Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ Slams Virus Lockdown
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Pursuing perpetual economic growth, combined with externalizing costs where possible, on a finite planet beats its devastation by far.
Among other things, that growth and externalizing costs led to factory farming and encroaching into wildlife territory that have caused pandemics to increase in recent decades. Not limiting that growth -- at least limiting the number of animals we pack together -- will create more pandemics. Limiting it won't solve everything but it will decrease a lot of problems, including pandemics.
Why pandemics will keep increasing: https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the-environment/episo...
However, we could still be on course for a second wave, like 1919, then we are totally fucked.
But we don't know, and really didn't know when europe went into lockdown. It looked like the mortality was ~7% which would have been devastating.
I have yet to see any double blind study that suggests _any_ drug makes an impact. Barring vitamin D, but thats a metastudy, and also its too late for most people (you need a month.)
In short, he asking us to make a massive gamble.
Yes, the poor are suffering, but helicoptering money is a piece of piss compared to re-building a community. if the US had decent unemployment insurance, like germany, then unemployment would be 10% of what it is now.
I’m not sure I understand how better UI reduces unemployment.
But more importantly unemployment only captures half the problem. Businesses are not designed to go into hibernation. If asked you to hold your breath for two hours, it’s gonna be tough for you to start breathing again when I give the all clear.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/kurzarbeit-germany-is-using-...
It worked well a decade ago, how well it works this time remains to be seen, but at least it's better than firing people right away (and then not getting them back and having to train new people when the crisis is over).
Who pushes the pause button? How do the businesses agree on pushing their pause button at the same time?
Should there be a pausing fund? Paid in by all businesses that make business overseas?
I find this interesting. Reminds me a little bit on traffic jams. If cars were automated, all cars could start/stop at the same time.
Moratorium on all bills, esp rents and mortgages. Prop up the companies that can't weather that, or that are crucial like cell phone bills, internet, electricity, water. When bills resume they resume as if it's the next month, not w/ 'backup due'.
The reason its hard is because you can't hold off evictions for rent, if the mortgage company is gonna foreclose, but if you stop each chink of the chain of bills from collecting more bills, then it's just a matter of sit/wait.
When you go back, everything should theoretically still be the way it was.
At the basis everyone would be guaranteed to have their phone, internet, gas, electric, water, home, and food. All the essentials. Companies and commercial real estate would follow the same thing -- no rent for restaurants for example to the commercial real estate company that owns the building, no insurance payments, etc... Full pause.
The people that push the pause button are elected governments,
There is a pausing fund, it is taxes and government borrowing through the national debt.
Looking at how beneficial reducing trade and manufacturing has been for the environment, i can't help but think that we need to be able to take the same kind of action we've been taking for COVID-19 to address the other big challenges we're facing.
"A more nuanced approach would be for at risk groups — the obese, old and already-sick — to shelter in place, to execute widespread mandatory testing, and to ID and track as necessary while allowing society to function. Again, Trump should get the massive contract manufacturers like Flextronics to make testing machines."
That said, we are still having problems getting the tests out and people are still complaining that it will take days to get results back. I personally know a pharmacist with an at-risk child who can't get a test as of last week. So this seems like wishful thinking to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/next-covi...
> "Vaccines are not coming anytime soon, so natural immunity is the only way out for now."
The whole point of the lockdown is not to act as a magic wand to make the pandemic vanish. The whole point is that, as it stands, emergency services are already operating beyond capacity. This means that your friends and loved ones risk needlessly dying for no reason just because they weren't able to have medical treatment, including from non-covid19 issues.
I have the luxury of being a freelancer working from home, so this is mostly my normal, but I know it hurts a lot of people, but so does being dead - or having lung issues for life or neurological ones.
Some broadway actor lost his leg over the weekend because of this.
TLDR; It definitely helps w/ hospitals so they can still function it also gives time to find and create better treatments.
With that being said, I’m sympathetic toward the concerns about the economic cost, and think that we need to really focus on a reopen plan in May or June. Workers who can WFH should probably continue to do so, but if we’ve been able to flatten the curve it’s probably time to go back outside and see what happens.
I’ll also say with respect to Burry that although he is a trained physician, it doesn’t make him an expert in epidemiology, so, frankly, I don’t really care for his opinion on the subject any more than anyone else who is moderately educated.
This is true anecdotal, but I’m following a cohort of 5 MD friends who all experienced “walking COVID” (aka reached the loss of smell symptom, but required no hospitalization).
This cohort is 35-45 and all previously highly athletic.
They are between +20 and +45 days from being “symptom free”. Not one of them can perform cardiac challenged activities.
I’ve heard things like “I get winded carrying groceries up the stairs” to “I cannot perform even a single push-up”.
So before we take this big risk of letting the virus “burn” through the population, shouldn’t we understand just a bit more?
Sure, maybe we’ll get lucky and the IFR will just be 2-10x flu.
But there are worrying signs of permanent heart, lung and kidney damage.
These costs will also stay with us long term.
Mortality isn’t the concern when dealing with an unknown virus.
It seems to have caused already the death of between 0.1% (lab-confirmed) and 0.2% (excess deaths) of the population of NYC.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/124944656101010637...
https://mobile.twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/124902067755179622...
If 20% of them are infected, the infection fatality rate observed is already in the 0.5%-1% range.
Imagine if we weren't on lockdown and there were a ton of other emergencies like car crashes, accidental impalement, etc... a lot of non-covid emergencies are probably still happening, but we'd probably triple or quadruple the load on an already stressed hospital system. It'd be disastrous.
The proof is right there in NYC. Now they're - their own thing. Not sure this would play out in most other cities being smaller than NYC, but if Italy has any bearing - Bergamo ran out of burial plots in the cemetary and had to start stacking bodies in churches like it's the 1420's.
The right answer is caution > mass destruction. Another good case study is comparing the sweden to switzerland or denmark.
I don't have high hopes in a vaccine before at least 2-3 years since the fastest vaccine ever took 5 years, but drugs to mitigate symptoms and outcomes -- the longer we slow it, the more lives saved when we do have a good treatment.
HIV doesn't have a vaccine, but it does have decent treatment options now, I think covid will be easier to find good treatments but we just need time for all the studies to bear fruit.
I feel a lot of the scientific advisors to governments are "covid19 death minimisers", solely focusing on people dying from this virus at the expense of any other consideration, like the effect of elective procedures being postponed indefinitely, tens of millions of families in hardship, economic collapse, etc.
As an example, you only mention people dying from the virus. A large percentage need to be intubated, will still live, and will carry long term negative impacts from that process. That’s an “other consideration” health officials have made.
can you please tell me what the projections re economic casualties (ie people that die from e.g. starvation/privation post covid19) are for literally any other first world nation? my distinct impression is that only in the US are we being forced to choose between people dying from covid or people dying from poverty as a result of covid. shouldn't that tell you something about how we're approaching this problem in and of itself!?!
I didn't use the term "economic casualties". An economic crisis causes a huge amount of human suffering on massive scale, hardship on tens if not hundreds of millions of people. And this itself may have its own health consequences, but I think human suffering in all of its forms needs to be considered.
But even if we assigned zero weight to that human suffering, if we go the route of pure "death minimisation", it is not even clear that the economic collapse route is less lethal.
For two reasons: the first is that it is unclear what additional mortality the virus would cause vs a regular year. The median age of a covid19 victim seems to be in the 80s, and almost always (99% based on Italian figures) with some co-morbidity. It is not clear how many would have died within 18 months of something else. The other thing is that economic collapse does cause deaths also, for instance through political unstability. I think it is fair to say that the arab spring was triggered by the economic hardship caused by the 2008 crisis. And I don't know that we would have had a WW2 without the 1929 depression.
you've completely missed my point: is there any other western nation claiming that what's at stake here is economic collapse (and consequent deaths) or the deaths of the vulnerable to the virus? i think the answer is no (but i don't read german/norwegian/italian newspapers so i might be wrong). only in the united states are we forced to choose one or the other. you should stop to consider why that's the case.
Think of it rather as "what are the best life-saving interventions to fund with the money/resources we have?"
It's probably covid-19 interventions in some cases while some of the resources we're sucking out of the economy would probably be more efficiently spent on other life-saving interventions.
See "Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost- Effectiveness": https://www.gwern.net/docs/statistics/decision/1995-tengs.pd...
Ideology is causing this, specifically the idea that medical services must be profitable, and the idea that if you don't work, you don't get to eat.
That we even accept this premise is utterly absurd.
The argument is how much is too much? Is there any limit to what the governors can ask? Cause it feels like they’re governing by diktat, with little transparency or accountability.
People are ok with it, because there is enough trust in our institutions to carry us through public health crisis.
But it will wear thin. Politicians and the chattering classes are far removed from the damage they are doing and far to self congratulatory.
We are drowning in platitudes while people’s lives are being ruined. Entrepreneurs and small business owners are seeing their life’s work stripped from them by a policy choice served by ass covering politicians and a class of media elites ever willing to promote the post-modern illusion that death is subject to our whims and not the other way around.
People are having their lives stripped from them by economic policy choices that value unaccountable wealth accumulation combined with rent-seeking and corruption by a group of economic elites ever willing to promote the post-modern illusion that wealth and societal health is due to "job makers" and not the other way around.
If the economy and business cannot survive what is now only 2 months of interruption, then perhaps the economic system needs to be more robust and structurally sound. Deregulation has led to an unaccountable financial "industry" that produces nothing except churn in the name of "liquidity".
After the Great Depression, in addition to the economic stimulus in the US of WW2, the market and banking reforms led to a more proper focus on Main St and not Wall St. That focus needs to return.
It's the coronavirus causing economic damage, customers dying or having to stay home to avoid dying is bad for business. I don't know what planet this is not obvious to people on.
Fastest way to address this is to quickly contain & suppress the virus -- isolation, testing, tracing, eradication -- after which careful & gradual reopening can occur.
Of course this requires a competent government; a functioning health system would help too. So would a government capable of supporting businesses to put employees on paid furlough, pause interest on mortgages & debts, issue stimulus efficiently, etc. Many other countries are able to accomplish much of this -- unfortunately the US is largely not. Substantially due to the extractive capitalist/ monopolist attitudes of greed & "money at any cost" seen right above.
(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti...)
Two thoughts: Maybe bloomberg will interview him whenever they want a somewhat contrarian bearish view? If he made money from short positions now, could it have been for a reason completely unrelated to COVID?
However it seemed last month that the correct thing to do was to close down. At least so that hospitals were not overwhelmed, causing extra deaths beyond the "natural" amount for this disease and others that people use hospitals to treat. In other words, a non-linear effect on death rates caused by the sudden spike.
Now we're between a rock and a hard place, because while taking a week or two off would be tough but OK for most businesses, taking 4 weeks or 8 weeks off is not simply 4x or 8x as bad. Thus, another, competing, non-linear effect.
We also have the problem that the pandemic is not synchronized, so any area that does manage to keep it down is going to have to keep the border closed towards people from places where it's still going on.
The only solution that seems like a good compromise is to have lots of testing so that people who know they are infected, even ones who don't feel ill, can be quarantined. Also of course generally keep old people away from too much contact with everyone else. But somehow even months after the virus was discovered, the number of people tested anywhere is not really high. I would have thought we'd ramp up production of test kits massively so that everyone who's been near someone positive is tested, plus everyone else is randomly tested.
You’d also be surprised how hard it is to escape to New Zealand right now.
Yep, closed to all but citizens and permanent residents - so unless you pulled off a Peter Thiel[1] (sigh), you're shit outta luck at the moment.
[1]: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/indepth/national/how-peter-thiel-...
It's nothing to do with the media. It's the pile of dead bodies.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594...
Edit: There are 13,157 deaths, and 135,527 cases, which is about 10%. Los Angeles county has 577 deaths and 12,051 cases, which is less than half the fatality rate. Suffice to say it's overwhelmed the healthcare system there.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/new-zealand-ga...
Unless he's a citizen or permanent resident, he's going to be told be piss off, but you know, in a friendly way.
And if he's a citizen/PR, he'll get to spend 14 days in quarantine.
This sounds the ravings of someone who acted like they saw the hidden gears moving the economy. Now they’re frighteningly uncertain, and want to exert their influence to regain their sense of comfortable uncertainty. And in the trade-offs, he's revealing his biases, which is careful to limit to good luck:
> "Vaccines are not coming anytime soon, so natural immunity is the only way out for now."
But we've heard enough from other people stupid enough to say it out loud--we're going to lose some % people, but the damage to the economy will be worse--to know what he's alluding to.
Frighteningly uncertain, because if the absolute worst thing happens and everything goes MadMax, it's the wealthiest who will have targets on their backs--October Revolution.
See. I can sound like an A$$, too.
Gimme a break. He’s piping up because he bet on the Russell (which completely went against him earlier this year) and those companies will get punished disproportionately due to the lockdown.
There’s way too much emphasis on listening to financial figures when in fact they are just as clueless if not more. Money does not equate to intelligence and wisdom. Be wary of listening to people with a lot to lose.
By the way, his take on passive investing is only half right. There’s a reset every quarter. The way to play it is to short single name volatility at earnings.
Look at the minority of people protesting the lock down, a large majority are small business owners who want their employees to get back to work.
Corona virus has effectively been a government mandated strike for labor (save "essential workers" at Amazon and the like) the likes of which the capitalist class haven't yet seen.
In fact, I've been saying this for over a decade now... We should have a global holiday every ten years doing exactly this, as it would seriously decimate all contagious disease populations.
Really, this financial crisis was brewing and on its way, coronavirus or not, because we didn't take the lessons of the 2008 crash to heart. This pandemic was simply the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, but it is very tempting for economists and politicians to place the blame squarely on this scapegoat, so they can continue the cycle of booms and busts, which benefits only those with enough capital to weather the risks and buy in at the bottom of the curve.
If we want to break this destructive cycle, we need to rethink our approach to economics and society: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980822
As an added benefit, we can make human civilization less harmful to the environment, by reducing our massive overconsumption and focus on sustainability.