It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The length of your reply doesn't hide the fact that you are simply picking a line of covid restriction with which you agree. Within that band you are willing to accept deaths that would not occur with greater restriction, and villainizing those who have a different perspective. Sure, you say you would support a full lockdown under "severe" enough conditions. So would everyone, but using conditions they define as "severe" enough.@wxman123 And you are ignoring my point that by the measures that matter most regarding health, Newsom's covid response has been successful and not at all "pretty dreadful overall" as you stated. Would you admit he has been successful relative to other states?
Would I support a total lockdown is a misleading question in that regard because Newsom hasn't done a total lockdown:
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/#regional-stay-home-orderFirst, the order isn't for all of California but for any region that "falls below 15% ICU bed availability, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect." But secondly, what really bothers you if this aspect of Stay at Home does is not that people are forced to stay inside--they can still go outside--but that they can't congregate in large numbers at businesses. That's it, the making money part that seems to upset the GOP.Under the Regional Stay Home Order Can We Go Outside?
Members of the same household are encouraged to maintain physical and mental health by safely going to a park, a beach, hike, walk, or bike ride with members of their own household. Californians are also encouraged to keep connected with loved ones virtually.
Limiting mixing and movement of individuals from different households is critical in order to stop the transmission of the virus.
But also the would-I-support-a-total-lockdown question is a false one because like the California order itself, the answer really depends on the infection rate, the availability of medical treatment, and the length of the lockdown. My answer is yes I would support a total lockdown if conditions were severe enough and no I wouldn't if they weren't that severe. But it's a false question because no U.S. politician has enforced a "total lockdown."
What really bothers you is the inability to make as much money from businesses as before. And you are willing to sacrifice lives for those businesses. The appropriate anology is to the movie Jaws and the mayor who refuses to shut the beaches down when a shark is killing people. It wasn't human life he was concerned about. It was the loss of the summer business. If he shut the beaches, people could still leave their homes, just not congregate in the water where the shark was.
And this anology is especially relevant in relation to DeSantis in Florida, given the beaches there and his lousy response to the pandemic. This is where he is ethically now: https://aol.com/entertainment/florida-gop-official-resigns-protest-075650944.html
Even members of his own party are abandoning him as he tries to suppress the truth.
The Jaws analogy is even relevant on an economic basis, because it's fair to say that from a long-term economic perspective shutting down the beaches temporarily would have been a better idea. The brand value of the beach was severely damaged by keeping the beaches open because tourists will think after the attacks "That's the beach where ten people died from shark attacks because the greedy mayor cared more about business interests than human life." They won't want to go to that beach even after the shark is gone. So, in the short-term business is lost from the shut down and the local economy is hurt. But in the long-term, it's actually better for the business's brand to have a pristine safety record. It won't have the stain on its record of unecessary deaths.
To put it in Covid terms, I have no desire to visit Florida as a tourist right now and probably won't for a long-time even after Covid is gone because of DeSantis's terrible response.
Basically if you're under 60 and healthy there's a 99% chance you'll live. As you get older the risk of death increases greatly.Additional side effects are surfacing with regard to the Pfizer vaccine that were not observed during trails (individuals with allergy sensitivities at greater risk to negative side effects). This may slow its deployment.
Allergy-risk-Pfizer-jab-TWO-patients-fall-ill
MA reporting today that 64% of all state deaths are still occurring in senior care facilities. Many of these residents leave the care facility to be treated by area hospitals and then are being sent back to the facility where special wings are being setup when possible. Contracting Covid-19 complicates the already compromised health of this population.
Using MA data, that means 36% of Covid-19 related deaths are occurring outside of these facilities. Again, do some / most of these individuals often have compromised health issues? The vaccines (with all there potential side effects) may be the best response for both of these populations.
We hear a lot about positivity rates which is important when dealing with the problem of transmission, but does anyone have numbers on the death rate of "healthy" individuals? Herd immunity...which is a thing... will play a part in this population because we mingle more in herds.
Seniors home residents seem to be our top priority going forward, then our general population that have preexisting conditions.
coronavirus & preexisting conditions
Masks, vaccines, and common sense behavior all play a part for the rest of us
As far as the economy is concerned. Senior facility have little impact. E-commerce has entered into a perfect storm and should emerge stronger than ever. Home based businesses will grow. Small businesses (in- store retail) are being tested, while big box retail gains market share. Travel and leisure businesses are in full stress test mode. For individuals whose jobs are going away we'll need re-training programs, Shifting resources toward construction and infrastructure projects would make good sense.
Thank you, FD1000,
I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.
Thank you for your insights. I agree on most of Hussman’s funds. HSTRX kept coming up in MFO screens for funds with good longer term performance. I ran it through Portfolio Visualizer and it has performed well during downturns. It stumbled some around 2012, QE, I think. I read the prospectus when I bought it. I like it for a tactical, defensive position. See the link below.
The only concern I have with your suggestions is Hussman. Many of us were quite convinced Hussman knew what he was doing with HSGFX in the run up the 2008 but his fund did especially poorly since, and I can't say I feel comfortable believing him now. There is very little recent data ( since June) on HSTRX even on his web page.
M* site shows you several risk metrics see (this) or the old site was easier where you can compare several funds see (this)Does M* calculate fund metrics (for example risk and volatility measures or value and growth measures) themselves or is data provided by a third party?
First, the order isn't for all of California but for any region that "falls below 15% ICU bed availability, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect." But secondly, what really bothers you if this aspect of Stay at Home does is not that people are forced to stay inside--they can still go outside--but that they can't congregate in large numbers at businesses. That's it, the making money part that seems to upset the GOP.Under the Regional Stay Home Order Can We Go Outside?
Members of the same household are encouraged to maintain physical and mental health by safely going to a park, a beach, hike, walk, or bike ride with members of their own household. Californians are also encouraged to keep connected with loved ones virtually.
Limiting mixing and movement of individuals from different households is critical in order to stop the transmission of the virus.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla