Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 560 posts

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#101

Post by moralestapia »

caconym_ wrote: post #95
moralestapia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there would already be much more deaths than there is now Why? People can be sick for quite some time (in this case, a month, maybe?) and then ultimately die from the disease, this is actually like ... the most common scenario ... I have been unpleasantly surprised by how much people struggle to understand this simple concept. Recovered / (recovered+death) is how you do it. It's common sense, come on ...

Since we are in early days and it probably takes longer to recover than to die of it, and the reporting of infections and recoveries and deaths coming out of China is likely undercounting all three due to different systematic factors, I think it's too early for the results of that formula to be taken at face value. In the end, when everything is tallied up, sure. But in the meantime, in the presence of so much uncert…

I agree with you that the correct answer is "we have to wait more".

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#102

Post by adnzzzzZ »

stone-monkey wrote: post #87
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first comment I've made on this forum about China, so whoever you're speaking to is clearly not me but a collective "you" instead. Responding as myself, I simply added balance to the comment above me. Many people are making the exact same argument the person I responded to is making, and while that argument isn't false, it's clearly misleading. China does get credit for responding to the situation as they…

> However, we must remember that the situation would likely not have occurred in the first place if the people speaking out about it early on weren't punished, which wouldn't happen in most western countries as local governments have way less power and way less incentives to make that kind of thing happen. I'm not saying the Chinese government doesn't have problems, nor am I saying free speech is bad, but I have no i…

Anti-vaccination advocacy exists because some kids do get problems from vaccines. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but it's an inherent feature of how vaccines work that a very small percentage of kids will have some serious things happen as a result of being vaccinated. When you have a big population and the Internet, this small percentage of parents will logically come together to cope with their problems. The fact that those people exist and they can talk about it is evidence that our system is working, not that it isn't.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#103

Post by FooBarWidget »

totalZero wrote: post #75
cambalache wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. If it takes time to act it is because the system causes this failure. If the government acts swiftly, it is because they are in panic. If it does not solve the situation, of course because they have a terrible oppressive culture. If the problem is fixed. Of course, because these are one of the few advantages of having an authoritarian system. No matter what…

I think the point is that the Chinese government didn't act swiftly, arrested people who initially spread information about the disease in Wuhan, failed to contain the situation, and has now allowed it to become a global problem. Due to the way China's government has lied in the past, I am hesitant to believe their numbers or their narrative until it can be confirmed by outside parties.

Then does the fact that they're responding much more quickly and much more heavily this time mean nothing at all?

You say "didn't act swiftly". What is swift to you? A month went by since the first case before they started getting their act together, true, but how quickly do you think other nations could have acted? Compared to SARS, where it took them months, 1 month is a major improvement. It's still not good enough because the virus is that ruthless, but Rome isn't built in one day. I have reason to believe that they've learned a great deal from how SARS was handled, and that they'll respond even better in a future outbreak event.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#104

Post by ALittleLight »

jmnicolas wrote: post #61
ALittleLight wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> because of the huge downside of being wrong, that's not a great pattern to follow. Except worry, there's nothing I can do to protect myself now. I will really worry if and when there will be a couple hundred deaths in 2 or 3 cities in my country (if i was living in China I would be worried). Before that it's just one more sad news that I try to not think too much about or I would live in a constant state of gloom a…

This is a somewhat different argument than the parent comment. The parent comment, as I read it, says that news of the virus is sensationalized. This says it's below your current threshold to act.

When you should take actions to mitigate risks depends on where you are and what resources you have available and what else you are dealing with. Where I am, we have had one case of the virus and I expect we have an above average amount of people recently in China.

I find it quite comforting to read about the virus so I can understand it and take steps to mitigate what I think are the likely risks. Reading the advice of medical experts has helped me take what I hope are sensible precautions and develop a good strategy for what to do if something bad happens with my family.

I have gathered enough food for my household to eat for a month, some water, stocked our medicine cabinet with things that are useful for dealing with the symptoms of the virus, a couple boxes of N95 surgical masks, and, maybe a bit more out there - I've got a pulse oximeter and a stethoscope and I've practiced listening to normal lung sounds and made sure I can use the oximeter.

If the virus sets in where I am, my household will shelter in place and stay inside. If we get sick we will stay home, since I know hospitals can't do more than treat the symptoms and going to hospitals will expose you to other pathogens including pneumonia which seems to kill many people with the virus. I will use the oximeter to detect a drop in blood oxygen of any sick person which is an indicator of pneumonia as a signal that home care is insufficient and then we'll strap on our masks and safety goggles and go to the hospital.

If the viruses doesn't materialize then we'll eat the food in the stockpile and I'll have spent only a small sum on things that aren't likely to be useful.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#105

Post by jmnicolas »

norrius wrote: post #50
jmnicolas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Given what appears to be exponential growth, the calculation seems to ignore potential future deaths in the currently known cases. Pardon the morbidity and cynicism, but maybe some of these 14628 people haven't had the time to die yet? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare deaths (305) to the number of people successfully recovered (348 as per the same page)? This gives the survivability rate of 53%, which does…

I'm pretty sure you die faster than you can recover from this thing. So we should see a better deaths / recoveries ratio in the coming weeks.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#106

Post by Aperocky »

jmnicolas wrote: post #33
wwwtyro wrote: post #2

Here'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).

Now, it's too early to say if survivability rate is as high, but here's an observation:

In the rest of China, D/C count is 40/10000, however, in Wuhan, it is 240/4000. Which essentially means Wuhan patients are 12 times as likely to die. A simpler explanation would be Wuhan hospitals has been overwhelmed and there are actually ~12 times as many patients there.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#107

Post by toomuchtodo »

capableweb wrote: post #64
tlrobinson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's mandatory, but I suspect "a lot of people" means "pretty much everyone" right now.

I see. So you wouldn't literally "stuck" right? You can still go out, it's not like martial law or something like that.

I would not be surprised how quickly things might turn from "mandatory home quarantine strongly recommended" to "mandatory home quarantine enforced by military force". This is China after all. If you decide to stay, be prepared.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#108

Post by TheNorthman »

totalZero wrote: post #75
cambalache wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that China can only make wrong in your eyes. If it takes time to act it is because the system causes this failure. If the government acts swiftly, it is because they are in panic. If it does not solve the situation, of course because they have a terrible oppressive culture. If the problem is fixed. Of course, because these are one of the few advantages of having an authoritarian system. No matter what…

I think the point is that the Chinese government didn't act swiftly, arrested people who initially spread information about the disease in Wuhan, failed to contain the situation, and has now allowed it to become a global problem. Due to the way China's government has lied in the past, I am hesitant to believe their numbers or their narrative until it can be confirmed by outside parties.

Are there any government whose narrative you trust? It seems to me that never trusting anything a governments because they have once [0] lied is a little extreme. In fact, I'm not sure I can name a country whose government hasn't lied in recent times.

This would then extend to academia as well, since most research is in some way funded by the state.

[0]: I know they have lied more than once. I'm not sure what a more appropriate word would have been.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#109

Post by alasdair_ »

unforeseen9991 wrote: post #90
aswanson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read any "Florida Man" headlines? Florida has no concept of fear.

Yeah, but that's just due to the meth

It’s mostly due to laws that make all police blotters (records of arrests and other incidents) in Florida open to the public immediately (and thus easy for journalists to mine for interesting stories).

Couple that with a huge population and something weird will happen most days.

Re: China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen

#110

Post by taiwanboy »

bitxbit wrote: post #14

They already extended the holidays and I know a lot of manufacturers rely on pre and post Lunar production cycles. We are going to find out what happens when China goes offline which is not going to be pretty. I fully expect some products to run short and prices to double within days. I also think the Chinese govt is trying to throw money at this problem. They got caught mismanaging the epidemic and injecting money i…

At this point, small foreign business operating in China will go out of business due to supply chain shutdown and illiquidity. Mid sized businesses will have a huge one time cost/write off moving operations out of China. Large multinationals will move more parts of Chinese supplies to other countries.

China law blog can put it better than I can: https://www.chinalawblog.com/2020/02/whats-going-to-happen-w...

https://www.chinalawblog.com/2020/01/chinas-coronavirus-and-...

Post reply on HN