Maybe this is demonstrates an immediate consequence of having a people (mainland China, not necessarily HK) that is governed primarily by fear: reactions of extreme subordination, which keep things running "smoothly" under normal conditions, can threaten the whole system to collapse under abnormal conditions.
China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
31–40 of 560 posts
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#32Having lived in Beijing for 9 years, I’m glad I’m not there right now. Not because of a fear of getting sick, but of the sheer boredom of being stuck in my apartment, nowhere to eat, drink, or even walk without an appropriate face mask. Heck, even going to the office is probably off limits right now.
The face masks aren’t especially effective for this disease
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#33Here's a map with the latest coronavirus data: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
According to your link the survivability rate is almost 98% (305 deaths for 14628 cases).
(I'm trying to inject a bit of optimism here, people are so gloomy).
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#34Having lived in Beijing for 9 years, I’m glad I’m not there right now. Not because of a fear of getting sick, but of the sheer boredom of being stuck in my apartment, nowhere to eat, drink, or even walk without an appropriate face mask. Heck, even going to the office is probably off limits right now.
> being stuck in my apartment, nowhere to eat, drink, or even walk without an appropriate face mask As someone who never been there (or in China for that matter), is "face mask" a synonym for something or you mean literally a face mask? Don't think it's mandatory to wear face masks, just that a lot of people do it, right? If someone knows better, please correct me
I don't know if it's mandatory, but I suspect "a lot of people" means "pretty much everyone" right now.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
deaths are absolutely the wrong metric to focus on at this point. as you said, the normal flu is plenty deadly. even if we assumed that variable was break-even, what matters now is the rate of infection transmission and growth. right now it is still exponential. we can only hope for the bend in a sigmoid curve to come soon, but we haven't seen it yet. now on top of the fact that it is still exponential is the greates…
> what matters now is the rate of infection transmission and growth I don't think it's the right metric to focus either. The survivability rate once infected is probably the most important. I believe that medias business model (pay per click) force them to jump on and exaggerate any threat so as to get more views. It's not the first time and sadly not the last that we see such a thing. I could be wrong but I don't th…
Survivability is important but I believe it's a component of what is important, not the only or even most important factor. You must also consider the infectivity rate.
If one infected person infects, on average, less than one other person, the disease will dwindle and die. It could kill 100% of infected people, but it would kill only a small and decreasing number over time.
Conversely, an infectious disease, where one infected person will infect three others on average, will spread quickly. Even if this disease has a more modest fatality rate, suppose it kills only 5% of infected, it could wind up killing tens of millions, if not more.
In this case, I think the mainstream media is actually understating the danger, by comparing it to the flu to suggest it's not so bad, pointing out how SARS was worse, or claiming that concerns over nCoV are inspired by xenophobia. The academic and medical sources I've been reading tell of high infectivity rates, that it's contagious while asymptomatic, that China is underreporting infections and death, and so on.
You're right that this is probably not the end of the world. This is probably not going to be a major epidemic like The Spanish Flu. However, most potential risks don't materialize. If, for any potential risk, you assume it won't happen, you'll usually be right, but, because of the huge downside of being wrong, that's not a great pattern to follow.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, then do you think everyone should just open up and start travelling again?
I wouldn't travel to China now, but I wouldn't hesitate to travel anywhere else in the world (I'll gladly accept any donations to prove my point ;-)
I'd even happily travel to china.
My worry would be the risk of being stuck somewhere when my planned transport is cancelled rather than being infected and dying.
300 deaths out of over a billion people is nothing.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#37> It will do the exact opposite. Hasn’t the Chinese government been doing this for years in one form or another to artificially stimulate the market?
I don't understand this obsession with "artificial" stimulus. If the economy naturally grows at 2% a year, but "artificial" stimulus causes it to grow at 3% a year, why wouldn't you do it? It's like refusing to get vaccines because they are unnatural.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#38> It will do the exact opposite. Hasn’t the Chinese government been doing this for years in one form or another to artificially stimulate the market?
Not at this level and this is effectively the gov’t signaling a “bank run” in my view.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will happen 17th?
according to various models the infection rate should shift from exponential growth to an s-curve function where growth rapidly falls off, the first stage of containment, somewhere around the 15th. the 17th is the monday after that, so many schools and business and cities are planning for everyone to just stay home until the 17th (at least).
Couldn't that thinking be flawed, though? I mean, it's only not exponential now because of effective containment. You have to maintain containment until the disease no longer exists. If you don't do that, and the disease exists, then the virus will spread exponentially as soon as containment stops.
It seems to me that the "various models" assume the non-existence of containment attempts. In that case, you have to be careful you're not drawing the wrong conclusions.
Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen
#40> It will do the exact opposite. Hasn’t the Chinese government been doing this for years in one form or another to artificially stimulate the market?
The entire world has been doing it for the last decade, and there’s been another uptick recently. The US recently resumed buying treasuries. This is not isolated to China.