Pence's Pence Will STILL Not Get There
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-03-16 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 235 references Ignore this thread
Pence's Pence Will STILL Not Get There*
[Comments enabled]

Folks, all this "we'll test everyone!" screed out of Pence is amusing as it is an attempt to "reassure" instead of inform.

The entire premise of the CFR -- Case Fatality Rate -- claims being slung around with regard to WuFlu being "X" times worse than the regular flu rests on a premise that is not proved and in fact appears to be false -- and Pence knows it.

Take measles.  There are no sub-clinical cases of measles that we're aware of, and there never have been.

That is, if you get measles you will get a fever and a rash.  Every time.

Therefore, if we count people who get measles, which we can do because it's trivially determinable that you have measles by simple observation, we can then figure out both the Rt, that is, transmission rate, we can figure out how it's transmitted and we can also figure out the CFR along with related stats (serious morbidity, etc.)

The problem with WuFlu is that we already have clinicians stating that many people, particularly young people, often present no symptoms at all, or at least none that would alarm someone or send them to the doctor.

Yet they're both infectious and fight it off.

We don't know what percentage of the population has that outcome but it's critically important to know.

Or do we know?

We do, and for a sizable sample as well.

We ran an experiment on the Diamond Princess.

We thus know a number of things and nobody is taking any of this into account whatsoever!

THIS IS DELIBERATE FOLKS BECAUSE THE DATA IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!

We ran nearly 100% testing of persons on the Diamond Princess; the only near-100% population sampling of an isolated population exposed to the virus to date.  Among the 3,711 people on board 634 tested positive which, given the short time they were aboard and able to be tested tell us a great deal and backs up my viewpoint that I've repeatedly expressed: Unless you bug in 100%, excepting only those known to be immune, and never allow anyone who might be carrying it anywhere near you, it is extraordinarily probable that you will eventually get this virus.

But in addition asymptomatic percentage analysis can be done given the known infection period with an uncertainty boundary.  This analysis has been done and suggests that somewhere between 20-40% of those who contract the virus will never display ANY symptoms.

Note further that this sample (persons in board) skews heavily toward older people too, as it does on most cruise ships.  This makes the outcome even more interesting because if you had a normal distribution of persons on the boat compared with the general population that would materially skew the data set younger, and from what we know of case severity .vs. age is likely to result in even larger -- maybe much larger -- asymptomatic percentages.

What we do not know, because we have no testing available for it, is whether antibodies build with these asymptomatic exposures and if they do are they protective permanently, temporarily (and if so for how long) or not at all.  This is critical information to develop -- yet we do not have it and as far as I know nobody is working on it.

That omission on the part of the CDC and our government is intentional.

Indeed if we adjust the case load on the Diamond Princess to conform with the norms of population distribution for age it's entirely possible that the majority of persons who become infected will never show any symptoms whatsoever and thus will be entirely missed on any symptom-indicated test.

This will (and may be, right now) cause reported attack and fatality rates to be grossly overstated.

Which suits some people just fine.

What it doesn't suit is public health.

Knowing that someone was infected, asymptomatic and is immune is extraordinarily important to public health, especially if that person is in contact with high risk persons.  That specific individual is far more safe in interacting with high risk persons than someone who has never been exposed because other than direct transfer (e.g. from their hands that have contacted a surface with the virus on it to another person's mouth) they cannot transfer the virus to another person.

Again, if we had to run a wide-scale study then it would be extraordinarily expensive and a large undertaking; you'd have to find a hotspot and start rounding up everyone in that area to test them.  You'd also have to have an antibody test as well as a virus test, which we do not have at all at the present time.

But we don't need to do that to know that asymptomatic cases exist in VERY significant volume; we in fact know they exist and we have a reasonable statistical model for it too because we already ran the experiment.

The results of that experiment are being deliberately ignored.

View with responses (opens new window)