re: Daily COVID Updated as of 11/2/20 8:00 PM

Thanks to all providing info here. Wow, Chrome, you are fantastic!!!! Fingers crossed.

One point - while these are numbers, I hate to rely on them as being accurate. Yes, I know what is being reported, however, anecdotally, almost 2 weeks ago I was over in St Pete Beach. Had dinner with a group that included a young mid 20's girl from Tampa. Turns out, a few days later she ran a fever and went and got tested. We are now 8 days out without any test results.

If Tampa... a Florida hotspot, is 8 days behind in results, I think that is bad. However, if she does not have it, where does that stat go?

Either way, 8 days … going on 9 so far, is way too long for a test result.

None of the infections that happen are those happening on that day when information becomes public through state reportings.

The information you see today were likely infections that were occurring 7 to 14 days ago.

I've been tracking every case in my state since the start of the month and a week long from when the test is taken to knowing the results is common. Thus, all data is already several days old besides deaths.

Correct. Cases per day should be read as “cases confirmed on this date”. It doesn’t reflect when the actual test was administered, since some tests can be read in as little as 45 minutes, while others can take several days.

Thanks. I work in a nursing home so temp checks will be a given although I can work from home. Many of our employees are overweight — and many smoke. Double whammy for them if they should ever get it.

I’m more curious about restaurants and stores opening and that type thing.

I wish I could go into a coma until June then if stuff still hasn’t changed, go back until Labor Day, rinse and repeat

quote:

---

Who gives a rats arse about Wall Street

---

Almost everyone with any understanding of what it is.

Essentially anyone who is no/low debt should be very interested in what happens there.



Fun calculation:
Average price of cigarettes in LA is $5.44/pack. LINK


5.44*365 = $1985.60= the price of smoking one pack of cigarettes daily. I know tons of people who are not well off that can afford this. This isn't a huge sum of money.
To smoke an entire working career (until 65) would cost $93,323.20. We will, for this exercise, assume that inflation never touched the cost of cigarettes.


Let's take Joe Camelia. He wonders what would happen if he took an aggressive strategy, and, instead of putting $5.44 into pleasure, he puts it in an old fund in the stock market like the S&P 500. Which, since 1957 has returned around 8% per year on average. This stops in 2018. The average would be lower today. We would expect it, in the next 15-20 years to come back to around there. Let's be more pessimistic and knock an entire percentage point off, because we expect worse performance in the future.
Those same $93K added annually at the above rate of $1985 growing at an average rate of 7% would yield $699,256.13, and, for the optimists who want to apply past performance to future performance and use 8%, ~$971K.


This, of course, assumes you only buy and never sell. If you were 65, had achieved an 8% return averaged over the last 47y and had $971K, you would have lost value near 20% (~$200,000). That would still put you outgaining simply saving by 5-7x (accounting for the downturn and assuming you sold today). But this is why everyone should care about Wall Street. Because every 18 year old that can afford to smoke a pack of Marlboro's daily can just about afford to be a millionaire at retirement age.

nah someone just do it at home for me with a brick or something

Growth rate.

14.1 -> 15.1

Something tells me if the Dems really wanted they could test large metro areas and find tons of new cases. The focus has just been on nyc because coumo has been making so much noise. We may see a sharp rise in cases as testing comes more readily but overall should shrink the death rate substantially. The next two weeks will be hell.

quote:

---

It is also why looking at hospitalizations and deaths will be better to track the epidemic than total case numbers.

---

Hospitalizations is probably the most reliable metric we have at this point. Unfortunately backing out infection rates from hopitalization rates is kinda shakey. I don't think the hospitalization admittance criteria is very consistent. I'd reckon you're a lot more likely to be admitted at a slow hospital than one in NYC for example. Comparisions to other countries is even more shakey.