BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic

[justice98]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Just noticing a difference today. Its finally hitting home for people. Shame it takes something like this to stop people from being dirty, trifling dickwads and actually bother practicing healthy hygiene

 

I mean, I was someplace just this morning and this lady was hacking up a lung and not covering her mouth.  She seemed like a pretty heavy smoker judging by the open pack in front of her and how she stepped outside to light up.  But she still wasnt bothering to do even the bare minimum hygiene and courtesy of covering her mouth.  You'll never stop this thing because all it takes is one a-hole like that to give it to a room full of people who ARE doing the right things.

[Spaceman Spiff]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Just noticing a difference today. Its finally hitting home for people. Shame it takes something like this to stop people from being dirty, trifling dickwads and actually bother practicing healthy hygiene

 

Whenever I've been in a restaurant bathroom and been washing my hands and have seen someone leave WITHOUT WASHING THEIR HANDS....I've always had this fantasy of going over to their table and letting everyone at that table know that the dirty **** didn't wash his hands before sitting back down.

[PCS]

 

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Whenever I've been in a restaurant bathroom and been washing my hands and have seen someone leave WITHOUT WASHING THEIR HANDS....I've always had this fantasy of going over to their table and letting everyone at that table know that the dirty **** didn't wash his hands before sitting back down.

I stress this to my coworkers. When leaving the restroom, and as you're walking down the hallway, be drying your hands. Everyone needs to see that, it's so super important. 

[twa]

 

[zCommander]

COVID-19 Testing and Confirmed Case Counts in Maryland

 

Number of patients tested for COVID-19: 41

Number of COVID-19 tests pending: 12

Number of negative COVID-19 tests: 26

 

Number of positive COVID-19 tests: 3 

[TheGoodBits]

30 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

The problem with this approach is that you have to be right twice... once now (that it's going down further and it's time to get out) and again that it's time to get back in. A vast majority of the market's upside comes in quick one day bursts that are easy to miss, not in slow, steady, easy to read increases. If you wait until you're sure, you could end up losing money because you buy back in higher than where you got out.

 

On the other hand, if you believe there will be a recovery, as you note, and you have time to wait for it*, then standing pat means you get to benefit from it, no guessing required.

 

*It's easy to say now, but people that don't have time to wait for a recovery shouldn't have money they need in the stock market in the first place.

 

 

Yeah I know. Very possible the markets have a brief correction and continue to rise. That would cost me some hypothetical money. But I don’t need to identify the exact bottom or the exact point the recovery will start. If the market tanks and I can buy back in at a much lower price, I’m fine if I don’t hit the exact bottom. If i buy in lower I’ll still be in at a lower price even if it decreases further (or if I buy back in halfway up the recovery). 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, techboy said:

 

*It's easy to say now, but people that don't have time to wait for a recovery shouldn't have money they need in the stock market in the first place.

 

 

This is one of my biggest problems with 401ks.  We are essentially putting money we will eventually need in a slot machine.  People withholding are doing what they supposed to, it should be there regardless of what the stocks do in case it all crashes, then what?  We got FDIC after the depression, is there an equivalent for 401ks?

Edited March 6, 2020 by Renegade7

[NoCalMike]

Maybe the fact that everyone is suddenly so interested in what scientists and experts have to say about this means they will finally stop ignoring the science on oh, say.....Climate Change? Yeah? Nah......?

 

I tend to think the comparison is that people will STFU and listen when the perceived threat is immediate, but anything that can't harm you this second is a bridge too far.

[techboy]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

This is one of my biggest problems with 401ks.  We are essentially putting money we will eventually need in a slot machine.  People withholding are doing what they supposed to, it should be there regardless of what the stocks do in case it all crashes, then what?  What got FDIC after the depression, is there an equivalent for 401ks?

 

The SIPC will cover investments in the case of fraud, but otherwise, no.

 

It is inaccurate, though, to describe the stock market as a slot machine. In the short term, yes, there are wild fluctuations as speculators jump in and out and people try to time the markets, or events occur which cause shocks in the economic pipelines, like this virus.  In the long term, it's just the discounted value of future earnings for a company, so unless you think the economy is going to tank and never recover, it's not gambling to invest in stocks for the long term. The key there is long term... it's important to have a chunk of investments in safer for the short term instruments like bonds, and the closer one is to retirement, the more one should be in those.

 

Of course, it's possible the market never recovers, but that's a scenario where we probably have more problems than our 401ks. 

[DCSaints_fan]

58 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Yeah I know. Very possible the markets have a brief correction and continue to rise. That would cost me some hypothetical money. But I don’t need to identify the exact bottom or the exact point the recovery will start. If the market tanks and I can buy back in at a much lower price, I’m fine if I don’t hit the exact bottom. If i buy in lower I’ll still be in at a lower price even if it decreases further (or if I buy back in halfway up the recovery). 

 

I wanted to do somethign like this months back - I was convinced the stock market was simply overvalued.  But when I looked at my 401k options, it seemed like everyone was heavily tied to US stock market to some degree. 

[techboy]

Also, just to counter some of the gloom in this thread, the reality is that for younger people who are still accumulating savings, the market drop is probably a good thing. Here's a thought from Warren Buffett in his 1997 Chairman's Letter to investors in Berkshire Hathaway: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1997.html

 

How We Think About Market Fluctuations
 

       A short quiz: If you plan to eat hamburgers throughout your life and are not a cattle producer, should you wish for higher or lower prices for beef? Likewise, if you are going to buy a car from time to time but are not an auto manufacturer, should you prefer higher or lower car prices? These questions, of course, answer themselves.

       But now for the final exam: If you expect to be a net saver during the next five years, should you hope for a higher or lower stock market during that period? Many investors get this one wrong. Even though they are going to be net buyers of stocks for many years to come, they are elated when stock prices rise and depressed when they fall. In effect, they rejoice because prices have risen for the "hamburgers" they will soon be buying. This reaction makes no sense. Only those who will be sellers of equities in the near future should be happy at seeing stocks rise. Prospective purchasers should much prefer sinking prices.

       For shareholders of Berkshire who do not expect to sell, the choice is even clearer. To begin with, our owners are automatically saving even if they spend every dime they personally earn: Berkshire "saves" for them by retaining all earnings, thereafter using these savings to purchase businesses and securities. Clearly, the more cheaply we make these buys, the more profitable our owners' indirect savings program will be.

       Furthermore, through Berkshire you own major positions in companies that consistently repurchase their shares. The benefits that these programs supply us grow as prices fall: When stock prices are low, the funds that an investee spends on repurchases increase our ownership of that company by a greater amount than is the case when prices are higher. For example, the repurchases that Coca-Cola, The Washington Post and Wells Fargo made in past years at very low prices benefitted Berkshire far more than do today's repurchases, made at loftier prices.

       At the end of every year, about 97% of Berkshire's shares are held by the same investors who owned them at the start of the year. That makes them savers. They should therefore rejoice when markets decline and allow both us and our investees to deploy funds more advantageously.

       So smile when you read a headline that says "Investors lose as market falls." Edit it in your mind to "Disinvestors lose as market falls -- but investors gain." Though writers often forget this truism, there is a buyer for every seller and what hurts one necessarily helps the other. (As they say in golf matches: "Every putt makes someone happy.")

[PCS]

 

[PCS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Destino]

So what was the point of limiting flights from other countries if we didn’t also limit travel within the US after corona showed up here?  It seems like it managed to get to the four corners of the US mainland in an instant.  
 

I hope someone is taking notes, because the plan implemented during this outbreak has to be judged entirely ineffective at containing the spread.

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

So what was the point of limiting flights from other countries if we didn’t also limit travel within the US after corona showed up here?  It seems like it managed to get to the four corners of the US mainland in an instant.  
 

I hope someone is taking notes, because the plan implemented during this outbreak has to be judged entirely ineffective at containing the spread.

This is pretty much entirely the fault of federal government not rolling out testing fast enough. It’s hard to explain what an absolute joke that is because the technology required is basic molecular biology. South Korea was testing thousands of people within days. 
 

The fact that they are touting the roll out of 75,000 tests NATIONWIDE is such a sad number. NYC alone might require than many for a one week period if we are serious about containment.

Edited March 6, 2020 by No Excuses

[DCSaints_fan]

24 minutes ago, Destino said:

So what was the point of limiting flights from other countries if we didn’t also limit travel within the US after corona showed up here?  It seems like it managed to get to the four corners of the US mainland in an instant.  
 

I hope someone is taking notes, because the plan implemented during this outbreak has to be judged entirely ineffective at containing the spread.

 

There's no point.  They may as well relax travel bans now to at least soften the economic blow.

[SoCalSkins]

2 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

There's no point.  They may as well relax travel bans now to at least soften the economic blow.

 

 

No one is flying anyway. The economic blow is not getting reduced. Almost all major corporations have banned international travel. 

[bcl05]

The CDC performance here is really rather pathetic.  I'm so disappointed - they were a group held in extremely high regard in the medical community before this.  

 

I have to assume this is due to the general erosion of competence in the bureaucracy under Trump.  He has made everything personal, political, and partisan.  His biggest concern is the stock market, apparently, and is willing to spread misinformation and minimize the threat to preserve the "economy."  

 

I don't know how much of this fiasco is incompetence and how much is malevolence.  Given the CDC's previous competence, I have to believe that this failure is mainly on the political influence of the current admin.  

[China]

44 minutes ago, Destino said:

So what was the point of limiting flights from other countries if we didn’t also limit travel within the US after corona showed up here?  It seems like it managed to get to the four corners of the US mainland in an instant.  
 

I hope someone is taking notes, because the plan implemented during this outbreak has to be judged entirely ineffective at containing the spread.

 

Plan?  What plan?

 

I mean why put a plan in place for a hoax?

 

Quote

As he signed off on an $8.3 billion funding agreement to fight the coronavirus Friday, Donald Trump appeared to imply that the money was unnecessary because his administration already had the situation under control. “I think we’re in great shape,” the president said, as he approved funding to combat the deadly virus Friday. “It came out of China, I heard about it, and we made a good move: We closed it down. We stopped it.”

 

Closing the barn door after the horse has left.

 

 

[ExoDus84]

Am I the only one not worried about this at all? I mean, I'm 35 and in good health, so I'm low risk, but it just seems like a bad cold/flu that I've had dozens of times in my life. Seems like everybody is freaking out over 3k deaths worldwide, when 750k people die ever year from the garden variety flu.

 

People are acting as if Ebola is running rampant worldwide.

Edited March 6, 2020 by ExoDus84

[Elessar78]

Another way to think about it...

 

it's not lethal to most of the population, what is problematic about it is the how rapidly it can transmit. Then all those sick people overwhelm the local hospitals, first responders, medical personnel get sick. So now you have crowded hospitals, not enough caregivers or beds or ventilators. THEN you still have the whole host of medical issues that the healthcare system takes care of on a daily basis. 
 

COVID19 is a problem for the unhealthy and,say, 60+... boomers account for 20% of our population, are boomers healthy? Diabetes, heart disease, obesity, asthma, copd, high blood pressure, and cancer become problematic when mingled with COVID19. If you have multiple of those—even worse. 
 

we don't want a situation where our hospitals are overwhelmed and can't take on anything else.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Doing the whole “but the flu kills x amount” deal is basically equivalent to saying that Jon Kitna’s 29,000 career yards absolutely obliterates Patrick Mahomes and his meager 9,500 yards.

[Fresh8686]

6 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

Am I the only one not worried about this at all? I mean, I'm 35 and in good health, so I'm low risk, but it just seems like a bad cold/flu that I've had dozens of times in my life. Seems like everybody is freaking out over 3k deaths worldwide, when 750k people die ever year from the garden variety flu.

 

People are acting as if Ebola is running rampant worldwide.

 

I think we all should be worried to some degree. What is especially alarming to me is the possibility of getting the more virulent mutation and that article about some corona virus patients showing irreversible lung fibrosis

[DCSaints_fan]

29 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

Am I the only one not worried about this at all? I mean, I'm 35 and in good health, so I'm low risk, but it just seems like a bad cold/flu that I've had dozens of times in my life. Seems like everybody is freaking out over 3k deaths worldwide, when 750k people die ever year from the garden variety flu.

 

People are acting as if Ebola is running rampant worldwide.

 

If you're really not concerned about it now's your chance for some cheap flights!