What about the non at risk patients, many of them will need ICU beds. Patient 1 in Italy was like 38 and with no preexisting conditions, still spent weeks in hospital.
1 Like
the non risk patient would get a bed as usual, if the system is not overloaded with 90 years old with 3 preexisting conditions.
I found this article in Baz today pretty informative https://www.bazonline.ch/ausland/europa/in-der-nacht-kommt-die-armee-und-holt-die-saerge/story/19733108
The lag between new infection and death is 19 days. That is also the time we have to wait until we see an effect of measures on the death statistics. Until then, daily new deaths will raise close to exponentially.
If the measures are effective and lower the R0 to 1/R0 and we see a small reduction in the death rates, we will have a total death toll of 3â000-10â000 people by the end of April
1 Like
Then he should learn what infrastructure China has still in place. They banned drugs lowering temperature of body and they chcek the temperature at each bulding entrance. And many many many more measures. I donât see that in US yet
For a second I thought I was in the stock picker forumâŠ
1 Like
If anyone still believes the BAG is on top of this pandemic, just read this (german) report:
1 Like
itâs just amazing to have this thread open in a side-tab and read the discussion during the day. psychologically itâs a treasure trove 
3 Likes
Wow Germany looks so much better prepared than SwitzerlandâŠ
https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3
160k tests per week, and still increasing capacity, increasing respirators supplies by 40%, converting buildings to hospitals, etc.
1 Like
They have to be prepared since their population is out partying like its Octoberfest now.
Canât read paywalled article.
But is this mainly because they have this testing company within their borders?
1 Like
I believe markets stay volatile for the next 1 to 2 years, well this is basically what a Prof. was responding to a studentâs question, based on his Dotcom and financial crisis analysis/experience. So it does not really matter what happens tomorrow because maybe the day afterwards it will change again. VDE is 60% lower since January and I am convinced oil will still be our economyâs driver for the next 5 years - probably much longer.
1 Like
I gave this tip somewhere earlier in this topic: just copy the articleâs title to google search and enter a website via the search result - youâre welcome 
Doesnât work with FT. Btw, Iâm tracking the FT CV Tracker, via my private IP its behind paywall, via my work IP itâs available.
Worked for me. I suspect that FT allows maybe one free article coming from google per IP or something?
I keep 60% of my allocation untouched in VTI, VSS, VEA, SMMCHA, IEMG. With the remainder I try to do something better than just watching the markets.
@ripper23
What do you make of this?
If it works and is practical, this would enable us to test large swaths of populations with low prior probability of being infected, right?
1 Like
Question: Why VSS?
Apparently only the value portion of the small-caps is beneficial.
With this broad approach you also get quite some of the growth âjunkâ in there (which then kind of cancels-out the benefits of SCV).
I know itâs hard to get small-cap value exposure outside of the US though, trueâŠ
1 Like
I stopped believing in SCV after I read this on Bogleheads:
I recently posted about the SCV premium comparing the real results of a very astutely managed SCV fund, DFSVX, which is much loved by factor enthusiasts on the Forum with plain old S&P 500 Index fund LCB since the inception of DFSVX in 1993, 27 years. At that time the DFSVX had outperformed VFINX by 0.62%/yr. in command annual growth rate but it had done so with a much higher greatest drawdown and actually had a significantly lower return per unit of risk as measured by the Sharpe ratio. It seemed at the time in short that in real funds which are the only results that matter to investors, SCV outperformed very slightly but took on more risk to do so. Those results have changed because of the total recent collapse of DFSVX according to Morningstar.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/dfsvx/quote
As of today VFINX has actually outperformed DFSVX for the 27 years that the latter has been in existence and it has achieved that outperformance while being less volatile, having shallower drawdowns, and a substantially higher Sharpe ratio. In short there appears to be no harvestable SCV premium whatsoever in a fund managed by the acknowledged experts at Dimension Funds for 27 years. They did find the risk of SCVâincreased volatility, greater drawdowns- but not the reward. I believe Jo Money has previously pointed out that the size premium as harvested by Dimension Funds has also been absent relative to the S&P 500 since their microcap fund started. Now it appears that we can add value to the list of no shows at least in terms of putting money in investors pockets with real funds.
I donât know how the factor models performed over this time frame and I donât care. The models are totally unrealistic, magnifying all positives (long/short), ignoring all negatives (costs, trading frictions) and its impressive positive backtesting results happened in totally different market eras prior to 1993 when market were not professionally dominated and no one knew about or had any interest in SCV investing. Does that apply to real funds in todayâs markets? Good question. I donât know if SCV is going to soon make the big comeback that many have been expecting for long years. I hope it does because I have modest exposure to SCV in fundamental indexes in the US, a lot more in INTL. Like my heavy exposure to EM and INTL which have looked so compelling on a valuation basis for years, SCV has been up to now a loser for me. I confess that these results make me question the validity of the belief that in the long run, SCV funds will be winners or for that matter that INTL will make a comeback. Iâm not selling any of it now because itâs against my religion to sell into weakness but I donât see any change in this situation in the foreseeable future.
Garland Whizzer
2 Likes
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I maintain my worry about false negatives, but of course I would be very happy to be proven wrong in case they found some way around it (maybe using some very efficient polymerase or something else). As you say correctly, large pooling like this would be useful if (and only if) testing people with very low probability to be infected. If the infection spreads, and leaves most people asymptomatic (as it seems to be the case), then the chance to have 1 case out of 64 being positive is quite high, and then youâre back to square one.
I also add that at the moment the bottleneck seems to be the RNA extraction, while the quantitative PCR that follows has higher throughput. Here the pooling was done after RNA extraction so the advantage is not massive.
3 Likes
You got it mixed up, pal, itâs the value which is typically assorted junk.
1 Like