As I have stated before, I do not believe the Chinese government and do not trust them to report accurate statistics. The Wall Street Journal says the number of government reported cases is slowing down ( this of course requires an adequate number of test kits and testing of patients in a health care setting but many are being turned away).
In the comments there is a link to a fascinating article in the Taiwan papers claiming Tencent accidentally released the "real" number of cases 154,000 and 24000 deaths.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3871594I think figures like this provide a far more believable explanation for the quarantining of a city of 11 million, closing borders etc etc.
We may never know, but we will get a better idea when American companies with substantial revenue from China or large exposure via supply chains start reporting results for the first quarter.
For me, the safe thing for now is to assume the worst and hunker down, reducing exposure to risky positions. I do not believe we have heard the end of this.
Comments
Not paranoid. Either it will pass or we will. A simple binary outcome.
But seriously, it doesn't mean a thing to my investing activities. Not doing anything special as a result of this situation. That said, sadly I don't trust what either the Chinese or American governments say these days, so .... sigh.
Always interesting to go grocery shopping this time of the year and hear the hacking and coughing from some who have to shop or should have stayed out of a public area while ill.
I carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer this time of the year
Many hospitals in Michigan continue to have restrictions for visitations.
CDC estimates 2019 - 2020 season
Very true. I do trust the career professionals at the CDC.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-01-28/fda-warns-maker-of-purell-not-to-claim-sanitizers-prevent-flu-ebola
Sorry to have to tell you but soap and water is only proven disinfectant.
As is bleach, but you don't want to be washing your hands with it all the time.
Alcohol gels do a good job and better than nothing. Airborne germs obviously not affected. As they article puts it, " ... enveloped ... viruses are easily killed or inactivated by alcohol and the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend using an alcohol-based sanitizer as a preventive measure."
Clorox Disinfecting Wipes.
A common preventative in use at daycare centers and many other locations for years, to help maintain a more sanitary environment is the low ratio bleach/water mix sprayed onto surfaces and wiped off.
Every little thing helps with the more common transmittable viruses and bacteria.
How many types of coronavirus
Interesting facts:
Did you know that rubbing alcohol, defined by the USP as approximately 70% isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol), is actually more efficient in killing germs than pure isopropanol? The water content helps the alcohol to permeate the cell membrane.
Alcohol does not kill instantly. Anything you want to sanitize needs to be alcohol-damp for at least 30 seconds. No drying your hands. Or the surface.
Just because a product is labeled "rubbing alcohol" does not mean it meets the USP definition. It could be a different strength of isopropanol, or it could be ethanol-based.
Let's say you are serious about killing bugs, like if you were manufacturing injectables in your basement. You would periodically cycle using disinfectants with different modes of action, to deal with germs that became resistant.
(For a fair number of years, I was involved with, ahem, injectable drugs. R&D)
https://fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/5-things-know-about-triclosan
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/are-antibacterial-products-with-triclosan-fueling-bacterial-resistance-2019080617473
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirt-antibacterial-soaps?gclid=Cj0KCQiAsvTxBRDkARIsAH4W_j-f1mLUoHpFA7bmAO3JEXNzM6QAY8vVonWaVBBcfS-1AqJ-2nIbWrsaAkTdEALw_wcB
I understand the need for hand sanitizer in places like hospitals, but I don't think the average person should be carrying it around.
My impression is that regular soap and scrubbing in hot water are better than sanitizer and triclosan still exists in anti-bacterial soaps. But you're right in that I thought some sanitizer still had triclosan in it. My mistake.
all alc gels in the US I know of (purell and cvs-walgreen generics) are 70%, but still
alc resistance in entero bacteria that are also vanco-resistant sure would be a bfd, but I find no cites after this aussie study of a year and a half ago, but lots and lots of alarmist heds citing it and only it ... interesting analyses elsewhere about pH adaptability in entero speculating to inadvertent alc resistance
ethanol tolerance in general has been studied back to at least 1990, I see; I remember asking a biochem type about all this when purell really hit the market around then and she said alc was so good at destroying cell membrane it would always be good, like the mechanical removal action of water and surfactant, as you point out
but life finds a way, again, maybe
Yes, I've been wondering for some time about the sudden profusion of "sanitizing stations", seemingly all over the place. Is it possible that, similar to the abuse and overuse of antibiotics, we may be setting the stage for yet more "super bacteria" as they gradually acquire resistance to the various sanitizers?
As a kid in the '80s I remember my parents (and friends' parents, teachers, etc) always telling us that "a little bit of dirt is good for you." Now, it's grounds for a Lysol-bath!!! *shudder*
Part of the article reads:
One crematorium manager told a Hong Kong reporter that, in normal times, his 24 ovens were lit five days a week for four hours at a time. Now, he said, they have so many corpses to deal with that all the ovens are going around the clock. This suggests the body count must be in the thousands.
Then this:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/baseless-conspiracy-theories-claim-new-coronavirus-was-bioengineered/
which the article debunks.
50k deaths estimated...
Well, that's settled. If Steve Bannon is involved it must be the truth.
Good to probe ccn, the organization itself. Interesting.
@LewisBraham Republican senator Tom Cotton believes it, and the the ccn story writer says Cotton may be right.
So Cotton can ignore the factcheck.org story about the origin of the disease. Besides, the burden of proof isn't on him anyway, is it Lewis?
Yeah, I get it!
https://www.ccn.com/tom-cotton-thinks-coronavirus-bioweapon-china-mounts-feeble-response/
Be better, not a johnN clone.
>> Republican senator Tom Cotton believes it, and the the ccn story writer says Cotton may be right
and as my granddaughters can attest, I call everyone that.