Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Defiant]

From other data we've seen here in the thread, O appears to be about 25% "less severe" than D. So if we randomly select a hospitalization rate of D as 2%, than we would expect the hospitalization rate of O to be around 1.5%?

Let's accept this for the moment, which references a study that concluded that O is 4.2 times as transmissible as D.

Let's say 1M people get delta, and 2% of them get hospitalized. That's 20k people into hospitals. Now imagine 4.2M people get omicron. That's 63k people into hospitals. With that kind of transmission, I would think that the omicron would have to be something like 75% less chance of hospitalization, right?

A problem with your calculations, though - O is 25% "less severe" than D for those who got sick (with Delta or Omicron) but never had _any_ immunity before they got sick with it (where immunity is having gotten fully vaccinated or having recovered from covid beforehand). So the calculation would only be correct if the 1 million and 4.2 million all had had no prior immunity (which seems unlikely in the case of Omicron, because part of the reason it's more transmissible is because it evades prior immunity (for getting the infection).

I think being fully vaccinated reduces the chance of severe infection with Delta by ~90% and for Omicron by ~70% (not sure with regards to the booster on top of being fully vaccinated).

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I mean I take the point that the overall risk to people like RM9 and myself (fully vaccinated + boosted) is now substantially higher with omicron circulating since our risk of infection is now substantially higher, even if the risk of hospitalization / death from the point of infection is lower. And the argument "don't worry about it and live your life because it's more mild" has it exactly backwards, since now we need to rely on non-vaccination preventative measures more than before (not that we ever should've been relying on vaccines only).

[RunningMn9]

I do not vouch for my math.

[Smoove_B]

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1476348049404436485

BREAKING: U.S. reports 400,000 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, with some states yet to report

Other data points:

NEW: 7-day average of daily coronavirus cases in the U.S. reaches 300,000, the highest since the pandemic began

Remember when we crossed 100,000 cases a day and we all thought that was a big deal? This one is for all the trolls I see online that keep saying how awesome things are in FL. Amazingly DeSantis hasn't been heard from in over a week. Maybe he's visiting with my NJ Governor in Costa Rica?

Florida reports 46,923 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, amid a rise in hospitalizations

Mask up folks.

[malchior]

People are freaking out because the CDC is predicting 44K deaths over the next month...which looking at NY Times figures assumes only a slight increase in the average deaths per day rate compared to what we've been seeing for the last 30 days. Anyone want to bet how that prediction holds up?

[Isgrimnur]

I'm just wondering if we hit 1M by July or by April.

[malchior]

I'm just wondering if we hit 1M by July or by April.

I think we'll have a good idea in a few weeks what the trajectory is.

[Smoove_B]

Should have waited another hour - we've set the world record folks. USA! USA!



https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1476366983612579844

BREAKING: U.S. reports 484,377 new coronavirus cases, setting world record

And you know it's so much higher than that, which is...going to be a problem. I am genuinely wondering what the test ceiling is before they just start reporting TNTC.

[Smoove_B]

Also this

https://twitter.com/BioTurboNick/status ... 3277142024

I like how they anchored the y axis really close to the line to make people feel like 2000 deaths per day is low.

[Isgrimnur]

I feel like we’ve had a conversation or three about misleading graphs.

[malchior]

The Y axis stuff isn't great but also focusing on a holiday week where the stats are often incomplete is poor form too.

[malchior]

https://twitter.com/bethgalvinfox5/stat ... 2946377731

[RunningMn9]

Twitter continues to tell me that this wave will be different and that COVID is now just like the common cold. Don't know where you're getting *your* facts from.

[LordMortis]

CNBC is starting to test the narrative of "endemic" over "pandemic" I've heard their talking heads refer to it moving in this direction several times this morning.

It's mind boggling to me when I see the worldometers reporting. I guess we expect breakthrough, unvaccinated, and high risk are just casualties to survival of the fittest now. We're more concerned about how to cope with flight cancellations than we are why they're being cancelled. In meantime, my local hospitals have been sitting at capacity either due to staff or bed shortages for months. The stock market is the 2nd best ever, so it's all good.

[malchior]

The stock market is the 2nd best ever, so it's all good.

This pretty much explains what we've been seeing in short form. As much as people see bubble the other explanation is that more and more wealth is just being extracted and sent to very few people. And they don't care about your COVID.

https://twitter.com/NoBServations/statu ... 7763946505

[LordMortis]

more wealth is just being extracted and sent to very few people. And they don't care about your COVID.

There was an interesting thunk by Rick Santoli(?). The market is in no small part being fueled by stock buy backs rather than companies taking down debt, growing, profit sharing, or paying dividends. These buy backs are then not decreasing dilution but rather are being held as option incentives to the highest level executives, which give credence to your thunk.

[malchior]

more wealth is just being extracted and sent to very few people. And they don't care about your COVID.

There was an interesting thunk by Rick Santoli(?). The market is in no small part being fueled by stock buy backs rather than companies taking down debt, growing, profit sharing, or paying dividends. These buy backs are then not decreasing dilution but rather are being held as option incentives to the highest level executives, which give credence to your thunk.

I mean it doesn't even need that level of thought. The vast majority of stocks are owned by the top 10%. The top 1% own 38% alone. Corporate profit margin on US GDP is something north of 30% now. Those Corporate profits even if not used for buybacks, for example just retained profits for reinvestment or capital purchases, would be stores of wealth. Beyond buy backs we have PE buying/consolidating entire industries, driving efficiencies, and laying off staff to raise that profit margin even further. Then those profits are constantly being extracted and captured by that tiny sliver of the population. They've set up a nice little wealth inequality engine, amirite?! And I think it is impossible to argue they don't have outsized if not overwhelming influence over every policy decision in this country. And again they don't care about your (royal you) COVID concerns.

[Smoove_B]

28K new cases in NJ today and not a peep from our governor. He's allegedly coming back from Costa Rica today so maybe later this evening? I'm sure he's busy.

Meanwhile, there are like ~7 major municipalities that have passed indoor masking requirements because state leadership is useless. Still seems like they're going to be full-steam ahead on school resuming next week too, which is insane.

[El Guapo]

28K new cases in NJ today and not a peep from our governor. He's allegedly coming back from Costa Rica today so maybe later this evening? I'm sure he's busy.

Meanwhile, there are like ~7 major municipalities that have passed indoor masking requirements because state leadership is useless. Still seems like they're going to be full-steam ahead on school resuming next week too, which is insane.

Are schools going remote in Europe / Canada / elsewhere?

[noxiousdog]

I mean it doesn't even need that level of thought. The vast majority of stocks are owned by the top 10%. The top 1% own 38% alone. Corporate profit margin on US GDP is something north of 30% now. Those Corporate profits even if not used for buybacks, for example just retained profits for reinvestment or capital purchases, would be stores of wealth. Beyond buy backs we have PE buying/consolidating entire industries, driving efficiencies, and laying off staff to raise that profit margin even further. Then those profits are constantly being extracted and captured by that tiny sliver of the population. They've set up a nice little wealth inequality engine, amirite?! And I think it is impossible to argue they don't have outsized if not overwhelming influence over every policy decision in this country. And again they don't care about your (royal you) COVID concerns.

While your general point is correct, your numbers ignore stocks owned in pension funds or any other kind of joint ownership.

Estimates vary, of course, but estimates are as high as 40% of public stock is in pensions/IRAs/etc. And while certainly, the richer you are, the more likely you have a 401(k)/IRA, it's not as concentrated as you're listing and there are plenty of teachers/firefighter/etc pensions involved. I'd bet 401(k) participation on this board is far greater than the top 10% (158,002k/person/year [not household]) participation.

[Smoove_B]

Are schools going remote in Europe / Canada / elsewhere?

There are schools in my state that have already announced they're going remote temporarily for ~2 weeks because of COVID-19. But why this isn't coming from the Governor, I have no idea. Why they're not doing it in NYC? No idea. Well, I do have an idea - it's because we already know what happens when parents need to stay home to watch kids attend school remotely. It seems to be the same nationwide - random districts deciding.

To be clear, I think it's great that random districts are using data to make decisions to go remote. My problem isn't with them. Instead its the schools in Red districts that are going to stay open no matter what unless the state orders them to go remote. Like, lets pretend I lived in a Red stronghold portion of my state. And lets say this same area had the single highest number of students, teachers and staff that are currently COVID-19 positive in the entire state. Can you imagine a school superintendent sending out a message the day winter break begins indicating they're going to open back up on 1/3 unless the Governor tells them otherwise? Because I can. I seent it.

[Isgrimnur]

You reading Blackhawk's mail again?

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure in his town they're not even talking about it. But my town? Nah, it's not a problem. Don't look at the numbers or listen to the news. It's just a cold.

In other news, when Dr. Osterholm talks, you listen:

The current omicron surge represents one of the greatest public health challenges not only of the pandemic but also of our lifetime. To deal with the surge over the next six to eight weeks, policymakers need to plan for the impact of what could be 1 million cases a day of new infections in the United States.

Such planning involves being realistic about the effectiveness of vaccination at this point; taking immediate steps to improve public health messaging, data collection and the availability of drug therapies; and doing whatever is possible to ameliorate the potentially devastating consequences for our health-care system.

...

Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, we must brace for the possible catastrophic impact of the omicron surge on the U.S. health system. The weakest link is not the number of hospital beds but the availability of highly trained workers. Approximately 9.8 million doctors, nurses and high-level medical technicians are employed throughout the country. It is possible that 10 or even 20 percent of health-care workers could be infected by omicron in the next eight weeks, as has been reported in South Africa.

Losing that many health-care workers from a system already severely strained by staff shortages would be an enormous challenge. Even with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowing shorter isolation and quarantine periods to help mitigate risk, covid-related absences won’t be addressed by providing hospitals with a thousand more Defense Department health-care workers. Omicron has already caused wide-scale disruptions across the airline industry, in sports leagues and among essential workers. State and local officials must put in place crisis-management plans to account for a 20 percent reduction in the health-care workforces.

[El Guapo]

FWIW my kids' school is now requiring everyone to rapid test Sunday evening before returning to school on Monday.

I'm curious how this will all go at their school in January. The school has pretty much every advantage that you could hope for in this kind of situation - modern building with new fully up to speed ventilation system, ample indoor space, ample outdoor space, a highly educated and vaccinated student and teacher base (including a vaccine mandate to teach or be a student), mask requirements, located in a pretty well vaccinated community. Pretty much the only minus is being in New England in winter hampering maximum use of outdoor space.

So basically if they can't make it through without cases or remote learning, then no one can (at least not without major consequences).

[malchior]

I mean it doesn't even need that level of thought. The vast majority of stocks are owned by the top 10%. The top 1% own 38% alone. Corporate profit margin on US GDP is something north of 30% now. Those Corporate profits even if not used for buybacks, for example just retained profits for reinvestment or capital purchases, would be stores of wealth. Beyond buy backs we have PE buying/consolidating entire industries, driving efficiencies, and laying off staff to raise that profit margin even further. Then those profits are constantly being extracted and captured by that tiny sliver of the population. They've set up a nice little wealth inequality engine, amirite?! And I think it is impossible to argue they don't have outsized if not overwhelming influence over every policy decision in this country. And again they don't care about your (royal you) COVID concerns.

While your general point is correct, your numbers ignore stocks owned in pension funds or any other kind of joint ownership.

My numbers came from here - "Overall Equities" includes this.

Estimates vary, of course, but estimates are as high as 40% of public stock is in pensions/IRAs/etc. And while certainly, the richer you are, the more likely you have a 401(k)/IRA, it's not as concentrated as you're listing and there are plenty of teachers/firefighter/etc pensions involved. I'd bet 401(k) participation on this board is far greater than the top 10% (158,002k/person/year [not household]) participation.

Sure they could number in the bottom 90% that have a whopping 16% of overall equities. 84% lines up with vast majority in my estimation.

[Smoove_B]

So basically if they can't make it through without cases or remote learning, then no one can (at least not without major consequences).

As has been the case since this all started, schools can be made relatively safe. Lunch is the danger time but with creative planning and a will to keep students safe, it's possible to mitigate risk.

The problem isn't so much in the schools but what's going on outside of school. So I'm confident there's going to be a significant number of kids that are positive on that rapid test and now you have 20%? 30% 40%? of them at home. Plus whatever teachers are positive from winter break. At what point does it make more sense for the school to just be fully remote for ~2 weeks?

The "weak links" in the schools opening are going to be teachers, administrative staff and of course the bus drivers and cafeteria workers, not the kids. I'm convinced my own school district would keep the doors open if only 10% of the kids were able to attend at this point. But if too many teachers are sick enough that they can't teach? Trouble.

[malchior]

Observations in Central NJ. I ran a few errands between meetings today. You'd think that not only was everything booming but that things were a-ok. Restaurants full. The local mini-malls full of shoppers, etc. My wife and I skipped stopping at a couple of places because we had no interest in being amongst large crowds of people. Also we have lines at our local pharmacies for COVID tests...I'm listening personally to the people saying to prepare for bedlam in the next few weeks.

[El Guapo]

So basically if they can't make it through without cases or remote learning, then no one can (at least not without major consequences).

As has been the case since this all started, schools can be made relatively safe. Lunch is the danger time but with creative planning and a will to keep students safe, it's possible to mitigate risk.

The problem isn't so much in the schools but what's going on outside of school. So I'm confident there's going to be a significant number of kids that are positive on that rapid test and now you have 20%? 30% 40%? of them at home. Plus whatever teachers are positive from winter break. At what point does it make more sense for the school to just be fully remote for ~2 weeks?

The "weak links" in the schools opening are going to be teachers, administrative staff and of course the bus drivers and cafeteria workers, not the kids. I'm convinced my own school district would keep the doors open if only 10% of the kids were able to attend at this point. But if too many teachers are sick enough that they can't teach? Trouble.

I mean, I am very interested to see what % of those tests will come back positive. Seems extremely likely that it won't be 0%. But I think you're right both that there's a % of student positive results that would result in remote learning, and also that the weak link as such is more likely to be the teachers. If multiple teachers had symptomatic illness I'm guessing we would know that already (or that the school would be making different noises about school on Monday).

But seems like there's a non-trivial chance that maybe 10% or 20% of teachers test positive even if asymptomatic, and that creates an immediate problem even if they're otherwise fine.

[noxiousdog]

Sure they could number in the bottom 90% that have a whopping 16% of overall equities. 84% lines up with vast majority in my estimation.

Your article is paywalled, but I think I can illustrate the napkin math.

I just don't think your numbers can possibly include pensions etc. If retirement accounts hold say 20% (half of my original number), and CALPERS is the biggest of those, there's a bigger distribution than you think there is. Another example is the Teacher Retirement System of Texas which is the 6th largest Public pension fund. That's not the top 10%.

IRAs/etc are capped for contributions so the Elon Musks of the world can't hide all there money there.

This article, which clearly excludes pensions, says the top 10% only have 70% of the stock.

Here's your 84% study I think, which while including 401(k) and defined contribution plans, clearly states "Also excluded here is the value of future Social Security benefits the family may receive upon retirement (usually referred to as "Social Security wealth"), as well as the value of retirement benefits from defined benefit pension plans ("DB pension wealth"). Even though these funds are a source of future income to families, they are not in their direct control and cannot be marketed."

Again, I'm only doing a clarification quibble. Obviously wealth is concentrated, but it's spread out wider than you made it out to be at the beginning.

[malchior]

Sure they could number in the bottom 90% that have a whopping 16% of overall equities. 84% lines up with vast majority in my estimation.

Your article is paywalled, but I think I can illustrate the napkin math.

I'll include the quote below because the data comes from a survey from 2020 prepared by the Federal Reserve.

I just don't think your numbers can possibly include pensions etc. If retirement accounts hold say 20% (half of my original number), and CALPERS is the biggest of those, there's a bigger distribution than you think there is. Another example is the Teacher Retirement System of Texas which is the 6th largest Public pension fund. That's not the top 10%.

An analysis of this data shows that in 2019, the top 1 percent of Americans in wealth controlled about 38 percent of the value of financial accounts holding stocks. Widen the focus to include the top 10 percent, and you’ve found 84 percent of all of Wall Street portfolios’ value.

Using the broadest definition of Wall Street involvement, which includes everything from workplace 401(k)s to personal IRAs, mutual funds and pension holdings, just over half of American families have at least one financial account tied to the market, while just one in six report direct ownership of stock shares.

Again, I'm only doing a clarification quibble. Obviously wealth is concentrated, but it's spread out wider than you made it out to be at the beginning.

I get the quibble but it is what the Fed is reporting. According to them wealth in the public stock market is extremely concentrated even when you include the pensions. Most people underestimate it but in the context of public corporate ownership it's stark. One thing I'd point out is that the picture is itself incomplete because the big state pensions often have large investments in alternative investments like real estate, hedge funds, etc. Public ownership of stocks is only a piece of the puzzle. But it is the one that is the easiest to see because we have some level of transparency.

Edit: In any case, not too far off but it is probably better in the viral economy thread anyway. I shouldn't have clogged this one up.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm sure in his town they're not even talking about it. But my town? Nah, it's not a problem. Don't look at the numbers or listen to the news. It's just a cold.

In other news, when Dr. Osterholm talks, you listen:

The current omicron surge represents one of the greatest public health challenges not only of the pandemic but also of our lifetime. To deal with the surge over the next six to eight weeks, policymakers need to plan for the impact of what could be 1 million cases a day of new infections in the United States.

Such planning involves being realistic about the effectiveness of vaccination at this point; taking immediate steps to improve public health messaging, data collection and the availability of drug therapies; and doing whatever is possible to ameliorate the potentially devastating consequences for our health-care system.

...

Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, we must brace for the possible catastrophic impact of the omicron surge on the U.S. health system. The weakest link is not the number of hospital beds but the availability of highly trained workers. Approximately 9.8 million doctors, nurses and high-level medical technicians are employed throughout the country. It is possible that 10 or even 20 percent of health-care workers could be infected by omicron in the next eight weeks, as has been reported in South Africa.

Losing that many health-care workers from a system already severely strained by staff shortages would be an enormous challenge. Even with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowing shorter isolation and quarantine periods to help mitigate risk, covid-related absences won’t be addressed by providing hospitals with a thousand more Defense Department health-care workers. Omicron has already caused wide-scale disruptions across the airline industry, in sports leagues and among essential workers. State and local officials must put in place crisis-management plans to account for a 20 percent reduction in the health-care workforces.

We're firing up the labor pool again, non-clinical getting ready to support understaffed clinical areas.

[malchior]

Largest NJ hospital system preparing for crisis

As COVID-19 hospitalizations rise 10% a day in New Jersey, the state's largest hospital system says it is a (short) matter of time until 2020's grim record is broken.

"If you look at what the (health) commissioner and governor are positing relative to their COVID models, sometime in the middle of January we’re likely to see the same level of hospitalization we were seeing back in March, April of 2020," Dr. Daniel Varga, the chief physician executive of Hackensack Meridian Health, told News 4.

HMH has 17 hospitals statewide and thousands of beds, but as more patients come in -- and more staffers get sick too -- the pressure on the system will rise.

"We’re already teeing up our process for how we will manage when we have to go to crisis standards of care, because I just think it's going to get there," Varga said.

Spoiler:

At 10% growth rates NJ exceeds 2020 hospitalization levels in <checks math twice> between 7 and 10 days. Governor Murphy like DeSantis is completely MIA leaving towns and cities to step up. Total shit show here.

[Alefroth]

DeSantis has been oddly quiet. No public appearances in two weeks.

[LawBeefaroni]

DeSantis has been oddly quiet. No public appearances in two weeks.

I heard he's on the Appalachian trail.

[Smoove_B]

Always nice to see NJ as #1 in the nation...with % positive tests via Johns Hopkins or here.

(1) NJ @ 87%
(2) DC @ 68%
(3) PA @63%

Good grief.

As a reminder:

Positivity Rate (or Percent Positive) is a useful measure of how much COVID-19 is spreading in a community. Positivity rate tells us the percent of COVID-19 tests that come back as positive out of all the tests that were taken in that time period. Positivity rate does not tell us how many people in the
community are, or have been, sick with COVID-19, case rates or case numbers are a better reflection of that. Positivity rate may change depending on the number of people tested. If the same number or an increasing number of people are tested, we are even more confident that an increase in positivity rate is concerning. We are also often asked the difference between a case and a positive test result. Each time a test is performed, it becomes part of the calculation of positivity rate for that day. However, positive cases represent individual people, and are only counted once, regardless of how many
positive tests are run.

We are testing more people now than ever before, so yeah. Trouble.

[Smoove_B]

Always nice to see NJ as #1 in the nation...with % positive tests via Johns Hopkins or here.

(1) NJ @ 87%
(2) DC @ 68%
(3) PA @63%

Good grief.

As a reminder:

Positivity Rate (or Percent Positive) is a useful measure of how much COVID-19 is spreading in a community. Positivity rate tells us the percent of COVID-19 tests that come back as positive out of all the tests that were taken in that time period. Positivity rate does not tell us how many people in the community are, or have been, sick with COVID-19, case rates or case numbers are a better reflection of that. Positivity rate may change depending on the number of people tested. If the same number or an increasing number of people are tested, we are even more confident that an increase in positivity rate is concerning. We are also often asked the difference between a case and a positive test result. Each time a test is performed, it becomes part of the calculation of positivity rate for that day. However, positive cases represent individual people, and are only counted once, regardless of how many positive tests are run.

We are testing more people now than ever before, so yeah. Trouble.

[LawBeefaroni]

Always nice to see NJ as #1 in the nation...with % positive tests via Johns Hopkins or here.

(1) NJ @ 87%
(2) DC @ 68%
(3) PA @63%

Good grief.

As a reminder:

Positivity Rate (or Percent Positive) is a useful measure of how much COVID-19 is spreading in a community. Positivity rate tells us the percent of COVID-19 tests that come back as positive out of all the tests that were taken in that time period. Positivity rate does not tell us how many people in the community are, or have been, sick with COVID-19, case rates or case numbers are a better reflection of that. Positivity rate may change depending on the number of people tested. If the same number or an increasing number of people are tested, we are even more confident that an increase in positivity rate is concerning. We are also often asked the difference between a case and a positive test result. Each time a test is performed, it becomes part of the calculation of positivity rate for that day. However, positive cases represent individual people, and are only counted once, regardless of how many positive tests are run.

We are testing more people now than ever before, so yeah. Trouble.

This is fairly easy to solve. Test fewer people and the news will be better.

Also, messaging seems to be working:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... mon%20cold

https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... %20endemic

[Smoove_B]

Oh, for sure. The latest I'm seeing on social media is people being shamed and called stupid for going to get tested. "It's just a cold. Do you go and get tested when you have the sniffles?"

I don't think we're going to make it much longer. Americans....humans. Take your pick. This was a test and we failed. Hard.

EDIT: Also, the preliminary numbers for today's total new cases in America is over 600K. Can't wait to see what the final number is.

[El Guapo]

Oh, for sure. The latest I'm seeing on social media is people being shamed and called stupid for going to get tested. "It's just a cold. Do you go and get tested when you have the sniffles?"

I don't think we're going to make it much longer. Americans....humans. Take your pick. This was a test and we failed. Hard.

EDIT: Also, the preliminary numbers for today's total new cases in America is over 600K. Can't wait to see what the final number is.

When do you think that we hit 1 million? ~ January 3rd?

[Smoove_B]

The original estimate I'd seen suggested mid January, but yeah, it feels like at this rate we're going to hit a million early next week. Hell, we might hit it over the weekend if not for testing delays related to the holiday and it being a weekend.