PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   47 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 47 total)
  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 02:14am

    #1

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2088

    count placeholder3+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

On Friday, Gold climbed +11.46 [+0.64%] to 1794.85 on moderate volume, and silver inched down +0.02 [+0.11%] to 18.08 on moderate volume. The buck was mostly unchanged [+0.02%], SPX dropped hard [-2.42%] along with crude [-2.23%], while bonds rallied [the 10-Year yield fell -4.0 bp].

The metals sector map has juniors leading seniors, miners leading metal, but gold leading silver. Both silver and platinum did quite poorly this week, with platinum at the bottom of the heap. I think they used both metals as a lever to try and yank the price of gold lower. Platinum is a very small market, silver is a small market, while gold is large, but all 3 are closely correlated. Copper did the best of the metals, which suggests risk on. All metals except palladium and platinum are above all 3 moving averages, which is quite bullish – for them, at least.

Platinum and palladium are below all 3 moving averages. Does that reflect “an underperforming automotive sector”?

Name Chart Chg (W) 52w ch MA9 MA50 MA200 50/200 Last Crossing last
Junior Miners GDXJ 5.80% 36.73% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2020-06-19 2020-06-26
Senior Miners GDX 4.89% 38.93% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2020-06-19 2020-06-26
Silver Miners SIL 4.36% 33.06% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2020-06-22 2020-06-26
Copper $COPPER 2.28% -1.91% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2020-06-19 2020-06-26
Gold $GOLD 1.82% 26.49% rising rising rising falling ema9 on 2020-06-10 2020-06-26
Silver $SILVER 1.46% 18.24% rising rising falling rising ema9 on 2020-06-19 2020-06-26
Gold/Euro $GOLD:$XEU 1.44% 28.09% rising falling rising falling ma50 on 2020-06-23 2020-06-26
Palladium $PALL -0.84% 22.68% falling falling rising falling ema9 on 2020-06-23 2020-06-26
Platinum $PLAT -1.20% -0.39% falling rising falling rising ema9 on 2020-06-24 2020-06-26

For the week, gold rallied +32.03 [+1.82%] to 1794.85 on moderate volume. The short white candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, moving higher into its uptrend. Gold is in an uptrend in all three timeframes.

Gold/euros moved up +22.72 [+1.44%] to 1598.22 on moderate volume. The short white candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, moving higher into its uptrend. Gold/euros is in an uptrend in all three timeframes.

COMEX GC open interest rose +6.7K contracts on Friday, and rose +52K contracts this week. That was 17 days of global annual production in new paper added to the market. Current open interest for GC: 50% of global annual production, up +4.82% this week.

Gold commercial net fell -29K contracts, which was +33K new shorts and +3.5K new longs. Gold managed money net rose +25K contracts, which was +821 new shorts, and +26K new longs. That’s a fair number of new commercial shorts, but the overall level of commercial shorts looks more like a low for gold, rather than a high.

Gold hit a new 8-year high this week. It appears that round number 1800 (which also happens to be the previous high from 2012) is providing some resistance. However, there appears to be a lot of dip-buying that happens every time gold drops – the most recent example was Friday.

Silver moved up +0.09 [+0.50%] to 18.08 on moderate volume. The doji candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, moving higher into its uptrend. Silver remains in an uptrend in all three timeframes.

COMEX SI open interest fell -1.6K contracts on Friday, and fell -1.1K contracts this week. Current open interest for SI: 101% of global annual production, down -0.61% this week.

Silver commercial net fell -1.8K contracts, which was +1.3K new shorts and -550 fewer longs. Silver managed money net rose +1.5K contracts, which was +2.3K new shorts, and +3.8K new longs. From the COT perspective, we are closer to a low than a high.

The gold/silver ratio climbed +1.28 to 99.27. That’s bearish.

The doji candle is usually about “indecision” and this one is no exception. Silver is occasionally battered by forces that (my guess) is trying to force gold lower. Even so, silver’s uptrend right now looks reasonably strong. For now, at least. Longer term, silver is lagging dreadfully behind gold (GSR=99 tells us this), but that’s also an opportunity: it remains very cheap relative to gold.

GDX rallied +4.89% on moderate volume, and GDXJ jumped +5.80% on moderate volume also. XAU moved up +5.28%, the swing low candle was a probable bullish reversal (58%), forecaster climbed, moving higher into its uptrend. XAU is in an uptrend in the weekly and monthly timeframes.

The GDX:gold ratio climbed +2.93%, and the GDXJ:GDX ratio climbed +0.87%. That’s bullish.

The miners had a decent week; while most of the gains happened on Monday, there was a fair amount of dip-buying on Thursday and Friday, which was a positive sign. Miners tend to do poorly in equity market downturns, and we had several days of falling equity prices that tended to pull miner prices lower. Trends of the mining shares overall are generally bullish, but a little bit weak. Still, on Tuesday, the miners made a new high which invalidated the pattern of lower lows and lower highs which had been in place since mid-May. Miners remain above all 3 moving averages, and the weekly swing low print was reasonably bullish.

Platinum fell -14.20 [-1.74%], and palladium fell -19.17 [-1.02%]. Both platinum and palladium remain below all 3 moving averages; both are in downtrends.

Copper rose +0.04 [+1.53%] to 2.66 on moderate volume. The long white candle was a possible bearish reversal (37%), but forecaster climbed, moving higher into its uptrend. Copper is in an uptrend in all three timeframes.

Copper’s bearish reversal print was very mildly bearish; the shooting star candle print on Friday was also mildly bearish (29%). Is this a top for copper? Right now, it is just a hint of a top. Copper’s continuing rally is a risk on signal.

The buck fell -0.17 [-0.17%] to 97.40 on light volume. The high wave candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, but remains in a downtrend. The buck remains in a downtrend in all three timeframes.

Major currency moves included: CAD [-0.42%], EUR [+0.37%].

All of the damage to the buck happened on Monday and Tuesday, and the rest of the week was spent trying to recover. The buck’s downtrend is fading a bit, but it has definitely not ended just yet.

Crude plunged -1.30 [-3.29%] to 38.20 on moderately light volume. The long black candle was a probable bearish reversal (51%), forecaster dropped, falling into a downtrend. Crude is now in a downtrend in both the daily and weekly timeframes.

EIA report: crude +1.4m, gasoline -1.7m, distillates +0.2m.

Crude ended the week below the 9 MA; crude’s 2-month uptrend may be at an end. The rating on the bearish reversal print was very high. It appears that (roughly speaking anyway) round number 40 resistance has held. What’s more, since crude has tended to lead SPX in recent months, a bearish reversal in crude will help pull SPX lower also.

SPX plunged -88.69 [-2.86%] to 3009.05 on moderately heavy volume. The short black candle was unrated, and forecaster fell, dropping into a downtrend. SPX is now in a downtrend in both the daily and weekly timeframes.

Energy [-8.38%] led the market lower, along with financials [-6.20%], while tech [-0.69%] and discretionary [-2.93%] did best. This was a mostly bullish sector map, believe it or not. Both tech and discretionary tend to lead the markets higher, and they both did well this week.

The VIX fell -0.39 to 34.73.

The damage to SPX happened on Wednesday and Friday. The close on Friday was fairly ugly, with SPX closing near the lows of the day. By end of week, SPX was below both the 9 and 200 MA lines. It appeared that traders did not want to be long going into the weekend. The weekly SPX downtrend is relatively mild at this point.

TLT rallied +1.76%. The spinning top candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, rising into an uptrend. TLT is now in an uptrend in the daily and weekly timeframes. The 30-Year yield fell -9.0 bp to +1.38%.

TY climbed +0.28%. The spinning top candle was a bullish continuation, forecaster climbed, rising into an uptrend. TY is in an uptrend in the daily and weekly timeframes. The 10-Year yield fell -6.0 bp to +0.64%.

Bonds are back up to the top of their recent trading range. This is a risk off signal too.

JNK plunged -2.04%. The long black candle was unrated, forecaster dropped, falling into a downtrend. JNK is now in a downtrend in both the daily and weekly timeframes.

Crappy debt is now showing a pattern of lower highs and lower lows, having made a four-week low on Friday. JNK is now more bearish than equities. This is a strong risk off signal; crappy debt often acts like a coal mine canary in these matters. This supports the bearish reversal case in equities, as well as the bearish reversal in crude as well; there is a whole lot of crappy debt attached to the US energy (shale) space.

Physical Supply

The GLD ETF tonnage on hand climbed +19.59 tons, with 1179 tons remaining in inventory.

ETF Discount to NAV:
* CEF -0.14%
* PHYS -0.24%
* PSLV -0.63%
Bullion Vault Premiums:
* gold: -13.53
* silver: +0.00
Gold dealer big bar premiums:
* gold [1kg]: +1.02%
* silver [100 oz]: +12.20%

Physical ETFs remain in discount, bullionvault has some wide spreads for gold, and big bar silver remains in shortage.

Grey Swans and Geopolitics

[No update this week; I spent all my time on the section below: Herd Immunity Threshold]

Economic Reports

Yield Curve Inversion: the 1-10 spread fell -5 bp to +47 bp this week. 1Y: 0.17% (-1 bp), 10Y: 0.64% (-6 bp).

Fed Balance Sheet: headline $7,082B, -12.4B (-0.17% w/w) (prior -1.05% w/w). Another week of retreat on the Fed balance sheet.

Personal Income: headline -4.41% m/m (prior +9.75% m/m), Consumer Spending: +7.55% m/m (prior -14.44% m/m), Core PCE: +0.10% m/m (prior -0.39% m/m). Less income (but still up 5% over January 2020), more spending (still down 12% from January 2020). Consumers are still saving, but at a lower rate.

Durable Goods, new orders: headline +13.68% m/m (prior -22.16% m/m), capital goods new orders (excl aircraft): +2.21% m/m (prior -6.95% m/m) shipments: +4.22% m/m (prior -22.87% m/m). This is projecting a 40% rebound vs the drop we saw in March/April. Improvement, but not recovery.

Median new home sales price: headline 318K, +15K (+4.69% m/m) (prior -9.50% m/m) SF new home sales: 676K, +96K (+14.20% m/m) (prior -5.52% m/m) monthly home supply: 5.60, -1.10. Things have improved vs last month if you are a seller: sales up, supply down, prices up.

Auto/Light Truck Sales: headline +28.55% m/m (prior -30.61% m/m), Auto Sales: +25.41% m/m (prior -45.63% m/m), Heavy Truck Sales: -23.21% m/m (prior -10.04% m/m). That’s about a 40% recovery off the March/April plunge. Heavy truck sales: terrible, and getting worse.

Summary

Gold is really looking quite strong, silver and the miners a bit less so. Equities appear to be moving lower with more emphasis now, helped along by crude and crappy debt. All three items are saying the same thing: bearish reversal. Copper is the lone “risk” holdout – it may be reversing, but it has not done so just yet.

In the economic news this week, we are seeing rebounds in manufacturing orders, auto & light truck sales, consumer spending, and even new home sale prices. However, most of the rebounds have not moved back to their old levels. We’d need another few months at these rates to do that.

The real driver of risk assets this week centered around rising corona virus cases in some states: Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California, to name a few. Governor Newsom of CA has decided to re-impose “stay at home orders” in one county, in spite of data that suggests that people mostly catch SC2 while staying at home. Governor Abbot of TX has responded to his situation by closing down the bars, as has Governor deSantis of Florida.

Regardless of the specific public policy option selected by each state, the US has now semi-officially adopted “the Sweden model”: acquiring herd immunity while protecting the vulnerable, which has been the standard method for dealing with epidemics throughout human history.

Since “where we are in this herd immunity cycle” will end up being the primary driver of prices and especially risk assets, I believe it is critical to look at indications of herd immunity: what is it, where are we, and what can we expect going forward?

Herd Immunity Threshold

[Apologies in advance; this section got long, but I feel that this subject is the critical driver for prices right now]

“The experts” tell us the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) is 60-70%. However, this is only true in the following cases:

a) if vaccines are used to provide immunity, delivered to people selected at random in the population.
b) an epidemic occurs in a population with a uniform virus susceptibility and exposure profiles.

In a natural epidemic, with more variability in the human population, this isn’t the case. Turns out (spoiler alert), herd immunity could be a lot lower than 70%.

The “degree of variability” is the key to calculating what the HIT is for given virus in a given population. The name for this “degree of variability” is named “CV”, or Coefficient of Variation.

The following (highly technical, but possibly critically important) paper explains this concept, among others:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf

Executive summary: CV = Susceptibility + Exposure.

Susceptibility: how easy is it for someone to get infected. This is driven by all sorts of things; age, vitamin-D levels, blood type, immune system strength, etc.

Exposure: how frequently is someone exposed to the virus. It is driven by patterns of connectivity among individuals in society; this includes number of social connections, as well as physical enclosures such as subways, buses, and shared air-conditioned spaces.

Here is the exciting bit: The higher the differences in the population, the lower the Herd Immunity Threshold.

Why is this? Well, if variability is high (say, 90% of people have 5 social connections, and 10% have 50 social connections), this means that a relatively small group of super-spreaders are responsible for the vast bulk of infections. Once these personally charming (but epidemiologically annoying) people get sick (and die, or become immune), the epidemic is largely over.

If variability is low: if we all have 5 social connections, and we all take the subway, then CV=1, and that gets you an HIT of 60-70%. There are no annoying super-spreaders to take out to save the rest of us.

Likewise, if we all have the same vit-D levels, we have the same BMI, etc, CV=1 again, and that’s HIT = 60-70%.

But in a normal population, there is much more variability in both susceptibility to the virus (obese, unhealthy, diabetic, vit-D deficient, low immune system), as well as variability in exposure (i.e. social connectivity, use of transport, etc). The paper postulates a CV=3. With a CV=3, epidemic math spits out a HIT of 10-20%.

Guess what? New York City serology testing reports 25% of the population tests positive for SC2.

Based on this, I conclude that NYC most likely has herd immunity. Today.

So given all this information, why isn’t the CDC doing serology testing in other areas with flat charts, to see if they too have herd immunity? Why aren’t they talking about effective herd immunity in New York City?

<tinfoil hat on>
Well, if New York had effective herd immunity, there would be no need for a vaccine. That would be bad. A golden opportunity, missed, for Moderna, Glaxo Smith Kline, and the rest.

As a result of this situation, the question of effective HIT for a natural pandemic may never be answered by our sickcare system. “The experts” indirectly employed by Moderna & Glaxo will continue to say, HIT=70%. Because humans are interchangeable, equally connected, equally susceptible robots, a vaccine is the only answer, since we are so, so far from that 70% number demanded by “the experts” for herd immunity. Because CV=1.
<tinfoil hat off>

Now that you know this secret – HIT is 10-20%, because humans are not all alike – and you can read what the infection charts are telling you…you might be able to make use of the information, both in your personal life, and in your trading too. There is an opportunity here.

So how do we detect herd immunity in the charts in other states?

If we use NYC as a template, it appears to be a roughly 8-week process, with the peak coming roughly on week #4.

Of course, each area has its own CV, based on variability of susceptibility and exposure of the population. NYC: subway use, population density, multi-generational family living arrangements, Vit-D deficiency, etc. Other areas will probably have lower CV values, which will probably result in higher HIT levels, and a flatter overall curve.

Take Sweden. Most likely, it has a relatively low CV due to a more even “exposure” profile. That might account for its distinct curve.

Now look at Arizona. Arizona is on week #4 right now, although with much better testing, and a likely lower CV value than New York, the curve will probably have higher case numbers, and it will probably last longer: lower CV = flatter curve. Maybe instead of a 10-week process, it will take 12 weeks. Or 15 weeks. We will only know once the AZ curve starts to bend lower, and continue moving lower.

But now we know how to interpret what is going on. The downslope of the curve happens when HIT is starting to occur. This is especially true if AZ doesn’t engage in severe mitigation activities, and cases drop anyway. That is how you will know that they have reached that HIT.

Once the super-spreaders (high exposure + highly susceptible people) are knocked out, the pandemic is over for that area.

I encourage you to read the paper, if you have 20 minutes to spare. You might need to read it a few times.

Turns out summer didn’t make it go away after all. Darned air conditioning. But I do believe that, since we aren’t all interchangeable robots, CV >> 1, which means HIT is substantially lower than 70%.

We just have to wait for a bit to find out what the number actually is in the states that have yet to go through the process.

Now – finally – how does this apply to prices? We can now anticipate herd immunity appearing in places just by watching the curve. As the curves start to bend down, we should closely watch prices, to see how they respond. If we are short, that would be the time we could think about covering. Likewise, energy-related issues might end up being good buys once we can look through whatever panic appears in the next month or so.

There is no need to “wait for the vaccine” to get back to normal. Sad news for Glaxo and Moderna (and Mr Vaccine, Bill Gates), but good news for America. Possibly that’s a shorting opportunity, when the HIT news eventually breaks. I haven’t done the analysis, but if we think the news will eventually leak out about HIT=20% when CV=2 or CV=3, the stock prices of those companies will probably react lower. Especially if that vaccine doesn’t actually work. Which, we are now starting to hear hints of – it won’t. Although the spin control on that message has already started, from the usual sources.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-15/the-first-covid-vaccines-may-not-prevent-you-from-getting-covid

“That vaccine doesn’t look like it’s a knockout for protecting against infection, but it might be really very good at protecting against disease,” Fauci told the medical news website Stat.

Fauci’s NIAID is partnered with Moderna Inc. on a Covid vaccine test whose primary goal is to show their vaccine prevents people from developing symptoms, the company said June 11. Preventing infections is a secondary goal.

Lastly, in our personal lives, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it isn’t an oncoming train. HIT is – perhaps – 1-2 months away, depending on the CV value in the region, and how far up the curve they already are.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 04:35am

    #2
    phusg

    phusg

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 16 2014

    Posts: 136

    count placeholder

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

Interesting stuff again Dave.

New York City serology testing reports 25% of the population tests positive for SC2.

If I understand correctly then this level is only effective herd immunity for as long as individuals’ control measures/discipline remain in place. As they are eased further then doesn’t the HIT increases along with them?

Why aren’t they talking about effective herd immunity in New York City?

So at least part of the reason could be they don’t want to give people a false sense of security. Mightn’t the HIT have to be higher in winter too? Thankfully it’s not around the corner in my mind, but it does look like we won’t have an effective vaccine widely distributed before then.

Another reason is that AFAIK it’s still questionable for how long the SC2 antibody immunity lasts and if it doesnt decay.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 04:44am

    #3
    jmone

    jmone

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 28 2020

    Posts: 166

    count placeholder1+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

I hope you are waaaay wrong with  “If we use NYC as a template” …. so far we have (assuming COVID-19 deaths pretty well stop if it truly has hit “herd immunity”)

– NY(State) Pop is 19.5M / Deaths from Covid-19 is 31K = Crude Death Rate of 0.16%

Those numbers are terrifying, as if the same Crude Death Rate occurs to reach “herd immunity” in other populations, you will see:

– Australia: 25M @ 0.16% = 40K deaths

– USA: 328M @ 0.16% = 524K deaths

– World: 7.8b @ 0.16% = 12.5m deaths

Hopefully, New York has factors for a higher Crude Death Rate, as so far even the “headline worst hit” countries (outside the US) have a much lower Crude Death, eg:

– Italy = 0.06% (34,716 deaths / 60.4M population)

– UK = 0.07% (43,598 deaths / 66.7M population)

Even better (so far) is that the current Crude Death Rate of Canada and Mexico is 0.02% (though I’d expect Mexico’s rate will climb substantially)

I’d not wish the “NYC Template” on any population, but you could be right.  All the efforts to lock down may only buy time and postpone the inevitable.

 

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 05:04am

    #4

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2088

    count placeholder3+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

I’m talking about infection rate to achieve herd immunity, not death rate.

My goodness.  If you send COVID patients into nursing homes, you get the NYC death rate.  They were the first, they didn’t know how to handle this.  Death rate is much lower now because we’re a lot smarter about treatments, etc.

BTW, infection rate to reach herd immunity = 15-20%.  Multiply that by population, and then again by the IFR, to get the death rate.

Flu supposedly kills 30-40k people per year.  We don’t even blink.

Cancer kills, what, 500k people?  More?  Per year!  We don’t even blink at that either.

Heart disease, same thing as cancer.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 06:38am

    #5

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2088

    count placeholder4+

    HIT, mutations, etc

phusg-

If I understand correctly then this level is only effective herd immunity for as long as individuals’ control measures/discipline remain in place. As they are eased further then doesn’t the HIT increases along with them?

The HIT at 20% assumes normal activity, based on the super spreaders getting immunity.  There will still be cases, but it won’t be a nutty pandemic because the R0 of the virus depends entirely on super spreaders doing their thing.  My guess: the easily infected and the highly connected in NYC are either immune or dead.  That’s because this group were nailed prior to the lockdowns being imposed.  The 25% positive rate on the serology tests is my evidence.  That, plus this paper.

The HIT will actually rise if you lock everyone down rapidly, since it makes everyone “more equal” in terms of exposure, which then lowers the CV.  If you stop the super-spreaders from spreading, you also stop them from becoming immune.  One of these paradoxes.

Unintended consequence: the nations who executed rapid lockdowns in Europe have uninfected super-spreaders waiting in the wings to “do their thing” when they reopen.  Sweden won’t have this problem.  Those nations in Europe definitely could see a “second wave” when they reopen due to their non-immune super spreaders just waiting to come out of hiding.  🙂

So at least part of the reason could be they don’t want to give people a false sense of security. Mightn’t the HIT have to be higher in winter too? Thankfully it’s not around the corner in my mind, but it does look like we won’t have an effective vaccine widely distributed before then.

Maybe.  Fauci said they were going to do serology testing.  They did it in exactly one place: New York.  Why not other places?  I think Vaccine Marketing just don’t want people to know the answer.  Fear maximization won’t work if we have good news.  I get the sense you’re more of an optimist than I am when it comes to corruption in government.  🙂

You make a good point about winter – I do agree that it makes sense for that “exposure” variable to move higher due to the cold, but I think the dreaded “second wave” won’t happen because of the current level of immunity already in place.  Maybe, a “second bump”.  Which, if we use masks on subways, should be fairly easily addressed, since transport is the primary (outside-the-home) infection location.

Another reason is that AFAIK it’s still questionable for how long the SC2 antibody immunity lasts and if it doesnt decay.

I suspect we will retain immunity until the virus mutates – and then we will have partial immunity, like our partial immunity to the normal raft of ILIs that float around every year.

I do think that, no matter what NYC does, we won’t see another massive spike higher there.  25% = HIT for NYC.  (And given all the protests and looting that took place, I thought we’d see at least some minor bump.  But – nothing at all.)

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 07:14am

    #6

    JAG

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 440

    count placeholder1+

    Herd Immunity and the D614G mutation

Great work DF! Though that paper is going to take me more than 20 minutes to digest, lol.

I hope you are correct about such a much lower HIT because that would be great news. All the people gathering for political reasons (on both sides) might actually serve to lower the herd immunity threshold.

My only question concerns the D614G mutation and how it fits into the picture? Do you know if the New York population had the “original” virus or the D614G variant?

Theoretically, herd immunity might not be established yet for the new mutation in areas like NYC, China, and Europe.

Edit: I finished the paper and this stuck out:

Popular models based on contact matrices use a coefficient of variation around 0.9 (13) and perform similarly to our scenarios for 𝐶𝑉 = 1.

Supported by existing estimates across infectious diseases, we argue that 𝐶𝑉 is generally higher and prognostics more optimistic than currently assumed.

However plausible, this needs to be confirmed for the current COVID-19 pandemic and, given its relevance to policy decisions, it should be set as a priority.

Put another way, there is no evidence that the COVID-19 CV is greater than 1. This is just an educated guess based on studies of other infectious diseases.

And I won’t even get into “policy decisions”. I saw video of Trump saying he doesn’t know what the “19” stands for in COVID-19, lol.

I really hope these guys (and you DF) are right about this, though. I can hunker down for another 2-3 months if it means we can get this behind us.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 07:47am

    #7

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2368

    count placeholder2+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

Well THAT is indeed very interesting shift in viewpoint.  Thank you so much for digging out that analysis and thinking your way through it.

I did know that traditional relationships between Ro of an illness (which is itself an average number) and HIT (another average number) were based on the assumption of “complete mixing” of populations (which ensures that the population is acting in the average way).

I greatly appreciate your insight into this aspect of how the infection is spread.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 07:49am

    #8
    PaulJam

    PaulJam

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 88

    count placeholder

    Herd Immunity might be ephemeral

If this study is corroborated by others, then there may be no lasting development of herd immunity.  Perhaps its time, for now, to be a bit skeptical over whether lasting herd immunity will develop with Covid-19.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 08:03am

    #9

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2368

    count placeholder8+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

But what about the usefulness of the pandemic?

Now Comes the Davos ‘Great Reset’
By F. William Engdahl
9 June 2020

For those wondering what will come after the Covid19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

The Great Reset

On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.

  • Sun, Jun 28, 2020 - 10:29am

    #11
    TWalker5

    TWalker5

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 13 2020

    Posts: 26

    count placeholder2+

    PM Weekly Market Commentary – 06/26/2020

Great stuff there, Dave. The theory seems plausible and I certainly hope it is correct. Thank you for doing the heavy lifting.

T.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 47 total)

Login or Register to post comments