The coronavirus

[Maverick2608]

"About 1 million adults in the US seek care in a hospital due to pneumonia every year, and 50,000 die from this disease." = 5%.
https://www.thoracic.org/.../reso.../top-pneumonia-facts.pdf

The preliminary death rate of the new coronavirus is 2.8%. Of course the market should discount uncertainty, but if the preliminary death rate turns out to be correct, are there reasons we should consider the risk of the new coronavirus to be bigger than the risk of "normal" pneumonia?

That I said, I find it peculiar that the world in general spend so few ressources preparing for/trying to prevent viral pandemics like the Spanish flu that killed 50 - 100 million people at a time when the world population was 1.8 billion. The current world population is 8 billion.

There is every reason to expect the world to be hit with a pandemic like the Spanish flu or worse at some point. Instead we are spending an extremely high amount of money on military and climate change.

I do not suggest that we do not spend money on military or climate change. I point to the relative threat compared to the amount of ressources used to address the threat.

 

[Specterx]

That I said, I find it peculiar that the world in general spend so few ressources preparing for/trying to prevent viral pandemics like the Spanish flu that killed 50 - 100 million people at a time when the world population was 1.8 billion. The current world population is 8 billion.

There is every reason to expect the world to be hit with a pandemic like the Spanish flu or worse at some point. Instead we are spending an extremely high amount of money on military and climate change.

I do not suggest that we do not spend money on military or climate change. I point to the relative threat compared to the amount of ressources used to address the threat.

Pandemics just aren't that grave of a threat, in the grand scheme of things. In the absolute worst imaginable case, you're talking about something that kills perhaps 5% of the global population. It sucks if you or your loved ones are in the 5%, but that's a drop in the bucket and a few years of normal growth. No societies will go extinct because of it.

On the other hand, climate change which kicks off some kind of crazy feedback loop, losing a major war, or allowing mass immigration, will change things permanently and irreversibly - assuming your society survives them at all.

 

[Maverick2608]

Stock markets around the world are down between 1.4% - 2% due to the coronavirus today alone. Yet this discussion has now been moved to "'Health and Fitness." That's funny ;-)

 

[Maverick2608]

In the absolute worst imaginable case, you're talking about something that kills perhaps 5% of the global population. It sucks if you or your loved ones are in the 5%, but that's a drop in the bucket and a few years of normal growth. No societies will go extinct because of it.

On the other hand, climate change which kicks off some kind of crazy feedback loop, losing a major war, or allowing mass immigration, will change things permanently and irreversibly - assuming your society survives them at all.

Viruses exist today with death rates of 25% - 90%. The death rate of the Spanish flu was estimated to be between 10% - 20% and as noted killed between 50 and 100 million people. To assume zero risk of a pandemic with death rates above 25% is irrational albeit reflective of the current allocation of ressources.

I do not want to discuss climate change, because that will take for ever. Let's say humans are responsible for climate change. Let's say the water level will rise X inches/centimeters over 100 years. You want to spend money trying to prevent that and buy som atomic bombs to spice things up along the way, but take your chances if faced with a contagious virus with a death rate of 50%.

Well, it would seem most politicians agree with you. I disagree.

 

[Pekelo]

I have always thought we have been way overdue a worldwide pandemic with all these thousands of flights (at every moment there are a million people in the air) globe hopping. Maybe this is the big one.

The Spanish flu actually killed mostly the healthy population, not the weak and old. People with strong immune system were more likely to die.

that kills perhaps 5% of the global population.

That is still close to 400 MM people. Not to mention nobody likes their consumer base shrinking by 5% (and more because of fear). And the loss won't be even, some countries get hit 10-20% others less than 1%.

If anyone feels like simulating it, you can use Plague, Inc:

 

[Maverick2608]

... nobody likes their consumer base shrinking by 5%

Most people dislike it in particular when they find themselves among the 5% consumer base shrinkage.

 

[Wallet]

Not to discount the possibility of a new age pandemic but the medical resources in 1918 vs. today are apples and oranges. I doubt the death rate for the spanish flu would have been as high if it happened today.

What will eventually get us is some weaponized virus either accidentally or purposely released.

 

[Pekelo]

Not to discount the possibility of a new age pandemic but the medical resources in 1918 vs. today are apples and oranges. I doubt the death rate for the spanish flu would have been as high if it happened today.

On the other hand in 1918 there weren't a million people flying AT ANY GIVEN moment. Not to mention for example there is no immunity to smallpox, because we stopped inoculating against it since it has been eradicated. So in a way, the population is more at danger. Smallpox still exists in 2 places on Earth. In Atlanta's CDC and somewhere in Russia.

Required reading: The Hot Zone

 

[El OchoCinco]

It is a serious issue because it is affecting travel and the economy of a few countries outside of predicted factors.

Also, someone in my own house can have the flu and I can easily avoid catching it and it has happened many times in numerous households. the flu has vaccines for it even if most choose not to take it and many people have better defenses against it. I have had mild flu and it only affected me a day at most, good immune genes I guess.

Coronavirus is new and humans don't have antibodies against it. Flu is more deadly right now based on numbers but the Corona can spread even faster without mediation and remedies as people have no defenses.

The Coronavirus is extremely contagious and spreads very quickly.

if you guys don't know the distinction between the flu/pneumonia and this virus then you need to stop brushing it off and look it up. death tolls are completely dependent on how fast they can quarantine and stop the spread. If they did nothing the death toll would be a lot higher but don't forget the millions that will be sick and unable to work or function for a few weeks. It is not just a death toll figure but the amount of people who get sick.

Why do you think Dengue was such an issue in some countries a few years ago (I caught it by the way..sucks balls)? Because people are out of work for 2-4 weeks on average unable to function. The governments responded quickly to stop the spread because it can cripple an area for a month at a time unless the spread is stopped.

 

[Specterx]

Viruses exist today with death rates of 25% - 90%. The death rate of the Spanish flu was estimated to be between 10% - 20% and as noted killed between 50 and 100 million people. To assume zero risk of a pandemic with death rates above 25% is irrational albeit reflective of the current allocation of ressources.

I do not want to discuss climate change, because that will take for ever. Let's say humans are responsible for climate change. Let's say the water level will rise X inches/centimeters over 100 years. You want to spend money trying to prevent that and buy som atomic bombs to spice things up along the way, but take your chances if faced with a contagious virus with a death rate of 50%.

Well, it would seem most politicians agree with you. I disagree.

The real risk from climate change isn't sea level rise or anything like that, it's the potential for a catastrophic runaway warming due to methane release from the seabed or Siberian permafrost, or the Atlantic thermohaline circulation getting messed up and sending Europe into a deep freeze, some other feedback mechanism not yet foreseen. Great uncertainty about these mechanisms means the overall risk discount needs to be much higher, not lower.

As for the Spanish flu, which is by far the worst acute pandemic in modern times (i.e. since we've understood the basic mechanisms of how diseases spread), although it arrived at the climax of a major world war and in a time when medical science was far less advanced, it just didn't have much long-run societal or historical impact - a bunch of people died over a few months, but the rest carried on and a few years later we were in the roaring 20s.

In the present case, it's obvious that any kind of market pullback caused by the coronavirus is a screaming buy - once new cases start to taper off, or even before, there will be a face-ripping rally and the bull will resume (unless the Fed kills it on Wednesday).