Tag Archives: COVID-19

Alameda County revises COVID-19 death toll down by 25%

Posted on by

According to the County of Alameda:

Using the older definition of COVID-19 deaths, a resident who had COVID-19 but died due to another cause, like a car accident, this person would be included in the total number of reported COVID-19 deaths for Alameda County. Under the updated definition of COVID-19 deaths, this person would not be included in the total because COVID-19 was not a contributing factor in the death.

With much discussion on public trust, it is possible to suspend judgement but still ask about the timing of this decision and announcement? The County states, “aligning with the State’s definition will require Alameda County to report as COVID-19 deaths only those people who died as a direct result of COVID-19.” Why wasn’t this a discussion during the highest period of impact during the pandemic? See the full press release here.

Consumer Price Index – Inflation as Expected

Posted on by

As expected, the CPI news release (April 2021) today shows significant inflation, as that has been the anecdote from almost everywhere. The surprise is just how much and how fast:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.8 percent in April on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 0.6 percent in March, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 4.2 percent before seasonal adjustment. This is the largest 12-month increase since a 4.9-percent increase for the period ending September 2008.

Pent up and bottlenecked economy

The question is why this pace of increase or does this signal long-term problems. The most immediate causes relate to the re-opening of the economy. From MarketWatch:

The pace of inflation has surged after years of languishing at unusually low levels largely due to the rapid reopening of the U.S. economy.

Businesses can’t keep up in demand, a problem exacerbated by ongoing bottlenecks in the global trading system tied to the pandemic. Computer chips are especially in short supply and that’s held up production of new autos and other manufactured goods.

Americans are also rushing to dine out, travel or go far away for vacation, activities they shied away from during the pandemic. That’s also driving up prices at popular vacation resorts and other venues where people plan to congregate.

The first two reasons are pretty straightforward, but the third reason (pent up demand) is beyond question, even if this one is the most difficult to measure as it’s anecdotal and not enirely precise but we all observe it – everywhere is packed with people looking to get out and do something, anything. But the impacts are real and tangible as seen in the BLS data:

See full interactive (and drillable detail) here.

When Stocks Only Go Up?

Posted on by

Spoiler alert to the Wall Street Journal post, What Happens When Stocks Only Go Up – they don’t. But far more interesting than the impossibility of predicting a major correction, whether this time it’s really different, or some other alternative, is the exploration into the psychology of the investor (or trader):

In February 2020, before the pandemic had fully hit home, these investors estimated the odds of such a bear market at an average of only 4%. By April, just after the S&P 500 had fallen by one third, their expectations that the market would plunge again in the coming year nearly doubled to 8%.

Those fears swiftly faded. By last December, investors in the Vanguard survey estimated the probability of another crash in the ensuing 12 months at only 5%. That was slightly lower than their average estimate during the three years before the pandemic.

But one group was different:

…those who went into early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020 than those who had been expecting lower returns.

Again, not necessarily by way of prediction but a historical account of the madness of the crowds that should at least give pause, “in the 1920s, a “new era” of technological disruption made caution look absurd—until stocks crashed by 89%.”

Zoom CEO: “I have Zoom Fatigue”

Posted on by

Well over a year into this, the comments in the Wall Street Journal are sad, perplexing, and give pause to what we have done all at the same time:

After more than a year of working virtually during the pandemic, executives in banking and technology are pushing back on the idea that workers should be able to do their jobs entirely from home in the coming months. Though some said they expect more flexible work arrangements to endure going forward, they say there are clear signs of burnout in an era of nonstop video calls.

Eric Yuan, the CEO of Zoom, told a virtual audience of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit Tuesday that he had personally experienced Zoom fatigue. On one day last year, he said he had 19 Zoom meetings in a row.

The post goes on to report that, “like many companies, Zoom is planning an eventual return to its offices,” phasing in on-site work. The inquiry really should be what is holding these firms back? Many CEOs like that of JPMorgan have observed what anyone over the age of 50 knows:

Remote work doesn’t work well for generating new ideas, preserving corporate culture and competing for clients—or “for those who want to hustle,” Mr. Dimon said, adding he has been back in the office for months. 

The technology is wonderful, and for working on specific projects that require a shared document or dataset, Zoom, Teams, et. al., work exceedingly well. But you cannot replicate the energy of face to face collaboration, and I think our culture would do well re-thinking some of what we have done over the last year. 

What a difference a year makes

Posted on by

While the Fed continues its stimulus through low rates and bond buying, optimistic news continues as reflected in the following (and practically everywhere) which raises questions about the path forward:

Kelly, D. (2021, April 19). Economic Update. J.P. Morgan Asset Management. https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/market-updates/economic-update/ 
Khan, K. (2021, April 23). Goldman Sachs says U.S. economic growth is peaking. SeekingAlpha. https://seekingalpha.com/news/3685126-goldman-sachs-says-us-economic-growth-is-peaking
Cox, J. (2021, April 23). The Fed is unlikely to hint at policy changes next week, even with a stronger economy. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/the-fed-is-unlikely-to-hint-at-policy-change-despite-stronger-economy.html
Tepper, T., & Curry, B. (2021, April 16). 2021 April FOMC Meeting Preview: The Fed Remains On Guard. Forbes Advisor. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/fomc-meeting-federal-reserve/

Of course those articles that were suggesting no action yesterday were right per the concensus. But the question remains for economists and investors: how much good news (and at what rate of recovery) is too much? As quoted in Reuters, “we do feel that a higher inflation reading this year and in 2022 will prove to be not transitory, that the Fed will hit that 2% threshold and above, if not even higher, on a more sustained basis. So that’s where I think we would be on the side of disagreeing with Chairman Powell, that we think inflation is going to gain a toehold.”

Fed Chair Transcript: No Changes for Now

Posted on by

As somewhat expected, the transcript from the Fed Chair today indicated no expected change to rates or bond buying activity in the immediate future. This prompts questions from economists regarding how long this can last given the good news that continues to emerge. For instance:

Economists think a decision to taper is months away although a minority think the Fed might start discussing the issue in June. Fed officials have said they want to see “substantial further progress” in meeting their goals of full employment and 2% inflation before tapering.

The post goes one to cite the recurring themes of optimism, inflation and pandemic risks as potential drivers for a change in policy.

Chair Powell reiterated that, “the FOMC and I kept interest rates near zero and maintained our sizable asset purchases. These measures, along with our strong guidance on interest rates and on our balance sheet, will ensure that monetary policy will continue to deliver powerful support to the economy until the recovery is complete.” Again, no surprise, but he continues, “while the recovery has progressed more quickly than generally expected, it remains uneven and far from complete.” 

But one brief comment also describes some of the most felt implications of Federal and local policy decisions (and recovery):

The economic downturn has not fallen equally on all Americans, and those least able to shoulder the burden have been the hardest hit. In particular, the high level of joblessness has been especially severe for lower-wage workers in the service sector.

In conclusion, the Fed will:

Continue to increase our holdings of Treasury securities by at least $80 billion per month and of agency mortgage-backed securities by at least $40 billion per month until substantial further progress has been made toward our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.

Which will in turn extend the trend of low interest rates, housing prices and asset inflation of all kinds.

Updated CDC Mask Guidelines

Posted on by

The CDC has updated its official guidelines (for April 27, 2021) on masks for those fully vaccinated (as well as a few for those who are not). The following are noted in the update:

  • Clarification that fully vaccinated workers no longer need to be restricted from work following an exposure as long as they are asymptomatic.
  • Fully vaccinated residents of non-healthcare congregate settings no longer need to quarantine following a known exposure.
  • Fully vaccinated asymptomatic people without an exposure may be exempted from routine screening testing, if feasible.

The good, better, best scenarios are shown in the partial infographic:

This is great news, but it was just four weeks prior that we read CDC Director Fears ‘Impending Doom’ and the CDC was still recommending the vaccinated to wear masks in public. I think most would not question the sincerity of such concerns or the excellent news of current progress – but what many have questioned for over a year: accuracy of what appear to be contradictory guidelines. Consider the following on the same page. A fully vaccinated people can:

  • Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
  • Visit with unvaccinated people (including children) from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
  • Refrain from testing following a known exposure, if asymptomatic, with some exceptions for specific settings
  • Refrain from quarantine following a known exposure if asymptomatic
  • Refrain from routine screening testing if asymptomatic and feasible

The Future of Self-Driving Cars – Designed Around People (132 years later)

Posted on by

Although the deployment of a number of technologies may have been delayed due to the pandemic, others may accelerate as a result of it. Just as the pandemic and lockdown removed the barrier (now 20 years into the 21st Century!) for paperless workflow in the office, remote meetings, remote work, education disruption, etc., others may be demanded and accepted for a number of reasons and preferences in a post-pandemic world as noted in the Wall Street Journal:

“Over the last 100 years you can’t really say the car was designed around the people; they got what space was left over”…

…As the auto industry contemplates the impact of technology—from electric cars, internet connectivity, and ultimately vehicles that drive themselves—designers are reinventing the interior of the automobile and how its passengers experience the ride. One doesn’t have to imagine some fantastic future with Jetsons-like inventions zipping around on the ground and in the air because the future is already on the drawing boards of car makers today.

What is most striking in these automobile innovations (and very consistent with the unfolding of the whole pandemic response) is the great reversal that cars now represent as a “safe space.” This of course is it due to both the inherent risk of traveling as well as the potential inconvenience of protracted wait times (or potentially getting stranded). So traveling within a large state such as California, people may simply choose to use their cars. The “oasis” concept revolves around the eventual full engagement of self-driving vehicles, technology with “head up” screens and embeded within the window, space utilization for sleeping, and ride-hailing/self-parking, all designed to prividing to create a viable and formitable competitor to air travel.

Again, what is most interesting is that these concepts are not new, but the demand may entirely shift due to the realities of a post-pandemic world. See the full WSJ post here.

First 100 days after shelter-in-place – where are we now?

Posted on by

Today markes the 100th day since the shelter-in-place in the northern California Bay Area, with some interesting reflections in The San Francisico Chronicle on what happened – and going forward:

Wednesday will mark 100 days since shelter-in-place orders were issued on March 17. Experts believe the move prevented thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of infections. It kept hospitals from being overrun and gave cities and counties precious time to learn about this new virus and mount a defense against it.

But more than 500 Bay Area residents died of COVID-19 in that time. More than 18,000 tested positive. And the coronavirus that drove millions of people into isolation remains as sinister and unpredictable now as it was 100 days ago. What’s changed over the past three months is not the virus, but the way the Bay Area lives with it.

…No one in public health really expected [three weeks] would be enough time to suppress the virus and let life resume as normal — but few predicted that 14 weeks later there would be no end in sight to this pandemic.

What is most remarkable is that many experts believe “the world is going to be cozy with this virus for a long while…coronavirus is still here…it’s probably far more widespread now than it was in March,”  which certainly gives pause to the last three and a half months. It is further interesting to note that the shelter orders were self described as a “draconian strike,” with profound consequences:

But understanding that their decision would have profound repercussions was not the same as watching those effects play out, said Louise Rogers, chief of San Mateo County Health.

…I didn’t really have a full understanding of how deeply impacted so many people would be, and how much it would reveal some of the deep systemic issues that already exist in society – the inequalities and the disproportionate effects.

See the full post here.

WSJ: A question of purpose as many go back to work

Posted on by

Purpose, satisfaction, and relevance have been ongoing topics of discussion in a workplace that has changed over the last several decades but is especially felt in our present time as the Wall Street Journal points out:

Companies may have to address the angst some workers feel about their relevance and the purpose behind their jobs. Decades of research show people crave a sense of purpose to feel motivated at work. Without the coffee dates, meetings and camaraderie of time with colleagues, “you’re left with the work itself,” and if the work starts to feel wanting, it can lead to painful reckonings.

It is probably not a stretch to say that everyone has had extended, contemplative stretches of time as many (if not most) of us have had more time on our hands (even those working) than in our entire adult lives, and it would appear rotating back into the workplace is more abrupt than expected:

“Purpose” has been invoked in recent years by business leaders and employees, who say they want their careers to have meaning broader than the bottom line. Companies have embraced the term as they recruit young employees, casting their work and mission as solving important problems.

In addition to several suggestions, I would add don’t miss this unique opportunity, while it is still fresh in our minds, to contemplate why and how we are not meant to be isolated. See the full post here.

COVID-19: Ioannidis vs. Taleb (International Institute of Forecasters)

Posted on by

The International Institute of Forecasters facilitated a very interesting discussion in the form of two scholarly blog posts – COVID-19: Ioannidis vs. Taleb, Learning from the positions of Nassim N. Taleb and John P. Ioannidis in the COVID-19 debate. The idea of this match up of differing views from such profound thinkers is literally brilliant. The setting is what may be the closest thing we have seen of an old fashioned discourse. Pardon me for being old fashioned but actual, respectful dialogue and discourse is what is desperately needed in our present time and has been missing for decades. How much more do we need such a thing in an age where many of our national and international challenges have taken on a complexity due to the natural order of progress, technology and globalization. From the introduction page:

“Two…voices have been highly visible in the public debate, with seemingly diverging opinions. I am thinking here of John P. Ioannidis and Nassim N. Taleb (arguably two of the greatest living thinkers) holding opposing views about how to deal with the present pandemic and its potentially destructive consequences.

…Nassim N. Taleb believes that all efforts and resources should be directed to halt its spread and reduce the number of infected and deaths without any concern about forecasting its future course as the uncertainty of doing so cannot be measured and the risks involved are highly asymmetric. John P. Ioannidis, on the other hand, claims that more reliable information is needed to make multiple billion-dollar decisions and that forecasting has failed us by being too pessimistic about the future growth of the pandemic and by exaggerating its negative effects.

…This debate will not only allow us to better understand the points of view of the two great thinkers but be also left as a guide for how to deal with future pandemics.”

I would only take issue with the comment, billion-dollar decisions, since we are already well north of multi-trillion dollar decisions. Of the two positions, Taleb remains consistent with his central theme for more than a decade, namely, the profound consequences of risk versus upside benefits, and this is only amplified in pandemics, where he states they “represent existential risk.” In other words, survive now:

“Science is a procedure to update knowledge; it can be wrong provided it produces interesting discussions that lead to more discoveries…for matters that have systemic effects and/or entail survival, the asymmetry is even more pronounced.”

Ioannidis, on the other hand, has been one of the few critics of our nation and the world being put on “horror-alert,” with models that he states have:

“Failed when they used more speculation and theoretical assumptions and tried to predict long-term outcomes, e.g. using early SIR-based models to predict what would happen in the entire season.”

One note that I frequently see as both a criticism and straw man argument against Ioannidis that is worth mentioning: he is clearly not saying to do nothing, or that COVID-19 is trivial. He opens his post with the following, “COVID-19 is a major acute crisis with unpredictable consequences.” Later he and his colleagues state, “a doomsday forecast may come handy to protect civilization, when and if calamity hits. However, even then, we have little evidence that aggressive measures which focus only on few dimensions of impact actually reduce death toll and do more good than harm.” See introductory post here, Taleb here, Ioannidis here.

Epidemic Forecasting Challenge: Human Behavior

Posted on by

It is interesting to search and review older articles (looking for pre-COVID perspective) and realize how long we have been discussing these topics that have monopolized our current discussions in the last six months. In The Journal of Infectious Diseases, a study from 2016, Epidemic Forecasting is Messier Than Weather Forecasting: The Role of Human Behavior and Internet Data Streams in Epidemic Forecast, the authors explore the challenges of forecasting the spread of epidemics and compare and contrast with the progress of weather modeling.

The authors note in the abstract:

In the past 3 decades, the weather forecasting community has made significant advances in data collection, assimilating heterogeneous data steams into models and communicating the uncertainty of their predictions to the general public. Epidemic modelers are struggling with these same issues in forecasting the spread of emerging diseases.

Sound familiar? Here’s why, “epidemic models rely on human interactions, multiple data sources such as clinical surveillance and Internet data, and environmental or biological factors that can change the pathogen dynamics.” This reminds me of the hasty rush to a positive affirmation of test and trace (which I would not argue against) but could prove fraught with problems associated with the many and variegated variables of human behavior, requisite cooperation, and potentially unknown interactions (such as if asymptomatic superspreaders prove as accurate as is being posited). On this side point, I am not arguing against the activity of test and trace as it may be the best option we have, but the declaration of its success, given the myriad of unknowns.

The authors make a very interesting observation given what we, the entire world have experienced in the last six months, with some profound policy decisions that have been ostensibly driven by data:

Epidemic forecasting is still in its infancy and is a growing field with great potential. The challenges for accurate epidemic forecasting include data availability and emergent changes in human behavior and pathogens.

They conclude with this hopeful note which could prove prescient from four years ago, as phones and data have only increased, “there will be a parallel world, similar to that for weather forecasting, where billions of sensors will be uploading real-time information to obtain personalized disease forecasts.” Full study found here.