JP Morgan study shows lockdowns did not alter course of pandemic

[Odysseus123]

45 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Such a fine scientific note to its investors

An excellent post all up but can I point out that you guys are merely overlooking that excellent maxim "Do Not Feed the Bears."

 

I believe that this quote comes from Sun Tzu 'The Art of Trekking in Yosemite' altho' others dispute this suggesting that it comes from..'The Art of the Internet' so popular in the 4th century BC Chinese kingdoms...????

Edited May 24, 2020 by Odysseus123

[Logosone]

And yet more voices of support for the JP Morgan paper, this time from a Nobel Prize winning scientist:

 

"Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science. 

 

Professor Levitt also said the modelling that caused the government to bring in the lockdown - carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson - over-estimated the death toll by '10 or 12 times'. 

His claims echo those in a JP Morgan report that said lockdowns failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead 'destroyed millions of livelihoods'. "

 

Prof Levitt told The Telegraph: 'I think lockdown saved no lives. I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives, things like that, but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme.

 

'And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.' 

Professor Levitt, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2013 for the 'development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems', has said for two months that most experts predictions about coronavirus are wrong.  

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351649/Lockdown-waste-time-kill-saved-claims-Nobel-laureate.html

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

And yet more voices of support for the JP Morgan paper, this time from a Nobel Prize winning scientist:

 

"Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science. 

 

Professor Levitt also said the modelling that caused the government to bring in the lockdown - carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson - over-estimated the death toll by '10 or 12 times'. 

His claims echo those in a JP Morgan report that said lockdowns failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead 'destroyed millions of livelihoods'. "

 

Prof Levitt told The Telegraph: 'I think lockdown saved no lives. I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives, things like that, but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme.

 

'And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.' 

Professor Levitt, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2013 for the 'development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems', has said for two months that most experts predictions about coronavirus are wrong.  

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351649/Lockdown-waste-time-kill-saved-claims-Nobel-laureate.html

Ferguson estimated the death toll assuming no lockdown or other measures to stop the spread. You still don't get it.

[geriatrickid]

Take the time to read the original report.  Do not be manipulated.  This is another example of uneducated  people taking a mathematical analysis and twisting it out of context. The author of the study used a derivatives hedging  model for his review.  We do not use financial models to predict public health outcomes because the are not comparable. The model requires that effective social distancing be in place. Know what? The public wasn't social distancing when this mess started and that's why the  lockdowns had to be imposed. It took the public a couple months to understand that social distancing was necessary.

 

Putting aside the suitability aspect, the OP has conveniently not stated is that this person is a supporter of the social distancing model. Yes, that's right. The modeler insists that it works and in fact his conclusions depend upon there being effective social distancing. How do we  obtain social distancing when people are non compliant? Sometimes there are draconian measures such as police enforcement. Mostly it is through general measures such as....................... wait for it............ a lockdown. 

 

 As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc.  Keep this in mind when considering the mathematical model, because again I emphasize that you are being manipulated to believe that there is something written that we did not already know and that was one of the goals of the lockdowns- to allow a return to activity.

 

All that the author has said is that once the more serious measures are lifted,  spikes in the infections are not YET observed. He also states that if the infections have dropped and if social distancing is in place, the lockdown measures are not needed.  That's it.  No one can make a conclusion at this time because the loosening of restrictions is only being implemented now.   Common sense tells us that, yes, the lowered infection rates were what the lockdowns were intended to achieve: In plain language, they worked. The risk was contained which will allow a return to activity.  Now that the measures were effective, some are  taking this to mean that the lockdowns were not needed.  That is not what the model results show.

 

Note too that the  mathematical model does not take into account the measures that have been implemented such as tracing and  testing that were unavailable when the lockdowns were first introduced.  Nor are other factors taken into account such as summer weather which encourages people to avoid staying in cramped closed off places with others. 

 

Also keep in mind that the author of the report in his activity as a salesman of financial  instruments also had some exciting  headline  grabbing  "predictions" before ;

April 21, 2021 - JPMorgan’s Kolanovic Sees S&P at a Record in First Half of 2021

March 25, 2020 - JPMorgan Strategist Predicts Markets Will Surge 40%

Marko Kolanovic tells clients that social distancing is working and he expects coronavirus to soon be a memory. 

 

 

I offer that the position of  Kolanovic isn't saying anything  extraordinary because it  is based upon the effectiveness of social distancing which he champions. We will have people on this thread making the assumption that none of this was necessary. Well, if you don't social distance then the only way to stop the spread of an infectious respiratory disease is to  keep people separated through a lockdown.

 

Also note that JP Morgan has a work at home model even with  the  restrictions lifted in  its key office locations. JP Morgan has introduced workplace distancing measures that are intense. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by geriatrickid

[yuyiinthesky]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

Show me a country where decreased infection rates have not followed some form of lockdown.

 

I am not strongly into lockdowns, the only one that should have been necessary was in China. 

No problem.

 

As I mentioned many times, there is Cambodia, zero infections for more than a month now, no lockdown (for details please see the thread about comparing Thailand with Cambodia.

 

Then there is also Japan. „No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open.“
 

Quote

Did Japan Just Beat the Virus Without Lockdowns or Mass Testing?

By Lisa Du and Grace Huang

May 23, 2020, 5:00 AM GMT+7

 

Quote

Japan’s state of emergency is nearing its end with new cases of the coronavirus dwindling to mere dozens. It got there despite largely ignoring the default playbook.

 

No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open. No high-tech apps that tracked people’s movements were deployed. The country doesn’t have a center for disease control. And even as nations were exhorted to “test, test, test,” Japan has tested just 0.2% of its population -- one of the lowest rates among developed countries.

Yet the curve has been flattened, with deaths well below 1,000, by far the fewest among the Group of Seven developed nations. In Tokyo, its dense center, cases have dropped to single digits on most days. 

 

Source for quotes and images: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan-just-beat-the-virus-without-lockdowns-or-mass-testing

 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, yuyiinthesky said:

ny times, there is Cambodia, zero infections for more than a month now

 

1 hour ago, yuyiinthesky said:

No problem.

 

As I mentioned many times, there is Cambodia, zero infections for more than a month now, no lockdown (for details please see the thread about comparing Thailand with Cambodia.

 

Then there is also Japan. „No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open.“
 

 

 

Source for quotes and images: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan-just-beat-the-virus-without-lockdowns-or-mass-testing

 

 

Cambodia imposed travel bans through all district and provincial borders in April and banned travellers from Spain, Italy, France, Germany, USA and Iran in March.

 

Japan has had a state of emergency in various restrictions and different prefectures. When this was lifted in Hokkaido there was a quick rise in infections and on April 14 the state of emergency was brought in for a second time. 

 

Both examples constitute some form of lockdown, whatever Bloomberg says.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by nauseus

[yuyiinthesky]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Cambodia imposed travel bans through all district and provincial borders in April

As usual, you are not well informed. These travel bans was to slow down travelling for the Khmer New Year celebration (same time and roots as in Thailand Songkran). And the district travel ban was never executed but cancelled immediately. All what was there was for the few days of the celebrations some checkpoints between Phnom Penh and the provinces. These were useless though, the ones wanting to travel home for Khmer New Year did so the days before already. 
Sorry, this does not qualify as a lockdown, not at all.
Please research better before making false statements.

 

30 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Japan has had a state of emergency in various restrictions and different prefectures.

State of emergency does not mean lockdown. 
Please research better before making false statements.

 

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Both examples constitute some form of lockdown, whatever Bloomberg says.

Both examples do not constitute a lockdown, whatever you say.

 

[yuyiinthesky]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Take the time to read the original report.  Do not be manipulated.  This is another example of uneducated  people taking a mathematical analysis and twisting it out of context. The author of the study used a derivatives hedging  model for his review.  We do not use financial models to predict public health outcomes because the are not comparable. The model requires that effective social distancing be in place. Know what? The public wasn't social distancing when this mess started and that's why the  lockdowns had to be imposed. It took the public a couple months to understand that social distancing was necessary.

 

Putting aside the suitability aspect, the OP has conveniently not stated is that this person is a supporter of the social distancing model. Yes, that's right. The modeler insists that it works and in fact his conclusions depend upon there being effective social distancing. How do we  obtain social distancing when people are non compliant? Sometimes there are draconian measures such as police enforcement. Mostly it is through general measures such as....................... wait for it............ a lockdown. 

 

 As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc.  Keep this in mind when considering the mathematical model, because again I emphasize that you are being manipulated to believe that there is something written that we did not already know and that was one of the goals of the lockdowns- to allow a return to activity.

 

All that the author has said is that once the more serious measures are lifted,  spikes in the infections are not YET observed. He also states that if the infections have dropped and if social distancing is in place, the lockdown measures are not needed.  That's it.  No one can make a conclusion at this time because the loosening of restrictions is only being implemented now.   Common sense tells us that, yes, the lowered infection rates were what the lockdowns were intended to achieve: In plain language, they worked. The risk was contained which will allow a return to activity.  Now that the measures were effective, some are  taking this to mean that the lockdowns were not needed.  That is not what the model results show.

 

Note too that the  mathematical model does not take into account the measures that have been implemented such as tracing and  testing that were unavailable when the lockdowns were first introduced.  Nor are other factors taken into account such as summer weather which encourages people to avoid staying in cramped closed off places with others. 

 

Also keep in mind that the author of the report in his activity as a salesman of financial  instruments also had some exciting  headline  grabbing  "predictions" before ;

April 21, 2021 - JPMorgan’s Kolanovic Sees S&P at a Record in First Half of 2021

March 25, 2020 - JPMorgan Strategist Predicts Markets Will Surge 40%

Marko Kolanovic tells clients that social distancing is working and he expects coronavirus to soon be a memory. 

 

 

I offer that the position of  Kolanovic isn't saying anything  extraordinary because it  is based upon the effectiveness of social distancing which he champions. We will have people on this thread making the assumption that none of this was necessary. Well, if you don't social distance then the only way to stop the spread of an infectious respiratory disease is to  keep people separated through a lockdown.

 

Also note that JP Morgan has a work at home model even with  the  restrictions lifted in  its key office locations. JP Morgan has introduced workplace distancing measures that are intense. 

 

 

So many words, appearing to prove that the report is not correct, throwing in distancing and who knows what,  but at the end they just confirm that the JPMorgan report about lockdowns not altering the course of the pandemic is indeed correct.

 

[geriatrickid]

8 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

So many words, appearing to prove that the report is not correct, throwing in distancing and who knows what,  but at the end they just confirm that the JPMorgan report about lockdowns not altering the course of the pandemic is indeed correct.

 

Did you actually read the  JP Morgan report? Yes or No? I have and the report is being taken out of context by idiots who have not read the report.  You are interpreting the author's conclusion to support your position. 

 

The author used a financial derivatives mathematical model. This is like using a  sandwich bag as a replacement for a condom.
Do you even know what mathematical modeling  entails?

 

The author is a vocal supporter of social distancing.  Social distancing requires reduced customer activity.

 

The author's mathematical model made several assumptions;

- That the public would have supported and practices social distancing. It did not.

- That travelers would have respected self isolation requests. They did not.

- That countries had the capacity to test and the ability to trace contacts.  They did not.

- That countries had the hospital capacity and the equipment (ventilators, PPE etc.) to respond. They did not and there are still ongoing PPE and drug shortages.

 

The lockdowns were needed because none of the aforementioned requirements were satisfied. Had they been, then there would have been no need for a lockdown. 

The lockdowns were last ditch efforts to  keep the  hospital systems from collapsing.

 

In case you missed it, the healthcare systems in some regions did collapse.

[rabas]

On 5/23/2020 at 8:49 AM, Logosone said:

"Falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted suggest that the virus 'likely has its own dynamics' which are 'unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures', a report published by the financial services giant said."

 

"Author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said governments had been spooked by 'flawed scientific papers' into imposing lockdowns which were 'inefficient or late' and had little effect."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8347635/Lockdowns-failed-alter-course-pandemic-JP-Morgan-study-claims.html

Of course infection rates fall after a lockdown. That demonstrates the lockdown worked.

 

LOL JP Morgan talking about flawed scientific papers, to stop their losses.  A 'trained' physicist?  He's a Croatian business man with some physics education. He works for JP Morgan.

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by rabas

[Throatwobbler]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ferguson estimated the death toll assuming no lockdown or other measures to stop the spread. You still don't get it.

I would give up. You really are beating you head against a brick wall with that one. He will lie and cherry pick data to proove his point. When he finds one scientist that agrees with his point of view and is all over it and treats it as game set and match to him. He will happily ignore the thousands of scientists who have a different point of view.

[Logosone]

13 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Take the time to read the original report.  Do not be manipulated.  This is another example of uneducated  people taking a mathematical analysis and twisting it out of context. The author of the study used a derivatives hedging  model for his review.  We do not use financial models to predict public health outcomes because the are not comparable. The model requires that effective social distancing be in place. Know what? The public wasn't social distancing when this mess started and that's why the  lockdowns had to be imposed. It took the public a couple months to understand that social distancing was necessary.

 

Putting aside the suitability aspect, the OP has conveniently not stated is that this person is a supporter of the social distancing model. Yes, that's right. The modeler insists that it works and in fact his conclusions depend upon there being effective social distancing. How do we  obtain social distancing when people are non compliant? Sometimes there are draconian measures such as police enforcement. Mostly it is through general measures such as....................... wait for it............ a lockdown. 

 

 As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc.  Keep this in mind when considering the mathematical model, because again I emphasize that you are being manipulated to believe that there is something written that we did not already know and that was one of the goals of the lockdowns- to allow a return to activity.

 

All that the author has said is that once the more serious measures are lifted,  spikes in the infections are not YET observed. He also states that if the infections have dropped and if social distancing is in place, the lockdown measures are not needed.  That's it.  No one can make a conclusion at this time because the loosening of restrictions is only being implemented now.   Common sense tells us that, yes, the lowered infection rates were what the lockdowns were intended to achieve: In plain language, they worked. The risk was contained which will allow a return to activity.  Now that the measures were effective, some are  taking this to mean that the lockdowns were not needed.  That is not what the model results show.

 

Note too that the  mathematical model does not take into account the measures that have been implemented such as tracing and  testing that were unavailable when the lockdowns were first introduced.  Nor are other factors taken into account such as summer weather which encourages people to avoid staying in cramped closed off places with others. 

 

Also keep in mind that the author of the report in his activity as a salesman of financial  instruments also had some exciting  headline  grabbing  "predictions" before ;

April 21, 2021 - JPMorgan’s Kolanovic Sees S&P at a Record in First Half of 2021

March 25, 2020 - JPMorgan Strategist Predicts Markets Will Surge 40%

Marko Kolanovic tells clients that social distancing is working and he expects coronavirus to soon be a memory. 

 

 

I offer that the position of  Kolanovic isn't saying anything  extraordinary because it  is based upon the effectiveness of social distancing which he champions. We will have people on this thread making the assumption that none of this was necessary. Well, if you don't social distance then the only way to stop the spread of an infectious respiratory disease is to  keep people separated through a lockdown.

 

Also note that JP Morgan has a work at home model even with  the  restrictions lifted in  its key office locations. JP Morgan has introduced workplace distancing measures that are intense. 

 

 

Excellent idea, read the report. 

 

You will see that it says:

 

"First let’s see how the economic lockdowns evolved. At first, flawed scientific papers predicted several million virus deaths im the west. This on its own was odd, given that in China there were only several thousand deaths, and the mortality rate outside of Wuhan was very low. In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially. Nonetheless, many of these efforts were inefficient or late. Indeed, recent studies indicate that full lockdown policies in some European countries did not produce any change in pandemic parametres (such as growth rates RO) and hence might not have yielded additional benefits vs less restrictive social distancing measures. Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself."

 

While we often hear that lockdowns are driven by scientific models and that there is an exact relationship between the level of economic activity and spread of virus this is not supported by the data. Figure 2 below show virus spread rates before and after lockdown for different countries around the world, and Figure 1 shows the spread for US states that have re-opened. In particular, regression shows that infection rates declined, not increased, after lockdowns ended.  For example, the data im Figure 2 shows a decrease im infection rates after countries eased national lockdowns with =99% statistical significance. Indeed, virtually everywhere infection rates have declined even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag. This means that the pandemic and Covid-19 likely have its own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented.

 

The fact that re-opening did not change the course of the pandemic is consistent with mentioned studies showing that initiations of full lockdowns did not alter the course of the pandemic either."

https://imgcdn.larepublica.co/cms/2020/05/21180548/JP-Morgan.pdf

 

So who is trying to manipulate and twist the analysis out of context? Look at my thread title and compare it to the article. Then look at gerik's post. What is he actually saying?

 

He's trying to discredit the mathematical modelling of one of the world's premier investment banks, whose bread and butter is mathematical modelling on an every day basis.

 

He tried to portray Dr Kolanovic as a "salesman", when he is in fact not in sales at all but an analyst. Dr Kolanovic graduated from New York University with a PhD in theoretical high-energy physics. He has developed a number of scientific theories/models, and has authored top-cited research publications. He is "the Global Head of Macro Quantitative and Derivatives Strategy team at J.P. Morgan. His team is responsible for developing macro, derivatives and quantitative equity strategies, as well as systematic cross-asset portfolios for clients. His team currently holds 5 top rankings in the Institutional Investor surveys in the US, Asia and Europe, and Marko individually ranks #1 in the category of Americas Equity Derivatives. Prior to joining J.P. Morgan, Dr. Kolanovic was Global Head of Derivatives and Quantitative Equity Strategies at Bear Stearns and a derivatives research analyst at Merrill Lynch. His trading methods have been implemented by major hedge funds and investment offices around the world. Dr. Kolanovic’s work is frequently quoted in financial press, and for his timely and accurate short term forecasts of stock market returns, the media dubbed him ‘The Man who moves Markets’ (CNBC) and ‘Gandalf’ (Bloomberg). "

https://www.globalvolatilitysummit.com/speaker/marko-kolanovic/

 

A mere salesman? Not really.

 

And finally gerik wants to twist the actual finding of the report itself. Remember the report clearly says that lockdowns "did not produce any change in pandemic parametres". 

 

However, gerik would have you believe that the report actually says that lockdowns worked. It says the exact opposite.

 

By way of reminder gerik helpfully downsplains what lockdowns entailed, cause you know we don't know this, "As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc."

 

So, if this measure had such a crucial effect on the pandemic parametres, something studies now show is not the case, once this measure was lifted, and the number of people in stores, restaurants, hair salons, etc spiked up suddenly, by the social distancing theorists' own logic the R number should have gone up. But what this report says is that it didn't.

 

So who is trying to manipulate the analysis by JP Morgan, twist it, and attack its authors? Who is doing that? Those lockdown believers who realise that the JP Morgan study does not fit into their narrative.

 

Even more unbelievably, not only are they refusing to accept that the evidence now clearly shows their lockdown theory was wrong, they're actually taking the credit from mass testing and isolating the infected and suggesting it was lockdowns that ended the virus. Think about this, a temporary reduction in contact ends the pandemic? Really? Once contact resumes why would the virus not spread again? Because testing and isolating the infected was done on a mass scale by most countries, taking the infected out of social interaction has that effect. The healthy stopping contact with each other has no effect.

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ferguson estimated the death toll assuming no lockdown or other measures to stop the spread. You still don't get it.

Read the stupid paper, he gives a menu of figures for every possible eventuality, all of them wrong.

 

You don't get it. Ferguson is totally discredited. His work is exposed as fatally flawed and worthless.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Of course infection rates fall after a lockdown. That demonstrates the lockdown worked.

 

LOL JP Morgan talking about flawed scientific papers, to stop their losses.  A 'trained' physicist?  He's a Croatian business man with some physics education. He works for JP Morgan.

 

Lol, no it doesn't infection rates did not fall because of lockdowns, that's foolish nonsense. Lockdowns just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc for a short time, how could that possibly stop a virus pandemic? Don't be ridiculous, once contact resumed in stores and hair salons the virus should have continued to spread if the lockdown theory was correct. It was of course testing and isolating the infected that stopped the spread, or perhaps the inherent dynamics of the virus, who knows, but it was definitely not lockdown.

 

Its not just JP Morgan, of course even Nobel Prize winning scientists now agree that the lockdowns had no effect:

 

"Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science. 

 

Professor Levitt also said the modelling that caused the government to bring in the lockdown - carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson - over-estimated the death toll by '10 or 12 times'. His claims echo those in a JP Morgan report that said lockdowns failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead 'destroyed millions of livelihoods'. "

 

Prof Levitt told The Telegraph: 'I think lockdown saved no lives. I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives, things like that, but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme.

 

'And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.' 

Professor Levitt, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2013 for the 'development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems', has said for two months that most experts predictions about coronavirus are wrong.  

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351649/Lockdown-waste-time-kill-saved-claims-Nobel-laureate.html

 

As for Dr Kolanovic:

 

Marko Kolanovic is the Global Head of Macro Quantitative and Derivatives Strategy team at J.P. Morgan. His team is responsible for developing macro, derivatives and quantitative equity strategies, as well as systematic cross-asset portfolios for clients. His team currently holds 5 top rankings in the Institutional Investor surveys in the US, Asia and Europe, and Marko individually ranks #1 in the category of Americas Equity Derivatives. Prior to joining J.P. Morgan, Dr. Kolanovic was Global Head of Derivatives and Quantitative Equity Strategies at Bear Stearns and a derivatives research analyst at Merrill Lynch. His trading methods have been implemented by major hedge funds and investment offices around the world. Dr. Kolanovic’s work is frequently quoted in financial press, and for his timely and accurate short term forecasts of stock market returns, the media dubbed him ‘The Man who moves Markets’ (CNBC) and ‘Gandalf’ (Bloomberg). Marko graduated from New York University with a PhD in theoretical high-energy physics. He has developed a number of scientific theories/models, and has authored top-cited research publications. He currently resides in New York City.

 

https://www.globalvolatilitysummit.com/speaker/marko-kolanovic/

Edited May 25, 2020 by Logosone

[metisdead]

A conspiracy fear mongering post has been removed.

[Bkk Brian]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Lol, no it doesn't infection rates did not fall because of lockdowns, that's foolish nonsense. Lockdowns just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc for a short time, how could that possibly stop a virus pandemic? Don't be ridiculous, once contact resumed in stores and hair salons the virus should have continued to spread if the lockdown theory was correct. It was of course testing and isolating the infected that stopped the spread, or perhaps the inherent dynamics of the virus, who knows, but it was definitely not lockdown.

Foolish nonsense that lockdowns don't work? You forget the incubation period of 14 days, any strict lockdowns do not just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc, they reduce all contact with stay at home orders aside from essential trips. This done over a 14 day period or more will work to reduce the virus considerably, thats logic and fact.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[steelepulse]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Foolish nonsense that lockdowns don't work? You forget the incubation period of 14 days, any strict lockdowns do not just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc, they reduce all contact with stay at home orders aside from essential trips. This done over a 14 day period or more will work to reduce the virus considerably, thats logic and fact.

Hmm, not sure Gov Cuomo agrees with your logic.

 

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-coronavirus-stats-20200506-eyqui4b5lfdn7g6cqswkf6otly-story.html

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Foolish nonsense that lockdowns don't work? You forget the incubation period of 14 days, any strict lockdowns do not just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc, they reduce all contact with stay at home orders aside from essential trips. This done over a 14 day period or more will work to reduce the virus considerably, thats logic and fact.

The incubation period between infection and onset of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 is approximately 5 days, not 14 days.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/11/15/18/the-incubation-period-of-coronavirus-disease

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The incubation period between infection and onset of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 is approximately 5 days, not 14 days.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/11/15/18/the-incubation-period-of-coronavirus-disease

 

 

5 days Median

 

Quick Takes

The median incubation period from infection with SARS-CoV-2 to onset of symptoms is approximately 5 days.

 

97.5% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will exhibit symptoms by 11.5 days.

 

Monitoring people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 for 14 days for development of symptoms should be sufficient to identify 99% of cases or more.

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

Hmm, not sure Gov Cuomo agrees with your logic.

 

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-coronavirus-stats-20200506-eyqui4b5lfdn7g6cqswkf6otly-story.html

Well it stands to reason that if the virus is not flying about freely without a host targeting people at will then the only other alternative was that they received it from another person who entered their home, object or surface or they went on an essential trip and received it. It leads one to conclude that if a lockdown is in place then how strict it is and how that is monitored is essential otherwise it can be a severe pill with little benefit.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It leads one to conclude that if a lockdown is in place then how strict it is and how that is monitored is essential otherwise it can be a severe remedy with little benefit.

To say it has been a "severe" remedy with little benefit is understating and misstating it. Lockdowns have been more than "severe". They have separated husband and wife, destroyed well run businesses, ruined careers, stopped people having operations and seeing doctors, and most likely will cause a GDP contraction of around 30% in the US and the UK.

 

Lockdowns have been no remedy at all, because the evidence shows they did not alter the pandemic parametres.

 

It is conceivable that lockdowns at the very start, before the virus had spread massively could have had an effect. However, once the virus had spread widely, imposing the lockdowns was useless from a pandemic stopping perspective.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Logosone

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

To say it has been a "severe" remedy with little benefit is understating and misstating it. Lockdowns have been more than "severe". They have separated husband and wife, destroyed well run businesses, ruined careers, stopped people having operations and seeing doctors, and most likely will cause a GDP contraction of around 30% in the US and the UK.

 

Lockdowns have been no remedy at all, because the evidence shows they did not alter the pandemic parametres.

 

It is conceivable that lockdowns at the very start, before the virus had spread massively could have had an effect. However, once the virus had spread widely, imposing the lockdowns was useless from a pandemic stopping perspective.

 

 

Lockdowns are a tool, it works. Social distancing works another tool. Washing hands and hygiene works, another tool. Masks work, another tool. Herd immunity works, another tool. Wearing a hazmat suit works, another tool.

 

Debates about how, when, if, side effects or under what circumstances were not part of my response because I was responding to one particular statement as you well know. 

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Lockdowns are a tool, it works. Social distancing works another tool. Washing hands and hygiene works, another tool. Masks work, another tool. Herd immunity works, another tool. Wearing a hazmat suit works, another tool.

 

Debates about how, when, if, side effects or under what circumstances were not part of my response because I was responding to one particular statement as you well know. 

Lockdowns have not worked, the evidence is clear.

 

They could have worked if they had been imposed at the very start. Unfortunately governments world-wide missed the opportunity to impose lockdowns at the right moment, when they could have had an impact. They then scrambled with a massive overreaction in order to try and repair the damage their one or two month negligent non-action had caused.

 

Unfortunately, by then it was too late. Lockdowns had no effect anymore, the virus had already spread. Only with massive increases in testing and isolating the infected, particularly superspreaders, was it possible to halt the pandemic. Again, this was understood and implemented too late. 

 

Also because no government heeded the many, many warnings that this pandemic was coming, from the Robert Koch institute in 2012 to Bill Gates in 2015, so nobody was well prepared with test kits. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Lockdowns have not worked, the evidence is clear.

 

 

Yes your version of clear is not credible sorry as there are circumstances where they do work.

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

As usual, you are not well informed. These travel bans was to slow down travelling for the Khmer New Year celebration (same time and roots as in Thailand Songkran). And the district travel ban was never executed but cancelled immediately. All what was there was for the few days of the celebrations some checkpoints between Phnom Penh and the provinces. These were useless though, the ones wanting to travel home for Khmer New Year did so the days before already. 
Sorry, this does not qualify as a lockdown, not at all.
Please research better before making false statements.

 

State of emergency does not mean lockdown. 
Please research better before making false statements.

 

Both examples do not constitute a lockdown, whatever you say.

 

All depends on your definition of "lockdown" innit? If I can't travel freely I would consider myself under some form of lockdown.  Cambodia lasted a week but it was not stopped immediately. Japan was forced to "request" forms of restrictions and lockdowns as its own laws do not allow anything else - after the second rise of Covid infections in Hokkaido, most Japanese complied anyway. Like it or not, both examples are forms of lockdown. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by nauseus

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Excellent idea, read the report. 

 

You will see that it says:

 

"First let’s see how the economic lockdowns evolved. At first, flawed scientific papers predicted several million virus deaths im the west. This on its own was odd, given that in China there were only several thousand deaths, and the mortality rate outside of Wuhan was very low. In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially. Nonetheless, many of these efforts were inefficient or late. Indeed, recent studies indicate that full lockdown policies in some European countries did not produce any change in pandemic parametres (such as growth rates RO) and hence might not have yielded additional benefits vs less restrictive social distancing measures. Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself."

 

While we often hear that lockdowns are driven by scientific models and that there is an exact relationship between the level of economic activity and spread of virus this is not supported by the data. Figure 2 below show virus spread rates before and after lockdown for different countries around the world, and Figure 1 shows the spread for US states that have re-opened. In particular, regression shows that infection rates declined, not increased, after lockdowns ended.  For example, the data im Figure 2 shows a decrease im infection rates after countries eased national lockdowns with =99% statistical significance. Indeed, virtually everywhere infection rates have declined even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag. This means that the pandemic and Covid-19 likely have its own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented.

 

The fact that re-opening did not change the course of the pandemic is consistent with mentioned studies showing that initiations of full lockdowns did not alter the course of the pandemic either."

https://imgcdn.larepublica.co/cms/2020/05/21180548/JP-Morgan.pdf

 

So who is trying to manipulate and twist the analysis out of context? Look at my thread title and compare it to the article. Then look at gerik's post. What is he actually saying?

 

He's trying to discredit the mathematical modelling of one of the world's premier investment banks, whose bread and butter is mathematical modelling on an every day basis.

 

He tried to portray Dr Kolanovic as a "salesman", when he is in fact not in sales at all but an analyst. Dr Kolanovic graduated from New York University with a PhD in theoretical high-energy physics. He has developed a number of scientific theories/models, and has authored top-cited research publications. He is "the Global Head of Macro Quantitative and Derivatives Strategy team at J.P. Morgan. His team is responsible for developing macro, derivatives and quantitative equity strategies, as well as systematic cross-asset portfolios for clients. His team currently holds 5 top rankings in the Institutional Investor surveys in the US, Asia and Europe, and Marko individually ranks #1 in the category of Americas Equity Derivatives. Prior to joining J.P. Morgan, Dr. Kolanovic was Global Head of Derivatives and Quantitative Equity Strategies at Bear Stearns and a derivatives research analyst at Merrill Lynch. His trading methods have been implemented by major hedge funds and investment offices around the world. Dr. Kolanovic’s work is frequently quoted in financial press, and for his timely and accurate short term forecasts of stock market returns, the media dubbed him ‘The Man who moves Markets’ (CNBC) and ‘Gandalf’ (Bloomberg). "

https://www.globalvolatilitysummit.com/speaker/marko-kolanovic/

 

A mere salesman? Not really.

 

And finally gerik wants to twist the actual finding of the report itself. Remember the report clearly says that lockdowns "did not produce any change in pandemic parametres". 

 

However, gerik would have you believe that the report actually says that lockdowns worked. It says the exact opposite.

 

By way of reminder gerik helpfully downsplains what lockdowns entailed, cause you know we don't know this, "As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc."

 

So, if this measure had such a crucial effect on the pandemic parametres, something studies now show is not the case, once this measure was lifted, and the number of people in stores, restaurants, hair salons, etc spiked up suddenly, by the social distancing theorists' own logic the R number should have gone up. But what this report says is that it didn't.

 

So who is trying to manipulate the analysis by JP Morgan, twist it, and attack its authors? Who is doing that? Those lockdown believers who realise that the JP Morgan study does not fit into their narrative.

 

Even more unbelievably, not only are they refusing to accept that the evidence now clearly shows their lockdown theory was wrong, they're actually taking the credit from mass testing and isolating the infected and suggesting it was lockdowns that ended the virus. Think about this, a temporary reduction in contact ends the pandemic? Really? Once contact resumes why would the virus not spread again? Because testing and isolating the infected was done on a mass scale by most countries, taking the infected out of social interaction has that effect. The healthy stopping contact with each other has no effect.

 

All theory then. ????

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes your version of clear is not credible sorry as there are circumstances where they do work.

Okay, post your instance where lockdown worked.

 

Let's look at it.

[Greg O]

There is absolutely no evidence that locking down and quarantining healthy people has had any positive effect. The virus spreads naturally regardless what you do (masks can't catch it, testing can't catch it. Only  government with their archaic and draconian protocols have spread death and destruction to levels never even imagined before, and oh what about influenza ? If lockdowns were effective then flu infections should have dropped as well but in fact they've increased. 

Back on the road again...

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Read the stupid paper, he gives a menu of figures for every possible eventuality, all of them wrong.

 

You don't get it. Ferguson is totally discredited. His work is exposed as fatally flawed and worthless.

Done. Again. No change. The paper is still published and available at Imperial College. Now that there has already been 2 months of a type of "lockdown", then neither you nor anyone can prove the estimates given in the paper to be false.  

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, steelepulse said:

Hmm, not sure Gov Cuomo agrees with your logic.

 

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-coronavirus-stats-20200506-eyqui4b5lfdn7g6cqswkf6otly-story.html

Sounds like they must have had a lot of visitors then. Different Pizza boys every day?