Liquidate entire portfolio until virus is over?

Thrugelmir

BrockStoker said:

I always think of a recession as throwing a stone into the centre of a pond. From the centre the ripples stretch out far and wide. Progressively less impact but nevertheless financial pain for someone somewhere. Write yourself a list of industries, businesses and occupations dependent on the travel industry. Will be a long comprehensive one.

That is an excellent point, and one I had not considered till now. However, our strength as a human civilization is built on our ability to adapt and solve problems such as this one, so I think we will find answers if we are forced to, as we have done in the past. Of course we will have to adapt to the new "normal", and it will not be easy to begin with, but remember, the world had to change anyway as the way we were living (IMO travel was a big part of the problem) was unsustainable in terms of carbon footprint. We have an opportunity here to kill two birds with one stone so to speak, and I think we should try as much as possible to turn the negatives into positives.

Identifying the opportunities before anybody does is the challenge. Being brave (and potentially fool hardy)  isn't for everyone. The old investment adages will still apply. 

EdGasketTheSecond

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Well, the eventual number of deaths can't be estimated at this stage. But would clearly be so big, if most people in the world were allowed to catch the virus, that making sure most people don't catch it (until we have a vaccine, or something else as effective) is the only viable way forward. A successful strategy may keep the number of actual deaths relatively low. But that won't imply it wasn't necessary.

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

It could still be the case that more people die in the aftermath due to the financial upheaval that is coming, than from the virus. e.g. food shortages, people unable to afford food and housing, civil unrest, rioting and looting. The cure might be worse than the problem, we don't know yet.

Another way forward could have been to isolate the most vulnerable (who mostly stay at home anyway) but let everyone else carry on as usual and essentially avoid most of the economic impact.

kaMelo

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'. But until a vaccine or effective treatment is developed, 'Herd Immunity' is the only option available, there is nothing else. All any Government can do is manage it the best they can and protect those who are most at risk to prevent the health service being overwhelmed. Different Governments choose different paths based on their country, culture and systems. China can implement things we wouldn't tolerate here for example.  
All Governments will learn things after this has passed, everyone will have made mistakes but now is not the time to point fingers.

kinger101

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Well, the eventual number of deaths can't be estimated at this stage. But would clearly be so big, if most people in the world were allowed to catch the virus, that making sure most people don't catch it (until we have a vaccine, or something else as effective) is the only viable way forward. A successful strategy may keep the number of actual deaths relatively low. But that won't imply it wasn't necessary.

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

The delay in the Government's response will probably be seen as their biggest mistake.  I'm skeptical we'll get a vaccine in time.  There are currently 17,000 diagnosed cases in the UK.  As likely as many again yet undiagnosed.  At a starting point of 30,000, you'd need to maintain an average case growth rate under 2 % per day in cases (it's currently nearer 20%) to reach a point where herd immunity had not already been acquired.

More likely is we'll get re-purposed drugs for which there is already safety data, therefore they'd only need a  combined phase II/III clinical trial.  Ideally, these might include PrEP type medications that could protect healthcare workers too.

eskbanker

kaMelo said:
no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

The Swedish and Dutch effectively did:
https://www.ft.com/content/31de03b8-6dbc-11ea-89df-41bea055720b
https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/documents/speeches/2020/03/16/television-address-by-prime-minister-mark-rutte-of-the-netherlands

The bigger the group that acquires immunity, the smaller the chance that the virus can make the leap to vulnerable older people or people with underlying health issues.

The aim of population immunity is to build, as it were, a protective wall around this group.

That’s the principle.

But it’s important to realise that it can take months, or even longer to build up population immunity, and in the meantime we have to protect high-risk groups as much as possible.

eddy

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

kinger101

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Thrugelmir

Rkinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Imperial are part of SAGE which is under the direction of the Chiel Scientific Officer. There's no them or us. Everyone is contributing and sharing equally. The messages being relayed every day are very controlled and planned. Leaks of information add nothing to the debate except to cause consternation in the wider general public. Policy is not being made on the hoof, but in response to the transmission and spread of the virus itself. 
Today's six months warning is another milestone message. Along a defined path. Now that the lock down measure has been broadly accepted. 

tropic_of_Username019

There is a clear line between a policy which merely aims to slow the rate of transmission of the virus (so that the health service has fewer cases to deal with at the same time), and one which aims to suppress it. Does each infected person on average infect more or less than 1 further person? If it's more than 1, the virus will spread until most of the population have had it; if it's less than 1, it won't.

Clearly, the reproductive number can be kept below 1, because China, South Korea, etc, have achieved that.

As already answered, the UK Government absolutely did have a policy of just letting most people catch it (and they are already trying to rewrite history on this point). First the "take it on the chin" from Johnson, then this being dressed up as by Government scientists as "herd immunity". We know it's possible to suppress the virus, so that was a choice.

The proportion of people who catch the virus who will die is perhaps about 1%, and it's been thought to be in that area for some time. So this was clearly a policy of letting at least hundreds of thousands of people in the UK die. The 1% estimate does not allow for the health service being overwhelmed, which would increase the proportion dying. It appeared to be the study from Imperial, showing that the NHS would be many times overwhelmed if we continued to follow a policy of slowing, not suppressing, the virus, that led the Government to change course. But their previous policy was never going to result in less than a 6-figure death toll.

That they had a policy of letting hundreds of thousands of pensioners die, to prevent disruption to the economy (Cummings spelled out their reasons), shows them completely unfit to be in Government.

tropic_of_Username019

EdGasketTheSecond said:

Another way forward could have been to isolate the most vulnerable (who mostly stay at home anyway) but let everyone else carry on as usual and essentially avoid most of the economic impact.

I think the problem with that is that complete isolation of the vulnerable isn't realistic. Reducing contacts for vulnerable people is realistic (and is, perfectly sensibly, part of the current strategy), but some contact is unavoidable. And if most of the population, excluding the vulnerable, got the virus, then it would get through, with a delay, to the vulnerable, too.