I assume that the studies will have enough patients in them so eventually we will have lots of data on effectiveness on patients in hospital. I do not know what egibility criteria they are using to add a patient to the study; presumably on assisted ventilation ( ie at least BiPap) or significant oxygenation or other measures of severity but if they are smart they have included patietns in early stages to see if it prevents deterioration
Keep in mind thought that even if it is extremely effective and say reduces mortality or deterioration by 50% it will not stop transmission or new cases. People will still be worried about getting sick and the still increased ( if lower) risk of death.
Thus a wildly successful drug may lessen the panic and fear, but may not do as much to reopen things as people will still be worried about getting sick
I very much doubt Hydroxychloroquine will do much, but we will know more shortly.
Several small better studies than the one Trump touts have shown little to some smaller benefits
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3
But we need to know all of data definitions and how studies were done. For example in latter study what does "improved pneumonia" mead? Did the doctors who read the patients xrays know the patient was taking hydroxychloroquine?
These are standard protocols that must be followed if we are to have confidence these drugs will be effective.
Without this is as if Trump had decided that Boeing had "done enough" to fix the Max 737, certified it to fly by presidential edict and told the FAA to stop the investigation.
Who would get on such an aircraft?

I have a background in clinical epidemiology and research design and have followed all this carefully.
Better data is published from the compassionate use study in the NEJM
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
It seems the folks were appropriate for compassionate use... that is they were doing very poorly 34 were on ventilators and 3 on heart lung bypass machines
The available studies from China and Italy and Seattle have different criteria for hospital admission so I looked just at the patients on ventilators from their studies. . They also mix in "non invasive mechanical ventilation" which is hard to tell what that means without digging thru the supplements, presumably BiPap.
Of the patients on ventilators in Redesivir study the mortality thus far is 18% ( 6 of 34) but only 24% ( 8 of 34) are out of the hospital so 58% are still hospitalized. So highest mortality if all remaining in hospital died would be 76%
They were able to reduce their oxygen requirements by 2 steps ( from ventilator to nasal oxygen for example) in 56 % of patients which implies that they are getting much better
There are very few studies I have seen to compare.
Seattle ventilator patients https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763485
had 67% mortality with 24% still "critically ill" ( so possibly up to 91% dead) but these patients had more comorbidities ( 85% vs 68% with one coexisting condition, and 10% organ transplants, 42% heart failure, and 10% on dialysis. I doubt patients this sick were considered for compassionate use.
Wuhan https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext
had 31/32 patients who needed ventilators die and 24/26 patients who needed non invasive mechanical ventilation die. This is a general population and maybe more comparable to Remdisivir
To compare Redesivir and Wuhan numbers, let us assume the only survivors are those currently discharged ( and none of them go on to die), and anyone left in hospital at time of publication dies, AND THAT WUHAN AND USA PATIENTS AND HOSPITAL ARE SIMILAR
Comparing 8/34 survivors (Redesivir) vs 3/58 (Wuhan) or 24% survival vs 5%.
The chi-square statistic is 11.139. The p-value is .000845. Significant at p < .05.
But this is a very very marginal way to determine health policy!!! This is why we need controlled trial in the same institution. We need to know if the patients are similar, and even if they are, the controls should be chosen at the same time as the treatment group , chosen in a randomized fashion and in the same country and health system. I doubt any of us would want to rely on a drug that was proven to work only in Wuhan China. The opposite should be true.
Hopefully we will not get to the point where like Hydroxychloroquine,no o ne will want to participate in such a study, fearing they will not get a life saving drug. Consequently this type of study should be the only way this drug is available.

Hi. newgirl,
I’m certainly no market chart reading expert so my interpretation of this chart series is rather simple. These charts demonstrate the difference in USA investing and world investing. They say to me that US returns are superior with less risk because of the subdued nature of the return volatility. I suppose they can be combined to attenuate volatility but I’m underwhelmed by their rather high correlation coefficient. The higher USA returns are impressive!
Please see the following: https://www.msci.com/www/blog-posts/why-are-small-caps-different-/0736742719
I hope this helps. To improperly quote the following: A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. From the Boxer by Paul Simon.
Good luck!!!

@msf +1, I agree. I wonder if this development might actually hurt the recovery: by encouraging a too-early easing of social distancing and by making it seem less urgent for Congress to pass more stimulus.
I don't know, too many variables for me, which is why whenever I try market timing (like right now, when I'm sitting on a bunch of dry powder that I wished I'd used a couple weeks ago) I strike out.

@msf If you look at the original article, this was from a phase 3 trial. But yes, it's only one small part of that trial, so Gilead is correctly saying it's promising but too soon to be sure.
Poking around a bit further, it seems that even if it works, they could produce a million doses by the end of the year.
That wouldn't be enough to end this pandemic, though it would save a lot of lives.
Seems to me the market is betting that something is on the way, whether this drug or something else or a comob, so the end is in sight.

This sounds Promising but the report is only anecdotal at this point. We need to see the full results from the clinical trials that are ongoing.

Unfortunately, "anecdotal" is one of those words that is bandied about without clear meaning. I'm afraid that Gilead muddied the waters further with its statement (from the ZeroHedge piece):

Anecdotal reports, while encouraging, do not provide the statistical power necessary to determine the safety and efficacy profile of remdesivir as a treatment for Covid-19. We expect the data from our Phase 3 study in patients with severe Covid-19 infection to be available at the end of this month ...

Contrast this with Dr. Fauci's use of "anecdotal" where he draws a distinction between anecdotal stories and clinical trials:

"Many of the things out there are what I have called 'anecdotal reports,'" he told reporters at a press briefing. “The information that you’re referring to specifically is anecdotal. It was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it."

No one other than business "analysts" is suggesting that this was not a clinical trial. Hence (following Dr. Fauci's use of the word), this is not merely anecdotal. As Gilead noted, what was reported did not constitute a phase 3 clinical trial. It sounds like a phase 2 clinical trial.
The first phase of a clinical trial doesn't even use sick people. It uses healthy ones to test safety. The second phase uses small samples of sick people to test whether a drug works at all, i.e. to test whether it might be efficacious. Unlike what the ZeroHedge hack wrote, these are usually not double blind.
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/glossary/phase
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/clinical-trials/what-you-need-to-know/phases-of-clinical-trials.html
Gilead is correct in saying that one needs a phase 3 test with many more people to be statistically meaningful. About 30% of drugs that make it through phase 2 ultimately make it through phase 3.
Here's a New Yorker article discussing testing of hydroxychloroquine. We were given the article in our health economics class. What it calls "anecdotal" are beliefs of individual doctors, not studies . It goes on to observe that

a careful reading of the [supposedly positive Marseille] study reveals a striking finding: eighty-five per cent of the treated patients had no fever. Ninety-two per cent were in the lowest category for clinical deterioration. We know that many people with the virus have no symptoms at all, while others have mild to moderate ones, and that, in such people, their own immune systems can purge the microbe in a matter of days or weeks.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-study-questions-the-effectiveness-of-a-potential-game-changer-against-the-coronavirus
Contrast this with the patients involved in the remdesivir study.
I'm not saying I expect remdesivir to prove out or not to. Just that based only on the sketchy information provided, it sounds like the drug is progressing successfully through the standard FDA clinical testing process. Which means that it hasn't yet been rejected.

Investors should be cautious ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/gilead-drug-remdesivir-investors-should-be-cautious-analysts-says.html

@FD1000 ... What is your source for the VIX?
FD1000 says, my reporting is wrong and ... "In the last 2 days, the VIX is around 40"
My source is linked below. I stand by my statement and it can be postured by visiting the link below. Just hover over the VIX in the matrix and you can see that for the past couple of days the VIX has been back of the 40's and in the mid 30's. Click in it and it becomes more revealing.
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
This now makes count two, from my perspective, that you have engaged me and I have withstood the challenge coming from you, FD1000, not once but now twice.
This person certaintly seems to enjoy striffe not only with me but others as well. Howerver, on the bright side of things, their challenges, now twice failed, have given even more credence to my postings.

This sounds Promising but the report is only anecdotal at this point. We need to see the full results from the clinical trials that are ongoing. This is information from one site in Chicago and there are 152 clinical trial sites around the world for this drug. We should learn more in the next couple of weeks.

It will cost 100K for the treatment. Buy Gilead stock.

Just early results, but this from Gilead sure sounds promising: a survival rate of over 98% for severely ill patients (already a subset of those infected.) Still need more testing, obviously, and we'd also obviously still have a long haul for a full economic recovery, but if this is for real, current market prices would make a lot more sense.

An explanation of what happened of sorts: https://fmimgt.com/fmi/corp/International/Letter/2020/iso_in_20200331.pdf

"The virus is in charge, no economics or the Fed."
Correct.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-hot-spots-farm-belt-189272

Speaking of FEMA.
WA state had the earliest case of COVID19 and should be among the first to try to exit the lockdown. If exiting requires testing for people who are hot and people who are immune, we have a slight problem in my area. It seems FEMA is diverting test equipment to the bridge to nowhere or places unknown. The suspicion is that they are buying with taxpayer dollars, transferring to private industry to maximize the profit for the private on the taxpayer equipment.
https://www.cascadiaweekly.com/cw/currents/feds_divert_medical_supplies_from_peacehealth
This article has some of FEMA's response:
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241884351.html
This, of course, is unrelated to the Fed's dislike for Governor Inslee or such things.

I think the answer to "So who's right?" is it depends.
Here in mid April, there is still no widespread testing available in the U.S.
Aggressive widespread testing (for the virus itself as well as for antibodies) & contact tracing/surveillance would not only start to give control of containing the infection but would also go a long way in boosting confidence in the business world with some semblance on how to proceed going forward. It would definitely be the most cost effective way to do so & with the most surgical precision. And even though this is not a panacea (with false negative viral tests, the unknown at what level of antibody titers actually confer immunity, best treatment options, etc.), at least it's an effective start & a plan of action & can start to address specific issues as they come up. It seems like a logical first step.
Instead this is the white house plans for reopening:
"The plan lays out three phases: Preparing the nation to reopen with a national communication campaign and community readiness assessment until May 1. Then, the effort through May 15 would involve ramping up manufacturing of testing kits and personal protective equipment and increasing emergency funding. Then staged reopenings would begin, depending on local conditions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/14/cdc-fema-have-created-plan-reopen-america-heres-what-it-says/
It's a long way between now & May 15.
"prepare for the best & hope for the best" is probably not the answer.

Good morning. In checking a few things this morning the futures look to be up in Europe and the States ... the options market is sending a cautious bullish signal ... and, the VIX is now down to the mid thirties. I'm still with my thoughts that stocks will be mostly be range bound, but with a slight upward tilt, as we move thorugh most of the summer months. The short volume in the Index was elevated yesterday with a reading in the 70% range of total volume for SPY. Perhaps, today they will do some covering.
I have the Index as of market close 4/15 down -17.8% off its closing 52 week high and up +24.4% from its closing 52 week low. With this, I am not looking for stocks to have the upward surge that they have had the past couple of weeks as things most likely will move more slowly and... hopefully ... upwards as we work our way through Q1 earning season. In checking my source ... S&P is projecting that TTM earnings for the S&P 500 Index will be in the mid 130's. With an earnings yield of 5% this puts the Index with a valuation somewhere around 2700 range. From the 2700 range ... I'm thinking ... we will move upwards with good news and downward with bad. And, by the way, Old_Skeet's market barometer has the Index at fair value on it's scale as I write.
Have a good day ... be safe ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Consider someone working 11 hours a day, leaving 5 hours for personal time, and 8 hours for sleep. That person would not be especially inclined to give up one of those few personal hours for extra pay.
Suppose that nevertheless this person would, for some amount of money, be willing to give up a precious hour. Then the person would be willing to give up that hour for half as much, a quarter, even for minimum wage.
This comes from the assertion that netting less money would not increase the reluctance (decrease the willingness) to work an extra hour.
Now suppose the contrary. That this hardworking person would not be willing to trade that hour for any amount of money. Not for time and a half, not for double pay, not for 10x. Since the reluctance to give up that hour would be absolute, it likewise would not be amplified by netting less money.
Those would seem to exhaust the options. P or not P. Willing to work the extra hour or not willing to. The former suggests that this overworked person would give up another personal hour for peanuts. The latter says that this supposedly hardworking person wouldn't work another hour for a king's ransom.
Speaking for myself, I have a certain nonzero value I place on each hour of my personal time. If someone wants me to do some extra work, I'm going to have to net at least that much to make it worth my while. The more I'm taxed, the more I'm going to have to charge to net that target amount.

This is from the NFCU website tonight:
Certificate Special Offers
Rates effective as of: 15 April, 2020 12:01 AM ET
Product Minimum Deposit Term Dividend Rate APY†
Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate1 $50 37 months 2.96% 3.00%
Special EasyStart℠ Certificate2 $50 12 months 3.44% 3.50%
1Limit one Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated Annual Percentage Yield (APY), is effective December 6, 2019. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. The Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate has a $50 minimum and a $150,000 maximum balance. Only available for IRA/ESA Certificates. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. IRA/ESA certificate subject to IRS contribution limits. Penalties apply for early withdrawals from certificates. Other restrictions may apply.
2Limit one Special EasyStart Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated APY, is effective Dec. 10, 2018. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. Penalty for early withdrawal. The Special EasyStart Certificate has a $50 minimum balance and a $3,000 maximum balance. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. Certificate owner(s) age 18 and older must have Direct Deposit of Net Pay or payroll allotment and a Navy Federal checking account within 90 days of the certificate issue date. If these requirements have not been satisfied by the 90th day, your Special EasyStart Certificate dividend rate will be reduced to the prevailing dividend rate of the standard EasyStart Certificate for the remainder of the certificate's term.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

Have been using ETFs such as MINT & NEAR for cash substitutes for years though after this past Monday, I'm not so sure. They have always been fairly stable. At one point Monday, NEAR fell by over 4%. It was down for over several hours by over 2%. Though by the end of the day, things evened out & was only down by about .24%. Not sure what computer algorithm had that jumping like that. Maybe this has happened before though I'm not typically around my computer watching intra-daily pricing.
Fortunately I was already in the process of moving money over to Navy Federal into this IRA CD. It's a 37 month CD with a 3% APY. $50 minimum to open. $150,000 maximum which you can fund at any time in that period. You do have to be a Navy Federal Credit union member. Talking to a representative, their board typically meets at the end of the month & sets their rates in the first week of the month though they can potentially change things at any time. This time period works well for myself & when I'll need the money. Schwab at this time has 3 yr CDs at 1%. It took about a week & a half to transfer assets from Schwab to Navy Federal. The downside- totally boring. No drama.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

********************************
...Just noticed: the listing which shows each of these two particular "featured" products each carry a footnote. #1 and #2. But the explanation for #2 does not exist, at least it does not exist right THERE, where it might do someone some good. ;)

DERI APRs are now down to 1.75% (under $10K), 1.85% (up to $50K), and 2.00% (over $50K)
https://investors.dominionenergy.com/fixed-income/dominion-energy-reliability-investment/default.aspx
GM Financial Right Notes® are currently paying 2.00%, $500 minimum.
https://www.rightnotes.com/
For something safer, and with a lock on rates, Marcus (Goldman Sachs Bank) is still offering 7 month no penalty CDs ($500 min) at 1.70%.
Marcus just lowered the APY on its savings account from 1.70% to 1.55% today, so the CD rates may not last much longer. They also offer an 11 month no penalty CD at 1.60% and 13 month no penalty CD at 1.50%.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/no-penalty-cds
To see these rates you have to go to the open CD page. The drop down list of CD terms shows you the rates.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/new/account-creation?accountType=NPCD&term=7
Other uninsured notes similar to DERI, offered with lower APYs:
Duke Energy PremierNotes® Investments: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ford Credit Ford Interest Advantage: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ally Financial Demand Notes: 1.16% (< $15K), 1.36% (up to $50K), 1.51% (over $50K)
The Ford page has a link to its rate history, so you can see how rates have been dropping. Though when they first got started in 2017 they were yielding only about 1%.