TPS

Yes, I agree, when testing is rolled out on a significant scale in any country, you don't know if the number of new cases is due to the ramping up of testing or not. However... The data JH uses is based on the number of days since the first 100 cases, which is a decent measure (there is no perfect measure yet) because testing started out a such a low rate in most countries, and most of those early cases are (most likely) associated with hospitalizations. Using that assumption shows the US is 10 days behind Italy. It is also consistent with using the number of days each country experienced their first 100 deaths (probably a better measure), which is around March 4th for Italy and around the 17th for the US. So, yes, when widespread testing starts, it influences the number of new cases, which is why it's more accurate (not perfect) to use the "first 100 metrics."

Maybe he looks at data? According to the Johns Hopkins site, using "days since 100 cases," Italy is on day 35, the US is on day 25, 10 days behind.

Hmmm...Birx now predicting 100-200K deaths, so why are they inciting fear now? Fake news? Inflating the expectations so they can tout success when they're lower? So many questions...

The site I use is Johns Hopkins. Currently, both NY and MA are exponential, but NY's weekly growth rate is less than MA's, which makes NY's doubling time about 3.3 days and MA''s just over 2. However, the most recent (3/29) daily change was about the same for both states, but I wouldn't suggest that's a trend yet...

You may want to find my interaction with 3rd on this a few weeks back, it will save you from wasting your time...

Where do get that MA is weeks behind NY? MA had its first cases in the last week of Feb, and NY was about same. One of the sites I use shows the growth as of the 20th case, and MA is only 3 days behind NY. Oh, and I wasn't trying to link to an article, rather my response to your error-filled critique of Pueyo.

Not unless you expect a big move up in prices. Steep contango creates a built-in loss for commodity etfs through what's known as the roll yield. For example, the value of USO is derived from its purchase of futures on oil, the contracts closest to expiration. Before the contracts expire, the etf managers have to sell (so as not to take delivery) and then buy the next month contracts. In contango, your selling price is less than your buying price--the fund is selling futures low and buying high, creating a "negative roll yield." As that eats away at the value of the underlying assets, it also eats away at the price of the etf, unless you have a bunch uninformed investors piling in, which can temporarily push the price above underlying value...So, if you see "professionals" hyping USO or other oil etfs when the markets in contango, be wary...

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Yes, it's all the media's fault. Otherwise, Trump has handled this just hugely...and the ratings on his press conferences are through the roof!

Maybe he should've taken it seriously a month ago...

No. Futures prices are in a steep "contango," which means the current price is less than the future price to such an extent that it more than covers the cost of storage. That means you can make a risk-free profit by buying oil today and storing it tankers--banks and hedge funds do this. When the above ground storage runs out, and financial traders can't take advantage of this any longer, the Saudis will be forced to reduce pumping and meet the "real" demand for oil.

That's saying a lot, because Hughes had a very good game too.

He's a good player, but not a great player. If @Virgil is right, they offered him what they thought he was worth, especially for a player who will get less snaps than Oliver.

I thought he was the best DL in the playoff game, but that's just my opinion man...

I should've linked to this response instead of repeated things. Maybe you missed it...it's on that page at least

Maybe this was already posted, but shows how kids on spring break most likely spread it It also says a lot about the surveillance state...

It's not clear what you are suggesting--the infection rate is less than what's been reported? Are you suggesting it was so rampant yet only 20% of the passengers got it? If we just wash our hands, all would be well? As for consistency, I've had the same argument the entire time. 1. If we acted like this was the flu and went around doing business as usual, then the pandemic would overwhelm the healthcare system raising the CFR to 3-5 times, as in Italy, Spain, France et al, where you seemed to think only Italy was an "outlier." You also suggested Switzerland provided some counter example to Pueyo? Still think so? This is what all of the extreme forecasts were based upon. However... 2. The spread and CFR are dependent on how extreme the measures are that are used to combat this. Original estimates of extreme numbers were based on the R0 of 2-3 and 1% CFR, assuming NO extreme measures like social distancing. If social distancing is used, then the numbers drop dramatically. I don't think this is too hard to understand. This is what Pueyo suggested, by using the "hammer" you can slow the spread, bringing down the R0 to under 1. He thought two weeks would do it. I think he's being too optimistic. Most of you were bitching and moaning about Cuomo's fairly quick--and what seemed "extreme" at the time--response to this, calling it media hysteria and hype. Do you really think NYC will be back to "normal" soon? I can't wait for season 2....

In case anyone needed a sports fix...the games are long...

Yes, and it shows you the power of "social distancing," since everyone was confined to their cabin. What do you think would've happened if they didn't do that and went "back to business as usual"?

And on the good news front..

Yes, Deblasio's actions in NYC are just like Trump's on a national scale, they were both more concerned about the economy, underestimating how serious this would be. People leaving NYC was minor compared to spring break, much like mardi gras as you said. And all those breakers went back to their respective states. There's a nice little piece using cell phone data showing the impact from spring break and where they all went back.

I assume sarcasm. Data from the Diamond Princess found that the asymptomatic cases were a minimum of 18%, but probably higher since the sample consisted disproportionately of older people. Why do you think estimates of the impact were so extreme, even with a CFR of 1%? Because the R0 of 2.5 - 3 combined with a relatively high number who don't show symptoms at all, or for at least 5-7 days. Without extreme measures of social distancing, a large % of the population would get it. We're about to see how being lackadaisical about the policy impacts FL. That, and I'll say it again, you mentioned "culture" as a factor influencing the spread, and I totally agree with you. We are a nation with a large % of selfish A$$holes who don't care if they get it, and would rather continue partying. Sorry, but there's no ***** way we "get back to work" next month. Maybe by June... As for Mass vs NY, over the past 2 days, new cases in MA increased by about 2,000, and in MY 15,000, despite the "faster growth rate" in MA. The virus is getting everywhere eventually. That's not an excuse for how the governor responds either. And, allowing spring breakers to party was the biggest influence of all.

Should they worry more about a 30% growth on a base of 4,000, or a 20% growth on a base of 50,000? Or, are you assuming the faster growth will continue?