The coronavirus COVID-19 is affecting 209 countries and territories around the world and 2 international conveyances. The day is reset after midnight GMT+0.
New deaths:
DAY China Italy USA Spain Germany S. Korea WORLD
Mar 23 9 601 85 435 24 7 1631
24 7 743 100 489 33 9 1983
25 4 683 129 454 47 6 1987
26 6 712 73 498 33 5 1801
27 5 919 182 569 71 8 2782
28 3 889 241 674 52 5 2609
29 5 756 169 624 49 8 2706
30 4 812 271 537 19 6 2849
31 5 837 439 553 37 4 3661
Apr 1 7 727 589 463 83 3 3239
2 6 760 522 709 158 4 4183
29 5 756 169 624 49 8 2706
30 4 812 271 537 19 6 2849
31 5 837 439 553 37 4 3661
Apr 1 7 727 589 463 83 3 3239
2 6 760 522 709 158 4 4183
3 4 766 716 587 123 5 3822
4 4 681 769 546 55 3 4755
5 3 525 909 471 106 6 3595
6 2 636 874 528 78 3 4414
7 ? 604 1371 556 95 6 6291
8 2 542 1400 628 176 8 5431
9 2 610 1286 446 82 4 3779
5 3 525 909 471 106 6 3595
6 2 636 874 528 78 3 4414
7 ? 604 1371 556 95 6 6291
8 2 542 1400 628 176 8 5431
9 2 610 1286 446 82 4 3779
- Some good news:
- World new deaths have dropped the past three days: 6291...5431...3779...and rather dramatically.
- The USA leveled off...1400, down to 1286.
- Turkey had 4056 new cases, right up there with Spain and Italy at around 4200, but nowhere near the US with a frightening new 19,688 cases. This means that three weeks or thereabouts from today, the country will experience about 700 deaths/day, depending on the mortality rate, which today is at 3.5%.
- The World rate is only 2%. Some combination of older and Black Americans and whatever is skewing the rate for the USA. Perhaps who is getting this infection explains why the World is at 11.8 deaths/million people, while the U.S. rate is 49. On the other hand, then why is Italy at 302 and Spain 326. China and Australia rest at 2 deaths/million, South Korea 4, Japan 0.7, Russia 0.5 and India 0.1.
I almost purposefully enter controversial discussion territory, like suggesting that a prioritization of ventilators might not be optimal policy. What about this curve?
You might not know this, but the area under those curves represent the total deaths, and they are equal with also the same number of cases.* If in any pandemic this is always true, why not just let the weak die, allow the stronger to survive, and permit the economy to recover much earlier? In terms of evolution and the future of humanity, a case can be made for the "without measures" option.
Sure, there will not be sufficient hospital space, etc., and some that could survive will not. However, if ventilators are only 10% effective in keeping COVID-19 patients alive, it seems hardly worth the effort over the problem with healthcare and quarantines.
It is appearing that less than 1% of those who contract this infection will die. So far, around 100,000 have died from this novel coronavirus, and this number will go up to my expected number of 220,000. If everyone gets sick, then the total deaths will be 78 million. If only 1% catch it, then the world death toll will be 780,000, or at 0.3%, 220,000 deaths. The question is, if left unchecked, what percent of the population will get infected.
Seems to me that those two curves shown above should not have equal areas,* for left unchecked, more than 0.3% of the population will get infected, if not something much, much higher. I should have quit after that asterisk, because anyone who has thought about it would be right in saying that there will be fewer cases with stay-at-home edicts, and therefore, fewer deaths. About this analysis, never mind. I should delete it, but won't, for it's something that should be considered by a leader who might choose not to lock down a country, misled by a statistician who shows those two graphs as indicative of the future.
Sure, there will not be sufficient hospital space, etc., and some that could survive will not. However, if ventilators are only 10% effective in keeping COVID-19 patients alive, it seems hardly worth the effort over the problem with healthcare and quarantines.
It is appearing that less than 1% of those who contract this infection will die. So far, around 100,000 have died from this novel coronavirus, and this number will go up to my expected number of 220,000. If everyone gets sick, then the total deaths will be 78 million. If only 1% catch it, then the world death toll will be 780,000, or at 0.3%, 220,000 deaths. The question is, if left unchecked, what percent of the population will get infected.
Seems to me that those two curves shown above should not have equal areas,* for left unchecked, more than 0.3% of the population will get infected, if not something much, much higher. I should have quit after that asterisk, because anyone who has thought about it would be right in saying that there will be fewer cases with stay-at-home edicts, and therefore, fewer deaths. About this analysis, never mind. I should delete it, but won't, for it's something that should be considered by a leader who might choose not to lock down a country, misled by a statistician who shows those two graphs as indicative of the future.
Most of you probably don't follow the stock market that closely. This from Wikipedia:
The 2020 stock market crash is a global stock market crash that began on 20 February 2020.[1][2][3] On 12 February, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the NASDAQ Composite, and S&P 500 Index all finished at record highs (while the NASDAQ and S&P 500 reached subsequent record highs on 19 February).[4][5] From 24 to 28 February, stock markets worldwide reported their largest one-week declines since the 2008 financial crisis,[6][7][8] thus entering a correction.[9][10][11] Global markets into early March became extremely volatile, with large swings occurring in global markets.[12][13] On 9 March, most global markets reported severe contractions, mainly in response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and an oil price war between Russia and the OPEC countries led by Saudi Arabia.[14][15] This became colloquially known as Black Monday I, and at the time was the worst drop since the Great Recession in 2008.[16][17]
Three days after Black Monday I there was another drop, Black Thursday, where stocks across Europe and North America fell more than 9%. Wall Street experienced its largest single-day percentage drop since Black Monday in 1987, and the FTSE MIB of the Borsa Italiana fell nearly 17%, becoming the worst-hit market during Black Thursday.[18][19][20]Despite a temporary rally on 13 March (with markets posting their best day since 2008), all three Wall Street indexes fell more than 12% when markets re-opened on 16 March.[21][22] At least one benchmark stock market index in all G7countries and 14 of the G20 countries have been declared to be in bear markets.
As of March 2020, global stocks have seen a downturn of at least 25% during the crash, and 30% in most G20 nations. On March 20, Goldman Sachs warned that the US GDP would shrink 29% by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2020, and that unemployment could skyrocket to at least 9%.[23] Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called the looming economic crisis 'akin to the Great Depression'.[24]
The Spanish Flu came a decade before the Great Depression. So to continue my posting of yesterday, how did this pandemic affect the stock market?
Hardly at all. In fact, at the apex of the third wave, the market began to move upwards, although most of the growth happened when the death rate was dropping, a sign that when this COVID-19 pandemic clearly begins to decline, the market should again increase. Is this already happening?
How have any previous outbreaks, epidemics and such affected the stock market?
There hasn't been any clear connection of contagious diseases significantly influencing the stock market. Until now:
As fearful as the media have been, looks like the stock market already began recovering more than a week ago, when there was no sign that the U.S. was even close to reaching its apex.
How have any previous outbreaks, epidemics and such affected the stock market?
There hasn't been any clear connection of contagious diseases significantly influencing the stock market. Until now:
As fearful as the media have been, looks like the stock market already began recovering more than a week ago, when there was no sign that the U.S. was even close to reaching its apex.
Then, if both the H1N1 pandemics of 2008-2010 and 1918-1920 had three waves, you would expect at least a second wave to occur for COVID-19, for the coronavirus SARS in the 2003-5 period had two in China. Will those jumps scare jittery governors to again announce stay at home edicts, thereby delaying any possible immediate recovery? Will the U.S. Congress then need to pass another trillion dollar re-survival package?
The U.S. unemployment rate today is at 13%, and will go up, surely hit 15%, perhaps approaching 20% by the end of April. Historically, this rate was:
- 1929 3.2% (beginning of the Great Depression)
- 1930 8.7%
- 1931 15.9%
- 1932 23.6%
- 1933 24.9% (note that it took four years to get to the peak)
- 1934 21.3%
- 1935 20.1%
- 1939 17.2%
- 1941 9.9% (economy was down for 8 years)
- 1943 1.9% (World War II helped)
- 1944 1.2%
- 1949 6.6%
- 1960 6.6%
- 1970 6.1%
- 1980 7.2%
- 1982 10.8% (recession, caused by oil price jump)
- 1990 6.3%
- 2000 3.9%
- 2009 9.9% (oil soared to $149/barrel)
- 2019 3.5%
- Now 13%
About your stay-at-home crisis, sent to me by a friend:
-
No comments:
Post a Comment