Sounds like every episode of CNBC.
My FiL admitted that most of what he's heard about the virus comes from this network. I've started calling them "Corona NBC" to rag on him.
-
I bought some vti this morning....seems to be stabilizing....
I've also paid over 4k sterling for wee family holiday in canaries for Easter ....now way I'm losing that money even I get corno I'm going
-
I bought some vti this morning....seems to be stabilizing....
Seems good time to buy but last thing I"d say is it's stabilizing. Markets have been real choppy.
-
I bought some vti this morning....seems to be stabilizing....
CBOE VIX is over 35. Still some fun n’ games ahead.
-
Suppose it’s not the best time to point our we’re at the end of a 10 year run and haven’t seen the recession yet....not that it matters much to buy and holders
-
Well well....interesting news....looks like we have a suspected case of corona where I live...Derry Northern Ireland..
Goddamit....this is my finest hour...I will find this person and source this virus to see if I can with stand it....
If there are no more posts from me you’ll all know the outcome...
Heh, we were discussing at work that ideally you want to be one of the FIRST people who get it, you'll get a cushy hospital quarantine. Areas that have been hard hit (regions of China, South Korea, Italy) have had to turn a lot of people away from hospitals because of lack of capacity.
And I agree with an earlier poster that mortality rates are hard to predict for this, because standards for testing have been very different in different countries. Some are just testing people who come into hospitals with significant symptoms, which may only be 20% of the populations, some are testing everyone who came in contact with a known case, which turns up a lot more positives with minor symptoms who don't end up dying. The former countries will show a lot higher mortality. Iran, for example, probably has many thousands of undiagnosed cases based on their death toll, and I'm betting there are not many test kits there. The medical system has moved with remarkable speed, IMHO, to produce test methods for something unknown just a couple of months ago, but even developed countries must be rather short on kits. It does seem to be pretty contagious.
Predictions are that this will have a substantially greater economic impact than SARs, though, China is an order of magnitude more important as both a producer and consumer than it was back then, and international travel and trade in general is much higher.
-
Is there any evidence yet whether the higher risk for older people is due only to their being older or, instead, is due to more of them having pre-existing conditions?
Asking for a friend.
China published a study involving 44,000 people with the virus. According to that data, age is a huge risk - and diseases are an added risk. My reading of the data is that age is more significant: someone in their 80s has a 1 in 7 chance of death, while for someone in their 30s, it's 1 in 500.
-
I just posted in another thread about reoccurrence of COVID-19 after being cured and likely community spread now occurring in the U.S.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/coronavirus-preparedness/msg2569312/#msg2569312
And regarding mortality rates:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate
39 or yonger, the death rate 0.2%.
in their 40s, it is 0.4%
in their 50s, it is 1.3%,
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
I would take these rates with a grain of salt, scientists are saying it's way too soon to determine the actual fatality rates. They need a lot more data and time for the rates to be statistically signifcant. Total infections are likely already in the several hundreds of thousands.
I listened to a podcast yesterday with an expert who speculated that the overall fatality rate will end up around .5-.6% (vs .1-.2% for seasonal flu) once the full analysis is complete (a long time from now). There are a lot of mild undiagnosed cases out there that aren't being factored in yet.
-
I just posted in another thread about reoccurrence of COVID-19 after being cured and likely community spread now occurring in the U.S.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/coronavirus-preparedness/msg2569312/#msg2569312
And regarding mortality rates:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate
39 or yonger, the death rate 0.2%.
in their 40s, it is 0.4%
in their 50s, it is 1.3%,
in their 60s, it is 3.6%
in their 70s, it is 8%.
80 and older, it is 14.8%.
Men are more likely to die (2.8%) than women (1.7%).
To follow up on my previous post on this matter, I wanted to post this update that the WHO has announced that the fatality rate is significantly higher than the previous figure given.
WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html
-
Some good from coronavirus:
It prompted us to resupply our emergency stores last week. Last night, a tornado hit our town. We’re okay (house undamaged as well), but we’ll be without power for a couple days or so. But we have plenty of food and water.
-
Read something today by an immunologist that was interesting. He hypothesizes covid-19 has been in our population for awhile, but any deaths were likely attributed to the flu. We're only now testing for it.
-
WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html
This is based only on confirmed cases, actual cases again are likely several magnitudes higher. Scientists are estimating actual mortality rate to be ~ 0.6%.
-
Scientists are estimating actual mortality rate to be ~ 0.6%.
Because there are no scientists that work at the CDC and they don't have a captive population to study on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.
-
Scientists are estimating actual mortality rate to be ~ 0.6%.
Because there are no scientists that work at the CDC and they don't have a captive population to study on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.
Not enough data yet, it will be a long time before there is an accurate mortality rate statistic. Cruise ship demographic is likely not a very good sampling of the general population due to age etc.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/2/419
-
Scientists are estimating actual mortality rate to be ~ 0.6%.
Because there are no scientists that work at the CDC and they don't have a captive population to study on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.
Not enough data yet, it will be a long time before there is an accurate mortality rate statistic.
So which is it? Is there enough data for "scientists" or isn't there?
Also, there are 93,123 confirmed cases (as of this minute). I have a hard time buying the "not enough data" argument. Will we get better data? Sure. Will we refine our understanding of the situation? Absolutely. But "not enough data" when we have 93K cases of a disease that has been spreading for over two months is an absurd argument.
-
WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html
This is based only on confirmed cases, actual cases again are likely several magnitudes higher. Scientists are estimating actual mortality rate to be ~ 0.6%.
I haven't seen any evidence of that, so I'm sticking with what healthcare authorities are saying.
Before the updated higher fatality rate was announced by the WHO, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force said, “If you look at the people who have just come to the attention of the health authorities, that’s 2 to 2-and-a-half percent,” Fauci said. “But even if it goes down to 1 percent, that’s still very, very serious.”
Based on the updated figures, he might have said something more like, "But even if it goes down to 2 percent, that’s still very, very serious.”
-
Cruise ship demographic is likely not a very good sampling of the general population due to age etc.
The vast majority of the Diamond Princess passengers that were active cases are still active and haven't recovered, so the death rate may be much higher than what is currently stated since active cases are part of the calculation. And while they might have been older on average, you wouldn't expect them to be in that bad of health if they are out on a cruise.
-
The China study that puts the fatality rate at just over 3% is some of the most convincing data I've seen yet.
They're now churning out about 1.5M tests a week and trying to test everyone who can into any contact with a person who later turned out to have the virus. So they're catching mild and moderate cases that may still be getting missed in countries where testing kits are limited (like the USA).
-
Also, there are 93,123 confirmed cases (as of this minute). I have a hard time buying the "not enough data" argument. Will we get better data? Sure. Will we refine our understanding of the situation? Absolutely. But "not enough data" when we have 93K cases of a disease that has been spreading for over two months is an absurd argument.
Confirmed cases are coming primarily from those going to get treatment and then tested. Hence the data is biased towards those already in poor condition. Comprehensive data will need to include all of those infected, including those who don't get treatment -- which could be many magnitudes more. This is why it's very hard to know what the mortality rate is. It's very likely that this virus has been in populations for many months without being detected.
-
It's very likely that this virus has been in populations for many months without being detected.
What populations? Do you have any evidence of this? I haven't heard this from any of the various health authorities/experts that have spoken on the matter. How can you say it's very likely when there is no evidence to support that?
-
It's very likely that this virus has been in populations for many months without being detected.
What populations? Do you have any evidence of this? I haven't heard this from any of the various health authorities/experts that have spoken on the matter. How can you say it's very likely when there is no evidence to support that?
Will try to find the source, this was commentary from an immunologist speaking about it.
-
Confirmed cases are coming primarily from those going to get treatment and then tested.
South Korea has run 109,591 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/) people to confirm 5,328 (https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) cases. I'm not sure I buy your argument.
-
South Korea has run 109,591 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/) people to confirm 5,328 (https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) cases. I'm not sure I buy your argument.
That's good, and as more testing is done the data will reach a statistical confidence interval. Right now there is still heavy statistical bias towards testing being done on those hospitalized.
Interestingly, in China, outside of Wuhan — the city at the epicenter of the outbreak, the death rate is ~ 0.7%. Similarly, a study released by China's Center for Disease Control last month, found that if you factor out all the data from Hubei province, where Wuhan is located, the fatality rate in the rest of China drops to 0.4%.
"Abstract: From 29 January to 15 February 2020, a total of 565 Japanese citizens were evacuated from Wuhan, China on three chartered flights. All passengers were screened upon arrival in Japan for symptoms consistent with novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection and tested for presence of the virus. Assuming that the mean detection window of the virus can be informed by the mean serial interval (estimated at 7.5 days), the ascertainment rate of infection was estimated at 9.2% (95% confidence interval: 5.0, 20.0). This indicates that the incidence of infection in Wuhan can be estimated at 20,767 infected individuals, including those with asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections. The infection fatality risk (IFR)—the actual risk of death among all infected individuals—is therefore 0.3% to 0.6%, which may be comparable to Asian influenza pandemic of 1957–1958."
All of this is to say, the actual mortality rate is very hard to determine this early on.
-
I saw this posted a while ago about South Korea.
As of March 3, they have tested 125,851 with 4,812 confirmed cases. Of the 4,812 confirmed, 34 discharged, 4750 isolated and 28 deceased.
So, if you look at the closed cases to see how they turned out, you have a total of (34+28) = 62.
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
-
So you have 8 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
Well the US has that beat. 9 deaths and only 8 recoveries, for a fatality rate of 53%! This goes to show how data can be misinterpreted.
-
It's very likely that this virus has been in populations for many months without being detected.
What populations? Do you have any evidence of this? I haven't heard this from any of the various health authorities/experts that have spoken on the matter. How can you say it's very likely when there is no evidence to support that?
Will try to find the source, this was commentary from an immunologist speaking about it.
In thinking you're referring to the articles saying that it may have been undetected in WA for 6 weeks:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/coronavirus-may-have-spread-undetected-for-weeks-in-washington-state-which-reported-first-two-deaths-in-us/ar-BB10BIr0
-
So you have 8 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
Well the US has that beat. 9 deaths and only 8 recoveries, for a fatality rate of 53%! This goes to show how data can be misinterpreted.
Has the U.S. tested 125,851 people? I think the data set in the U.S. is still too small. It's still too early in South Korea also as far as closed cases, but I specifically UNDERLINED "closed cases" to make it clear what I was referring to.
-
There are too many variables, I think.
Comparisons against different populations are difficult. Are infection rates among Japanese in Wuhan different from infection rates for Chinese in Wuhan? Are we being told the truth about deaths in Wuhan? (Citizen journalists with evidence of mortality in Wuhan have been "disappeared" by Chinese authorities.) Is the population on the Diamond Princess generally in better health or older than a general population, or some combination of both?
The biggest variable of all to me is the availability of advanced hospital treatment. A certain percentage of cases have serious illness from covid19: I've seen estimates of 20%, with a smaller percentage, perhaps 4%, needing intensive care and ventilation. If those 20% don't get hospital care, and if intensive care and ventilation are unavailable to all who could benefit from it, then death rates will be higher and that's difficult to account for in the statistics. We do know that some young and healthy people die even with advanced hospital treatment, as with the whistleblowing ophthalmologist in Wuhan.
-
A counterpoint to people who prefer to get sick early, and have cushy hospital beds.
During the time of the Spanish flu, hospitals were at capacity. The best they could do is put people outside in the open air, and keep them warm with heated up rocks. So far sounds like you'd rather be inside...
...but survival rates were higher *outside*.
I don't think the exact reason was studied / discovered. I'm guessing / read that fresh air and sunlight could have been factors in the improved survival rates.
-
A counterpoint to people who prefer to get sick early, and have cushy hospital beds.
During the time of the Spanish flu, hospitals were at capacity. The best they could do is put people outside in the open air, and keep them warm with heated up rocks. So far sounds like you'd rather be inside...
...but survival rates were higher *outside*.
I don't think the exact reason was studied / discovered. I'm guessing / read that fresh air and sunlight could have been factors in the improved survival rates.
Or....perhaps they put the milder cases who needed less active care outside? That's what I would do as a healthcare professional.
-
Well all tech employees told to stay home on the west coast. That is like half our workforce. Not all of us can remote in, the infrastructure does not handle it. That cannot be good for the economy.
-
Well all tech employees told to stay home on the west coast. That is like half our workforce. Not all of us can remote in, the infrastructure does not handle it. That cannot be good for the economy.
Slightly off topic, but my company doesn't have this problem because we built up all the infrastructure to allow (almost) everyone to work remotely. The obvious exceptions being people who have to ship physical goods, or test complex setups in a lab. But in terms of IT infrastructure we are 100% good to go.
-
I saw this posted a while ago about South Korea.
As of March 3, they have tested 125,851 with 4,812 confirmed cases. Of the 4,812 confirmed, 34 discharged, 4750 isolated and 28 deceased.
So, if you look at the closed cases to see how they turned out, you have a total of (34+28) = 62.
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
You've used this type of math multiple times already. It is straight up the wrong way to do statistics.
-
A counterpoint to people who prefer to get sick early, and have cushy hospital beds.
During the time of the Spanish flu, hospitals were at capacity. The best they could do is put people outside in the open air, and keep them warm with heated up rocks. So far sounds like you'd rather be inside...
...but survival rates were higher *outside*.
I don't think the exact reason was studied / discovered. I'm guessing / read that fresh air and sunlight could have been factors in the improved survival rates.
More likely they just brought the most serious cases inside.
-
Well all tech employees told to stay home on the west coast. That is like half our workforce. Not all of us can remote in, the infrastructure does not handle it. That cannot be good for the economy.
On the bright side, traffic in Seattle is a breeze.
-
I saw this posted a while ago about South Korea.
As of March 3, they have tested 125,851 with 4,812 confirmed cases. Of the 4,812 confirmed, 34 discharged, 4750 isolated and 28 deceased.
So, if you look at the closed cases to see how they turned out, you have a total of (34+28) = 62.
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
You've used this type of math multiple times already. It is straight up the wrong way to do statistics.
I disagree, but maybe you just skimmed over my post without realizing what I was trying to determine. That was simply a calculation at a single point in time with a very limited data set in calculating fatalities as a percentage of all closed cases, and I underlined "among closed cases" in my previous post to clarify. The math is exactly correct for determining that calculation. But that was a couple days ago, and the number of recoveries is up more than the additional deaths, so the percentage calculated in the earlier post would be lower if calculated today. There are many active cases, but COVID-19 can take weeks before it results in death, so it will be a while before we have statistically meaningful numbers. I posted only out of interest of how those figures were early on, at that point in time, not to be published in any medical papers or to draw final conclusions from.
-
...
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
Are you sure those involve the same time frame?
Imagine two patients in ICU, and one dies. The other one isn't healthy the same day. They have to recover, and then there's time the hospital waits to ensure they're recovered, and then some number of tests in a row before declaring them to be healthy again.
It's like if you divide deaths by total cases. Some of the cases are new as of today, while patients who died have typically been fighting the virus for weeks. Especially when dealing with exponential growth, shifting the time frame can make a huge difference (even if unintentional - it's tricky).
-
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
Are you sure those involve the same time frame?
It's a totally useless statistic, I'm not even sure what the reason is to cite it other than to cause panic.
Essentially what happened is that when South Korea first started seeing the virus, it had already been in the population for a couple weeks (a high % of cases are asymptomatic, as much as 50% per current data). Once a patient reached a very poor state of health and was hospitalized, they would be tested and "confirmed". Of these confirmed cases, a relatively high percentage perish. So what has happened is that the data is initially biased towards these types of cases until more data comes in and more testing is done. It's still very early in S Korea, and the stat this person cited is changing by drastic amounts by the day. Again, it's not a data point worth citing and the only motive would be to make the situation seem scarier than it really is.
-
...
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
Are you sure those involve the same time frame?
Yes, that would have been from the time the outbreak began in SK until the time those numbers were released. But, it's too small of a sample within too small of time frame to be very meaningful, so I'm watching how these figures change over time. The percentage has dropped at this point from those earlier figures, but it's still a high percentage at this point.
It's like if you divide deaths by total cases. Some of the cases are new as of today, while patients who died have typically been fighting the virus for weeks. Especially when dealing with exponential growth, shifting the time frame can make a huge difference (even if unintentional - it's tricky).
Yes, it would make a huge difference if you divided by total cases (including active cases), because it can take weeks to die, so it takes a lot longer for that to play out, and if you divide by total cases, you are essentially saying that anyone who is among the many active cases is going to live, which we know isn't true because some of them will die, so we need to wait until those cases are closed as recovered or deceased to really know where they fit in the calculation, so they should be excluded for now. That's why I think any calculation dividing by total cases is misleading - we don't know their fate yet. Time will tell.
-
I saw this posted a while ago about South Korea.
As of March 3, they have tested 125,851 with 4,812 confirmed cases. Of the 4,812 confirmed, 34 discharged, 4750 isolated and 28 deceased.
So, if you look at the closed cases to see how they turned out, you have a total of (34+28) = 62.
So you have 28 of those 62 being deceased. That's a fatality rate of 45% among closed cases.
You've used this type of math multiple times already. It is straight up the wrong way to do statistics.
I disagree, but maybe you just skimmed over my post without realizing what I was trying to determine. That was simply a calculation at a single point in time with a very limited data set in calculating fatalities as a percentage of all closed cases, and I underlined "among closed cases" in my previous post to clarify. The math is exactly correct for determining that calculation. But that was a couple days ago, and the number of recoveries is up more than the additional deaths, so the percentage calculated in the earlier post would be lower if calculated today. There are many active cases, but COVID-19 can take weeks before it results in death, so it will be a while before we have statistically meaningful numbers. I posted only out of interest of how those figures were early on, at that point in time, not to be published in any medical papers or to draw final conclusions from.
As I stated above in the earlier post I made, recoveries are up more than deaths.
So, now there are 40 deaths and 135 recoveries. That's an improvement to about 23%. This doesn't surprise me at all, and I expect this SK figure to drop further as these cases play out, but not to the erroneously calculated 0.5% figure that was published elsewhere.
-
Well all tech employees told to stay home on the west coast. That is like half our workforce. Not all of us can remote in, the infrastructure does not handle it. That cannot be good for the economy.
Aren't we the ones who usually advocate that WFH increases productivity?
-
Well all tech employees told to stay home on the west coast. That is like half our workforce. Not all of us can remote in, the infrastructure does not handle it. That cannot be good for the economy.
Aren't we the ones who usually advocate that WFH increases productivity?
Long term I think WFH can maintain or increase productivity for a lot of jobs. Short term there is a learning curve, particularly if online services are overloaded and people don't have a good home office setup.
Looking at the economy as a whole, I bet WFH significantly decreases consumer demand. Less lunches out at the office, more making a sandwich in your own kitchen. Fewer impulse shopping trips or take out dinners on the drive home from work.*
*Make no mistake, that sounds like an amazing trade off of reduced economic activity for greater happiness and sustainability. But I think the economic hit would be real.
-
Just checked my vanguard VWRL (same as usa VTI?) value, its really not nice at the moment.
But for the long term 'buy and holders', these roller coasters make no real difference in the long term (c. 10 year period), unless a persons is about to retire and made the mistake of being equity heavy....
casual reference to the movie predator for anyone who needs a confidence boost https://youtu.be/b-Hgd5gHWbA
For anyone who is cash heavy, your day is near.....:-) great time to commence regular purchases...?
-
For anyone who is cash heavy, your day is near.....:-) great time to commence regular purchases...?
Hmmm. Not just yet. Towards the end of the month into April as earnings (or lack thereof) are reported.