Sure, I'm nearly certain this is going to give us 2-4 quarters of negative growth, worldwide, but I don't know when the market is actually going to price that in.
At this point, the market has corrected volatility pricing dramatically (vix is doubled). Odds are over 50% we'll see sp500 drop below 2900 in next month (Black Scholes). But that doesn't mean a short is profitable - I recall 2008 but also the false recession of late 2018 - few people could have accurately predicted both results.
And a lot of people lost a lot of money trying to time that. It wasn't if, but when. People were talking about the mortgage driven bubble for years by the time 2008 rolled around.
For instance, the death rates appear to have a distribution mostly impacting the elderly (incidentally those who are also most likely to have a weaker immune system, but also believe in less conventional medicine:
80+ years old 14.8%
70-79 years old 8.0%
60-69 years old 3.6%
50-59 years old 1.3%
40-49 years old 0.4%
30-39 years old 0.2%
20-29 years old 0.2%
10-19 years old 0.2%
0-9 years old no fatalities
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
Not saying this isn't bad, the current stats are showing something around a 0.7% mortality rate[2][3]. The real scare here, is like the spanish flu, there's a chance it can evolve into a more deadly strain (such as SARS) the more people who contract it. If that's the case, we could be seeing 10% fatality rates across the board.
If you're interested in the history of the spanish flu, there's a great series here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ9WX4qVxEo&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_...
In any case, general point, people American's aren't super worried about it because we have a great healthcare system, and it's spread is limited thus far. I do think a panic will set in as every major city likely now has infected individuals. So it's a good time to pull out of the market.
[2] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-butt...
[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-update-79339-c...
The problem here isn't with the mortality per se, it's with the strain on healthcare resources. We just don't have the capacity to deal with an influx of cases requiring hospitalization. Currently about 10%+ of COVID-19 require that. We don't have the beds, the oxygen support, the ventilators, and generally the ability to keep these people from infecting others. That leads to scenes like in Wuhan where people get turned away from hospitals, where they end up dying at home, where bodies require mass cremation, etc. This could happen anywhere. The US healthcare system is not prepared for this. (I don't believe for a second in the assertion that it's the best in the world. Perhaps quality of care is good, but the system that pays for it is a joke. But it's also hugely variable, with some great hospitals attached to university research centers, and a ton of terrible underfunded ones.)
This is a war. Been in US for several years, I would say US medical system is not designed for scalability and I have huge doubt if it would work.
So far this proved to be working.
This won't happen here because the severe strain will die out. Viruses generally become less lethal as they spread.
Can you please elaborate why this is the case? What if mild cases stay home while patients with severe cases go out looking for medical care, spreading it around? I know nothing about epidemiology, virology, etc. so I would appreciate a little hand-holding.
> Hence selection pressures will skew it towards “Antibody resistant, lower fatality”
But that's my question: Will it in this case? If those with severe symptoms are more likely to go out and spread the disease, wouldn't the more severe version be positively selected?
That is pressure on the humans. All the humans that will die easily will die and all the survivors will be the more resistant ones.
The virus itself does not behave strategically. Species, other than humans, have no particular ability to plan how they evolve. The only pressures on the virus itself are for longer incubation times, faster ability to spread and the ability to reinfect people. Even if it could strategise there is no particular pressure on the virus whether it kills its host or not as long as it gets passed on to a few people in excess of the original host.
Those selection pressures don't appear until the exponential growth slows down. From the virus perspective right now and in the near term it's super successful, so there's no need to adapt.
Good joke. You may have great healthcare if you are very rich. Otherwise...
If you are poor you get free healthcare, if you have a bit more money you get great healthcare by buying insurance, usually your employer offers it.
The worst you can say is that most people have a several thousand dollar deductible, which isn't great, but it's also not bank breaking.
40% of Americans couldn’t come up with $400 for an unexpected expense.[0]
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...
Which is precisely what was claimed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/health/employer-health-in...
Alright, it is not a vast majority numerically. It is still a catastrophe waiting to happen in comparison with other countries.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...
> The global death toll was inconceivable: according to the most recent estimates, between 50 million and 100 million people worldwide perished in the three pandemic waves between the spring of 1918 and the winter of 1919. Adjusting for population growth, that is equivalent to between 200 million and 425 million today.
I am sorry, have you ever been to a hospital? I cannot read that with a straight face at all.
In our culture, providers are more interested with how they get paid than providing care.
People tend to avoid care completely just to avoid the hassle.
I'm somewhat closer to "head in the sand" myself. I am watching the news closely, but don't feel anything I can do in my immediate daily life is consequential to the situation.
But for what on earth do they need to stock up on ammo?
For an European that's beyond strange
Russia, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Yugoslavia three times, Spain, Poland, Greece, Romania, Cyprus, Georgia, Albania
A good look into what this looks like would be the Algiers Point shooting in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
Ammunition is relatively cheap and extremely high value if it's needed, and more likely to be needed in an emergency.
So yes not comparable.
During Katrina, there was widespread looting but also violent gang rapes and other assaults. People, especially in inner cities, are easily victims of violence and theft.
Wearing masks also helps set a new social norm. It is now common in Taiwan subways and trains--basically everyone wears a mask.
Not clear if it's useful to wear a mask if not displaying any symptoms. I didn't see any official recommendations for doing so. I've been traveling quite a bit in Asia these last few weeks, and I'd say 80% in planes wear masks. However, most of them don't use them properly. They take them on and off, reuse them, adjust them, touch their faces. Sometimes they don't even wear masks, but piece of clothes.
Yeah those type of people always think civilisation is about to collapse. And lots of them are looking forward to it.
Stocking up in advance of $WIDELY_REPORTED_THREAT is not something you really question, because it is what you, and everyone you know, has always done for as long as you can remember. Sometimes it has even come in handy and helped people.
Sit back and wait for the state to save you? I'm not American myself but the lack of self-reliance exhibited by non-Americans, particularly Europeans, is sometimes bewildering.
Total war may have been the exception, but farms and cities both suffered enormously during pre-20th century European warfare. Indeed the page you linked gave a bunch of examples of total destruction prior to the 20th century.
Outside those examples, most warfare then relied on looting farms for supplies (including seed crops)[1]. Indeed there was a whole technique of warfare called Chevauchée which relied on this before the 14th century:
A chevauchée [..] was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest... The chevauchée has gained recognition for its use during the Hundred Years' War between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. It was not a new tactic and had been used many times before; for example, William the Conqueror had used the tactic before the Battle of Hastings to encourage Harold to engage in a battle.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supplies_and_...
This varies very much on the "something". In the case of a virus like this I have plans to do what seems sensible - keep washing my hands, isolate myself as much as possible.
In the case of a war I'll hope my side wins and keep my head down if it doesn't. Not sure stockpiled ammo is going to be the critical factor there!
But if it makes you feel better…
What I mean is that evidence shows that when a society collapses, the corrupt and evil will explicitly use the state's monopoly on violence to take what you are trying to defend.
Typically they juice this by exploiting local grievances to de-ligitimise your claim to your property and co-opt the local law enforcement with promises of future gains.
Then they will appear at your homestead WITH the local enforcement - who will do nothing when the mob takes yours assets.
At one level this is to discourage you and increase your sense of isolation - to get you to just abandon your assets and leave. At which point they move onto the next property/resource owner.
However, at another level they WANT to to fight back - with firearms preferably. Not only will this still be deemed illegal (under laws passed by the old functioning society) but hopefully (from their perspective) you injure or kill one of the riled-up mob - further de-legitimising you.
At this point, the co-opted law enforcement will step in, arrest you, etc.
Zimbabwe, the Balkans, and Indonesia are text-book examples.
When society fails violently, there really is no hope.
I wish it wasn't thus, but is is and will be.
The U.S. was founded on rebellion. And I believe enough Americans would readily backstab an illegitimate U.S. government (one that has stopped serving its people and instead serves itself) in pursuit of good.
FTFY
2.The U.S. was founded on rebellion.
So was Somalia. Its not a sufficient reason to protect you from the failure mode I explained above.
I don't have an answer for this, but it's something worth keeping in the back of your mind when discussing theoretical catastrophes.
I don't recall armed individuals with whatever they stocked for themselves to make difference when real issues happen.
What made difference were organized trained ideological groups with those arms. So, in that case, I am really interested to know which ideological group are those people stocking for - and against who they intend to use those guns.
That is why it dont make sense to stock some ammo in abstract and why the expression is slimmy.
Hearing gunfire isn’t at all uncommon here. I live right on the edge of city limits, and I doubt a day goes by without being able to hear someone shoot if I’m sitting on my back porch. I totally get that it’s a cultural difference, but it’s very common throughout the US. The only exceptions are very dense urban areas, really.
I’ve heard it said that there are two kinds of places in the US, and they’re categorized by what sound makes you worry. In some places, if you hear an emergency vehicle’s siren you ignore it, but get concerned if you hear gunfire. In others, you ignore the sound of gunfire but get concerned if you hear an emergency vehicle. I definitely live in the latter kind of place.
Owning a gun just for self-defence isn't generally allowed or needed, and would of course be counterproductive anyway as using lethal force would likely land you in much deeper trouble than the looter would face. I'd end with "rightfully so" but I do realize there are deep cultural differences regarding this point.
Not in certain US states (look up "stand-your-ground" laws).
I dollar cost average, but I plan to pick up extra stock in corona bear market if I can scratch any extra cash together.
Sometimes they are wrong, the price is wrong. If my intuition is correct, my trades help push the price towards the correct direction and make the markets more efficient. If I'm wrong, I lose money.
Hopefully I will profit from spotting an inefficiency in the market that many other did not.
Not everything must be altruistic. The misfortune (some inevitable, some preventable due to bad leadership) will happen anyways. I don't see anything wrong with profiting off of it.
Efficient evolution is also good for society. This doesn't mean that we actively kill off the branches of humanity that seem less than ideal.
Every trade you make has effects in the lives of actual people. Don't look at "markets" as the flow of currency. They are often the livelihood of actual people, and when you start hedging on literal life and death, you don't have much wiggle-room to moralize.
"Not everything must be altruistic". No, but if it can be, it should be.
"The misfortune (some inevitable, some preventable due to bad leadership) will happen anyways". Yes, this is why I asked if the profits would go to alleviating this in future incidents. You can't stop the current misfortune, but you may be able to stop the future misfortune.
Anyway, good health to you and yours.
If it makes you feel better, many of the wealthiest traders do in fact donate a lot of money to such causes.
That's fatalistic. The only way the trade happens is if someone places the trade. If you see the trade as immoral, don't place the trade. If someone else profits from it, so be it, but at least you didn't. Please extrapolate the consequences of your trades. If it feels even slightly dodgy, it probably is, and no matter how you justify it, it was a bad thing to do.
If you're concerned about the immorality of economic choices, then you should consider the idea that you yourself are already acting in grossly immoral ways with your money. Read this to see why: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solut...
I've personally broken my long-time rule of no trading public markets and opened a Robinhood account to hedge against this. So far this week I'm up 5x on those hedges. Markets are starting to realize, but I don't think we're even close to having fully priced in the impact of this.
Everybody remembers the 2008 recession. A subset of people during that recession made a killing. The Big Short was a great book (and movie) about this. This is probably the first new opportunity to be a "big shorter."