Agree. Very nice set of papers from @sma3.
I've been going through the NEJM paper and have some clarifying questions about the oxygen support figures. From a high level perspective, this detail doesn't matter, but I do try to understand various figures.
With respect to invasive/non-invasive mechanical/non-mechanical ventilation, the NEJM study seems to characterize ventilators as invasive mechanical, and ECMOs ("similar to the heart-lung by-pass machine used in open-heart surgery") as invasive non-mechanical ventilation.
So of the total 34 patients receiving invasive ventilation, it appears that 30 were on ventilators and 4 on ECMOs. That's out of the 53 that completed the study.
The text talks about "a decrease of at least 2 points from baseline on a modified ordinal scale (as recommended by the WHO R&D Blueprint Group) ... The six-point scale consists of the following categories: 1, not hospitalized; 2, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 3, hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 4, hospitalized, requiring nasal high-flow oxygen therapy, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or both; 5, hospitalized, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, ECMO, or both; and 6, death."
Looking at Figure 1, first column (invasive oxygen support at baseline), I see "only" 16 patients (48%) dropping at least two points. So I'm puzzled by this line in the post above: "They were able to reduce their oxygen requirements by 2 steps ( from ventilator to nasal oxygen for example) in 56 % of patients which implies that they are getting much better."
The paper also describes a finer granularity of oxygen support, including "low-flow oxygen, nasal high-flow oxygen, [and] noninvasive positive pressure ventilation [NIPPV]", Perhaps sma3 is using another scale where high-flow oxygen and NIPPV are counted as separate levels. If so, it would help to see what that scale looks like.
None of this changes the generally positive results reported in the paper. I'm just trying to understand the definitions and numbers.

...but it is still expensive.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1370177/000139834420008148/fp0053131_497.htm
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund
Institutional Share Class
(Ticker Symbol RNCIX)
April 17, 2020
SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS DATED
January 28, 2020
The RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund Institutional Share Class to Reduce Initial Minimum Investment Amount.
On April 6, 2020 the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of RiverNorth Funds approved a change to the initial minimum investment amount for the Institutional Share Class for the RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”). Effective on April 24, 2020, the minimum initial investment amount for the Fund’s Institutional Share Class (ticker RNCIX) will reduce from $5,000,000 to $100,000.
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
c/o ALPS Fund Services, Inc.
1290 Broadway, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80203
1-888-848-7569
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

I assume that the studies will have enough patients in them so eventually we will have lots of data on effectiveness on patients in hospital. I do not know what egibility criteria they are using to add a patient to the study; presumably on assisted ventilation ( ie at least BiPap) or significant oxygenation or other measures of severity but if they are smart they have included patietns in early stages to see if it prevents deterioration
Keep in mind thought that even if it is extremely effective and say reduces mortality or deterioration by 50% it will not stop transmission or new cases. People will still be worried about getting sick and the still increased ( if lower) risk of death.
Thus a wildly successful drug may lessen the panic and fear, but may not do as much to reopen things as people will still be worried about getting sick
I very much doubt Hydroxychloroquine will do much, but we will know more shortly.
Several small better studies than the one Trump touts have shown little to some smaller benefits
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3
But we need to know all of data definitions and how studies were done. For example in latter study what does "improved pneumonia" mead? Did the doctors who read the patients xrays know the patient was taking hydroxychloroquine?
These are standard protocols that must be followed if we are to have confidence these drugs will be effective.
Without this is as if Trump had decided that Boeing had "done enough" to fix the Max 737, certified it to fly by presidential edict and told the FAA to stop the investigation.
Who would get on such an aircraft?

I have a background in clinical epidemiology and research design and have followed all this carefully.
Better data is published from the compassionate use study in the NEJM
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
It seems the folks were appropriate for compassionate use... that is they were doing very poorly 34 were on ventilators and 3 on heart lung bypass machines
The available studies from China and Italy and Seattle have different criteria for hospital admission so I looked just at the patients on ventilators from their studies. . They also mix in "non invasive mechanical ventilation" which is hard to tell what that means without digging thru the supplements, presumably BiPap.
Of the patients on ventilators in Redesivir study the mortality thus far is 18% ( 6 of 34) but only 24% ( 8 of 34) are out of the hospital so 58% are still hospitalized. So highest mortality if all remaining in hospital died would be 76%
They were able to reduce their oxygen requirements by 2 steps ( from ventilator to nasal oxygen for example) in 56 % of patients which implies that they are getting much better
There are very few studies I have seen to compare.
Seattle ventilator patients https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763485
had 67% mortality with 24% still "critically ill" ( so possibly up to 91% dead) but these patients had more comorbidities ( 85% vs 68% with one coexisting condition, and 10% organ transplants, 42% heart failure, and 10% on dialysis. I doubt patients this sick were considered for compassionate use.
Wuhan https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext
had 31/32 patients who needed ventilators die and 24/26 patients who needed non invasive mechanical ventilation die. This is a general population and maybe more comparable to Remdisivir
To compare Redesivir and Wuhan numbers, let us assume the only survivors are those currently discharged ( and none of them go on to die), and anyone left in hospital at time of publication dies, AND THAT WUHAN AND USA PATIENTS AND HOSPITAL ARE SIMILAR
Comparing 8/34 survivors (Redesivir) vs 3/58 (Wuhan) or 24% survival vs 5%.
The chi-square statistic is 11.139. The p-value is .000845. Significant at p < .05.
But this is a very very marginal way to determine health policy!!! This is why we need controlled trial in the same institution. We need to know if the patients are similar, and even if they are, the controls should be chosen at the same time as the treatment group , chosen in a randomized fashion and in the same country and health system. I doubt any of us would want to rely on a drug that was proven to work only in Wuhan China. The opposite should be true.
Hopefully we will not get to the point where like Hydroxychloroquine,no o ne will want to participate in such a study, fearing they will not get a life saving drug. Consequently this type of study should be the only way this drug is available.

@msf If you look at the original article, this was from a phase 3 trial. But yes, it's only one small part of that trial, so Gilead is correctly saying it's promising but too soon to be sure.
Poking around a bit further, it seems that even if it works, they could produce a million doses by the end of the year.
That wouldn't be enough to end this pandemic, though it would save a lot of lives.
Seems to me the market is betting that something is on the way, whether this drug or something else or a comob, so the end is in sight.

This sounds Promising but the report is only anecdotal at this point. We need to see the full results from the clinical trials that are ongoing. This is information from one site in Chicago and there are 152 clinical trial sites around the world for this drug. We should learn more in the next couple of weeks.

"The virus is in charge, no economics or the Fed."
Correct.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-hot-spots-farm-belt-189272

Speaking of FEMA.
WA state had the earliest case of COVID19 and should be among the first to try to exit the lockdown. If exiting requires testing for people who are hot and people who are immune, we have a slight problem in my area. It seems FEMA is diverting test equipment to the bridge to nowhere or places unknown. The suspicion is that they are buying with taxpayer dollars, transferring to private industry to maximize the profit for the private on the taxpayer equipment.
https://www.cascadiaweekly.com/cw/currents/feds_divert_medical_supplies_from_peacehealth
This article has some of FEMA's response:
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241884351.html
This, of course, is unrelated to the Fed's dislike for Governor Inslee or such things.

I think the answer to "So who's right?" is it depends.
Here in mid April, there is still no widespread testing available in the U.S.
Aggressive widespread testing (for the virus itself as well as for antibodies) & contact tracing/surveillance would not only start to give control of containing the infection but would also go a long way in boosting confidence in the business world with some semblance on how to proceed going forward. It would definitely be the most cost effective way to do so & with the most surgical precision. And even though this is not a panacea (with false negative viral tests, the unknown at what level of antibody titers actually confer immunity, best treatment options, etc.), at least it's an effective start & a plan of action & can start to address specific issues as they come up. It seems like a logical first step.
Instead this is the white house plans for reopening:
"The plan lays out three phases: Preparing the nation to reopen with a national communication campaign and community readiness assessment until May 1. Then, the effort through May 15 would involve ramping up manufacturing of testing kits and personal protective equipment and increasing emergency funding. Then staged reopenings would begin, depending on local conditions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/14/cdc-fema-have-created-plan-reopen-america-heres-what-it-says/
It's a long way between now & May 15.
"prepare for the best & hope for the best" is probably not the answer.

Good morning. In checking a few things this morning the futures look to be up in Europe and the States ... the options market is sending a cautious bullish signal ... and, the VIX is now down to the mid thirties. I'm still with my thoughts that stocks will be mostly be range bound, but with a slight upward tilt, as we move thorugh most of the summer months. The short volume in the Index was elevated yesterday with a reading in the 70% range of total volume for SPY. Perhaps, today they will do some covering.
I have the Index as of market close 4/15 down -17.8% off its closing 52 week high and up +24.4% from its closing 52 week low. With this, I am not looking for stocks to have the upward surge that they have had the past couple of weeks as things most likely will move more slowly and... hopefully ... upwards as we work our way through Q1 earning season. In checking my source ... S&P is projecting that TTM earnings for the S&P 500 Index will be in the mid 130's. With an earnings yield of 5% this puts the Index with a valuation somewhere around 2700 range. From the 2700 range ... I'm thinking ... we will move upwards with good news and downward with bad. And, by the way, Old_Skeet's market barometer has the Index at fair value on it's scale as I write.
Have a good day ... be safe ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Consider someone working 11 hours a day, leaving 5 hours for personal time, and 8 hours for sleep. That person would not be especially inclined to give up one of those few personal hours for extra pay.
Suppose that nevertheless this person would, for some amount of money, be willing to give up a precious hour. Then the person would be willing to give up that hour for half as much, a quarter, even for minimum wage.
This comes from the assertion that netting less money would not increase the reluctance (decrease the willingness) to work an extra hour.
Now suppose the contrary. That this hardworking person would not be willing to trade that hour for any amount of money. Not for time and a half, not for double pay, not for 10x. Since the reluctance to give up that hour would be absolute, it likewise would not be amplified by netting less money.
Those would seem to exhaust the options. P or not P. Willing to work the extra hour or not willing to. The former suggests that this overworked person would give up another personal hour for peanuts. The latter says that this supposedly hardworking person wouldn't work another hour for a king's ransom.
Speaking for myself, I have a certain nonzero value I place on each hour of my personal time. If someone wants me to do some extra work, I'm going to have to net at least that much to make it worth my while. The more I'm taxed, the more I'm going to have to charge to net that target amount.

yes, the consumer spending thing is going to be brutal for many of the obvious venues, restaurants, dentists, summer camps and the like, orthopedists and dermatologists and similar, and on and on and on.
So no one knows how it will play out; some informed guesses are smarter surely than others.
In 02 I was laid off as a manager from a successfully but then suddenly failing SW startup of many years, and talked right away w an old tech writer friend from an earlier gig who said I think this is going to be a long haul for you (he was employed), and I said, hmm, huh, oh, well.
And so it turned out. I had good contracting work for several years, or good enough, but it was 3y of moderate misery and anxiety, 05, before I got a staff job again, in the same editorial area, though this time DoD proposal work.
My adult kids now, it is interesting, and fearful.
The one who works at a mid-high level for a huge family-owned business centered on international travel and education is still employed but fears for the future, not surprisingly, as the company's business and model are stalling.
Her husband, who works for a local construction PM consulting firm, still has work, onsite at local university, which is closed but proceeding w repairs and rebuilds and such, even some new construction planning.
My other child is a new consultant at the biggest of management consulting firms, and so far he plenty of work, but there are freezes all round.
Finally his wife is a part-time pedi (school) nurse, now repurposed to public-health nurse, so gets to talk to, you know, parents whose kids are CV-positive and ill-ish, but who themselves are asymptomatic --- but test positive, and had been out and about at grocery and pharmacy for the past month. What lies ahead for her is unknown, though perhaps this will prove a lasting slight career shift from pedi to public if schools do not reopen for a year-plus.
And these are all highly fortunate and privileged and count-our-blessings situations. Imagine those for whom little of this applies.
Since income is spending and vice-versa, it will be a long trauma as that cycle grinds down.

This is from the NFCU website tonight:
Certificate Special Offers
Rates effective as of: 15 April, 2020 12:01 AM ET
Product Minimum Deposit Term Dividend Rate APY†
Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate1 $50 37 months 2.96% 3.00%
Special EasyStart℠ Certificate2 $50 12 months 3.44% 3.50%
1Limit one Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated Annual Percentage Yield (APY), is effective December 6, 2019. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. The Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate has a $50 minimum and a $150,000 maximum balance. Only available for IRA/ESA Certificates. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. IRA/ESA certificate subject to IRS contribution limits. Penalties apply for early withdrawals from certificates. Other restrictions may apply.
2Limit one Special EasyStart Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated APY, is effective Dec. 10, 2018. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. Penalty for early withdrawal. The Special EasyStart Certificate has a $50 minimum balance and a $3,000 maximum balance. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. Certificate owner(s) age 18 and older must have Direct Deposit of Net Pay or payroll allotment and a Navy Federal checking account within 90 days of the certificate issue date. If these requirements have not been satisfied by the 90th day, your Special EasyStart Certificate dividend rate will be reduced to the prevailing dividend rate of the standard EasyStart Certificate for the remainder of the certificate's term.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

Have been using ETFs such as MINT & NEAR for cash substitutes for years though after this past Monday, I'm not so sure. They have always been fairly stable. At one point Monday, NEAR fell by over 4%. It was down for over several hours by over 2%. Though by the end of the day, things evened out & was only down by about .24%. Not sure what computer algorithm had that jumping like that. Maybe this has happened before though I'm not typically around my computer watching intra-daily pricing.
Fortunately I was already in the process of moving money over to Navy Federal into this IRA CD. It's a 37 month CD with a 3% APY. $50 minimum to open. $150,000 maximum which you can fund at any time in that period. You do have to be a Navy Federal Credit union member. Talking to a representative, their board typically meets at the end of the month & sets their rates in the first week of the month though they can potentially change things at any time. This time period works well for myself & when I'll need the money. Schwab at this time has 3 yr CDs at 1%. It took about a week & a half to transfer assets from Schwab to Navy Federal. The downside- totally boring. No drama.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

********************************
...Just noticed: the listing which shows each of these two particular "featured" products each carry a footnote. #1 and #2. But the explanation for #2 does not exist, at least it does not exist right THERE, where it might do someone some good. ;)

DERI APRs are now down to 1.75% (under $10K), 1.85% (up to $50K), and 2.00% (over $50K)
https://investors.dominionenergy.com/fixed-income/dominion-energy-reliability-investment/default.aspx
GM Financial Right Notes® are currently paying 2.00%, $500 minimum.
https://www.rightnotes.com/
For something safer, and with a lock on rates, Marcus (Goldman Sachs Bank) is still offering 7 month no penalty CDs ($500 min) at 1.70%.
Marcus just lowered the APY on its savings account from 1.70% to 1.55% today, so the CD rates may not last much longer. They also offer an 11 month no penalty CD at 1.60% and 13 month no penalty CD at 1.50%.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/no-penalty-cds
To see these rates you have to go to the open CD page. The drop down list of CD terms shows you the rates.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/new/account-creation?accountType=NPCD&term=7
Other uninsured notes similar to DERI, offered with lower APYs:
Duke Energy PremierNotes® Investments: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ford Credit Ford Interest Advantage: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ally Financial Demand Notes: 1.16% (< $15K), 1.36% (up to $50K), 1.51% (over $50K)
The Ford page has a link to its rate history, so you can see how rates have been dropping. Though when they first got started in 2017 they were yielding only about 1%.

@MikeM
Why would you use allocation fund with "Trailing Stop Order". The idea is to sell only stocks in a market meltdown while bonds protect you. It depends on the bonds of course. In a real meltdown treasuries are the best. When you sell your stocks you are safe guard your entire portfolio. It depends on what and how you do it.
I also don't like AOM, AOR, AOA as much as SPY because they have much lower volume and that can be a problem in a panic market.

"If you work with an adviser or even if you do things yourself, setting up a portfolio is based on your risk tolerance. So much equity, so much bonds, so much cash. You decide you're comfortable with a 10% loss or a 20% loss, ect... A stop limit order on the portfolio would set that risk or acceptable loss tolerance without emotion. The Blackrock iShare ETFs as far a I can see are the only balanced portfolio ETFs that can execute this idea."

Can you explain how you do it using the BlackRock iShares allocation funds, AOM, AOR, AOA that you posted at the top?
Suppose you want only 10% loss and SPY goes down 20%, up 10%, down 20%, up 20% down 30%. It gets worse, most times stocks just lose up to 15-20% and rebound and very seldom lose 50% and it takes more than a year.
You will find pretty quickly how challenging it is.
I have talked to many advisors and so far couldn't find one that can guarantee a simple max loss of a specific number. Some use programs to adjust the asset allocation, rebalancing but never a specific max loss.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1683471/000089418920002726/sourceliquidationsupplement.htm
497 1 sourceliquidationsupplement.htm 497 SOURCE DIVIDEND OPPORTUNITY ETF
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-215588; 811-23226
Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (DVOP)
a series of Listed Funds Trust
April 15, 2020
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus (each, a “Prospectus” and collectively, the “Prospectuses”), and Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) each dated December 26, 2019
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectuses and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectuses and SAI.
After careful consideration, and at the recommendation of Source Asset Management, LLC, the investment adviser to the Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (the “Fund”), the Board of Trustees of Listed Funds Trust approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fund pursuant to the terms of a Plan of Liquidation. Accordingly, the Fund is expected to cease operations, liquidate its assets, and distribute the liquidation proceeds to shareholders of record on or about April 30, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
Beginning on or about April 20, 2020 and continuing through the Liquidation Date, the Fund will liquidate its portfolio assets. As a result, during this period, the Fund will increase its cash holdings and deviate from its investment objective, investment strategies, and investment policies as stated in the Fund’s Prospectuses and SAI.
The Fund will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date, and trading in shares of the Fund will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Fund’s shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
If no action is taken by a Fund shareholder prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal to the net asset value of the shareholder’s Fund shares as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. This amount will include any accrued capital gains and dividends. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. The liquidating cash distribution to shareholders will be treated as payment in exchange for their shares. The liquidation of your shares may be treated as a taxable event. Shareholders should contact their tax adviser to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation.
Shareholders can call (800) 617-0004 for additional information.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
1

You can do the above. Suppose your portfolio is 50/50 and you invested 20%(out of the 50%) in SPY with a trailing stop market at 10%. It means that as long as SPY goes up the trailing stop follows but when SPY starts going down and eventually hits it SPY will be sold at 10% (could be higher if the market is moving really fast) loss and now you will have only 30% in stocks.

@FD1000: Yes, I know. But I'm looking at this not as getting out of a single holding and changing the balance of the portfolio. The idea is to safe guard your entire portfolio, your retirement savings, to some pre-specified loss. SPY may drop 10% but if your portfolio only dropped 5% and that is within your risk tolerance, why would you run to safety or sell SPY at that point ?
If you work with an adviser or even if you do things yourself, setting up a portfolio is based on your risk tolerance. So much equity, so much bonds, so much cash. You decide you're comfortable with a 10% loss or a 20% loss, ect... A stop limit order on the portfolio would set that risk or acceptable loss tolerance without emotion. The Blackrock iShare ETFs as far a I can see are the only balanced portfolio ETFs that can execute this idea.
Just talking through the idea. I'm a buy and hold investor with small buy-sell-swap adjustments on the side like most everyone else here.

Another deep dive and a more positive outlook: https://morningstar.com/articles/976107/coronavirus-update-long-term-economic-impact-forecast-to-be-less-than-2008-recession
So who's right? Morningstar or:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/unemployment-coronavirus-pandemic-normal-economy-is-never-coming-back/
or:
https://forbes.com/sites/hershshefrin/2020/04/12/great-depression-economics-101-what-historical-numbers-and-charts-from-the-great-depression-foretell-about-the-economy-and-stock-market/#2f6845c11e3c
Or no one?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061220000057/mfcorebondr6closeprosupp.htm
(There is a table. It is better to view the table via the link)
Madison Funds®
Supplement dated April 15, 2020
This Supplement amends the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information of the Madison Funds dated February 28, 2020,
and the Summary Prospectus for the Madison Core Bond Fund dated February 28, 2020.
Madison Core Bond Fund - Closing Class R6 Shares and Converting to Class Y Shares
On March 6, 2020, the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds approved the termination of the Class R6 share class of the Madison Core Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which it deemed to be in the best interests of the shareholders of the Class R6 shares of the Fund.
Effective immediately after the close of business (4:00 PM EST) on May 28, 2020 (the “Closure Time”), Class R6 shares of the Fund will be closed to all investors and will no longer be available for purchase, including purchases by exchange. As of the Closure Time, each Class R6 shareholder’s outstanding Class R6 shares of the Fund will automatically convert to a number of full and/or fractional Class Y shares of the Fund equal to the aggregate net asset value to the shareholder’s Class R6 shares of the Fund determined as of the Closure Time (the “Class Y Conversion”). There will be no change in the overall value of a Class R6 shareholder’s Fund holdings as of the Closure Time resulting from the Class Y Conversion. Investments in Class Y shares of the Fund after the Closure Time will be subject to the fees and expenses applicable to Class Y shares as disclosed in the current prospectus and referenced below...