[aslyfox]

that is what is known as the " futures " market

The answer is futures. The futures market can turn a nickel into a fortune, a fortune into massive debt and (as an added bonus) has quite efficiently exposed pretty much every psychic out there as a fraud.
Here's how.
What Is a "Future?"
To understand the futures market, we first need to understand the concept of a "futures contract." This is an investment product built around buying and selling commodities at a later date.
Literally, a futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell some commodity (usually) on a given date for a given price. A commodity is a raw, physical product such as wood, corn, gold, pork bellies or any other unprocessed material. (It's important to note that, while a classic futures contract deals with commodities, this is not a rule. Many futures contracts deal with intangibles such as currencies or price indices.)

What Is a Futures Market? Definition and Example - TheStreet

________________________-

. . . Nobody wants oil in May because there is hardly anywhere to put it. That’s why speculators who held contracts for May delivery – contracts that in a normal month they would have sold to refineries at the last minute – were left with few options Monday but to swallow the losses. One factor not reflected in the tumbling price, though, is that trading was light throughout the day. . . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/20/oil-barrel-below-zero/

[mkgd1]

There's nowhere to put (WTI) oil. The price is based on taking delivery at a set time. With no storage capacity, no one can take that delivery. That is at least partly because the Russians and the Saudis are trying to bankrupt each other, partly because of reduced demand. Oil can be crazy without actually meaning anything.

I'll do my bit to help out tomorrow, when I fill up my Suburban.

[Ex Finn.]

I'll do my bit to help out tomorrow, when I fill up my Suburban.

I did my part yesterday, filled up my Hemi Rebel

[Just1MoreDave]

I'll do my bit to help out tomorrow, when I fill up my Suburban.

That ought to help!

It looks like I can fill up for $1.36/gallon, down twenty cents since last week.

[Racer X 69]

I'll do my bit to help out tomorrow, when I fill up my Suburban.

I did my part yesterday, filled up my Hemi Rebel

All my vehicles are full, so it will be a couple days before I can help out again. And I just picked up 20 gallons of tractor fuel the other day too.

[timb64]

There's nowhere to put (WTI) oil. The price is based on taking delivery at a set time. With no storage capacity, no one can take that delivery. That is at least partly because the Russians and the Saudis are trying to bankrupt each other, partly because of reduced demand. Oil can be crazy without actually meaning anything.

I thought it was just healthy competition in a market economy! (Economics not politics!)

[Rondec]

A sobering reminder that a vaccine for respiratory viruses
is difficult to devise - We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult - Health - ABC News

I think the main reason we have never made a coronavirus vaccine before is because it wasn't needed. In general, coronaviruses cause mild respiratory diseases, same as things like rhinoviruses. There are lots and lot of them out there and it would be a lot of effort to produce a vaccine that just isn't needed. In this case, there are at least a couple of vaccines in trial right now, including one that was designed at the University of Pittsburgh. https://www.upmc.com/coronavirus/vaccine It certainly seems to produce good antibody levels in mice, but obviously needs a bunch of testing in humans.

Anyway, my perspective is that vaccine development is costly and tends to be reserved for bacteria and viruses that cause worse illnesses (polio, tetanus, etc.). COVID-19 seems to fit that bill.

That ought to help!

It looks like I can fill up for $1.36/gallon, down twenty cents since last week.

Gas is $1.14 around the corner from my house.

[slartibartfast01]

I think the main reason we have never made a coronavirus vaccine before is because it wasn't needed. In general, coronaviruses cause mild respiratory diseases, same as things like rhinoviruses. There are lots and lot of them out there and it would be a lot of effort to produce a vaccine that just isn't needed. In this case, there are at least a couple of vaccines in trial right now, including one that was designed at the University of Pittsburgh. https://www.upmc.com/coronavirus/vaccine It certainly seems to produce good antibody levels in mice, but obviously needs a bunch of testing in humans.



Anyway, my perspective is that vaccine development is costly and tends to be reserved for bacteria and viruses that cause worse illnesses (polio, tetanus, etc.). COVID-19 seems to fit that bill.







Gas is $1.14 around the corner from my house.

In the UK a lot of time was spent on the common cold.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Cold_Unit

[Rondec]

In the UK a lot of time was spent on the common cold.

Common Cold Unit - Wikipedia

Sure. The "Common Cold" causes a lot of time off of work, loss of productivity, etc. It can even lead to more serious infections like bacterial and viral pneumonias. But the "Common Cold" is not a monolith. It is caused by coronaviruses, parainfluenza, rhinoviruses, and RSV. The problem is that in each of these categories there are multiple different strains of virus that cause issues. Finding a medication or vaccine that can treat a chunk of them is exceedingly difficult. And odds are a medication for colds would shorten symptoms from a week to five or six days and be really expensive.

I'm not saying there will never be treatment for the common cold, but it feels to me like it would require rapid testing to identify the actual virus causing the illness and then targeted treatment -- or a vaccine with lots and lots of strains of viruses in it.

[aslyfox]

I've just learned from a reliable source the following

some of the tests, perhaps all ?, cannot detect whether you are infected unless symptoms have appeared

so someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus, cannot be detected

has anyone else heard of this

if it is true

how do you prevent someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus from infecting others except by strict isolation of all those not symptomatic ?

I was under the impression that asymptomatic people weren't being tested because of the scarcity of the testing material

here is the newspaper article:

GARDEN CITY — Beginning on Monday a drive-thru COVID-19 testing center was to open at the Finney County Fairgrounds in the West Pavilion.
Colleen Drees, Finney County Health Department director, said the Kansas Department of Health and Environment approached the Health Department about the ability to provide more testing supplies to support the county with a drive-thru screening. . . .

Testing is by appointment only, Drees said. They are testing patients who are symptomatic.
“If you’re not symptomatic, then you wouldn’t test positive,” she said. “You have to be symptomatic to actually test positive. If you don’t have symptoms going on, then you’d be negative.” . . .

The test is nasopharyngeal, meaning a swab goes in your nose to get the sample.. . .

https://www.cjonline.com/news/20200420/drive-thru-covid-19-testing-center-opens

[slartibartfast01]

I've just learned from a reliable source the following

some of the tests, perhaps all ?, cannot detect whether you are infected unless symptoms have appeared

so someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus, cannot be detected

has anyone else heard of this

if it is true

how do you prevent someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus from infecting others except by strict isolation of all those not symptomatic ?

I was under the impression that asymptomatic people weren't being tested because of the scarcity of the testing material

here is the newspaper article:


https://www.cjonline.com/news/20200420/drive-thru-covid-19-testing-center-opens

This article from the Lancet doesn't support that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30917-X/fulltext

[aslyfox]

I hope you are correct but

from the article cited:

There is a powerful case in support of mass testing of both symptomatic and asymptomatic HCWs to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission. At the time of writing, the UK is capable of performing 18 000 tests per day,23 with the Health Secretary targeting a capacity of 100 000 tests per day by the end of April, 2020. Initially, the focus of testing was patients, with NHS England stating only 15% of available testing would be used to test NHS staff.24 Although this cap has been lifted, symptomatic HCWs, rather than asymptomatic HCWs, are currently prioritised in testing. This approach could mean that presymptomatic HCWs who are capable of transmitting the virus are not being tested; if they were tested and found to be COVID-19 positive, they could be advised to isolate and await the onset of symptoms or, if no symptoms develop, undergo repeat testing.

it doesn't identify how the subjects are being tested perhaps it isn't the same type

the one that I am talking about is this

The test is nasopharyngeal, meaning a swab goes in your nose to get the sample.. .

.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/14-general-talk/404129-coronavirus.html#ixzz6KFFXsph7

this really worries me

[ThorSanchez]

Gas is $1.14 around the corner from my house.

In the US we're going to see a large number of people driving 24-foot-long, 7000-lb SUVs and pickups on 12-year loans.

[Rondec]

I've just learned from a reliable source the following

some of the tests, perhaps all ?, cannot detect whether you are infected unless symptoms have appeared

so someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus, cannot be detected

has anyone else heard of this

if it is true

how do you prevent someone who is asymptomatic but capable of spreading the virus from infecting others except by strict isolation of all those not symptomatic ?

I was under the impression that asymptomatic people weren't being tested because of the scarcity of the testing material

here is the newspaper article:


Drive-thru COVID-19 testing center opens - News - The Topeka Capital-Journal - Topeka, KS

Testing is a mixed bag and probably depends on the test. It is hard to make broad statements about testing and you would need to know the specifics of the individual test being used. Every test has a sensitivity and specificity that should be identified by the companies that produce them. Those will determine the number of false positives and false negatives you get from an individual test (both of which are problematic). It probably depends too on when the person was infected -- you probably need to have a certain viral load in order for the tests to identify it and if the test is done too soon after infection it may not be positive yet.

My guess is that the rapid tests are probably not as good as the others, but I haven't seen anything about any of the tests in this respect though and knowing which test you had done is probably impossible to tell -- your provider probably doesn't even to get to pick that.

As far as asymptomatic testing goes, I think it is primarily done for health workers who have possible contact with someone who tested positive in order to be certain if they can continue working. Otherwise, it makes little sense to do it, although I think some athletes and celebs get them done with minimal symptoms.

sounds like a proper trial:


Novartis to sponsor large clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients | Novartis

however the company running the trial apparently produces the drug in question

Other companies produce it as well. I get a "generic" version from Wegman's and it's pretty inexpensive, as drugs go. If Novartis is successful in developing some good data, and the FDA manages to approve the use, they'll be one of many producing what is already a fairly cheap and available drug. I doubt that Novartis is going to get rich off this drug, and commend them for their efforts.

The one thing I worry about is the failure to distinguish between the two types of death arising from the virus. Those with weakened immune systems get sick and die because they lack the ability to fight off the virus; those with strong immune systems (people with autoimmune disorder and young adults) die because their immune systems react too quickly and strongly causing a flood of fluid in the lungs.

The reason that's important is that hydroxychloroquine (and quinone group chemicals like "tonic water") suppress the immune systems' ability to produce certain leukocytes ("white blood cells") responsible for identification of the "foreign protein" so that the body can create "killer T-cells" (another kind of leukocyte) to go eat the intruders. I.e., an immunosuppressant. Give that stuff to old people and children (people with weaker immune systems) not only won't do any good against this virus, it will interfere with what little defense they've got. People with strong immune systems should take it upon identification of the virus in their bodies, because it will prevent the "cytokine storm" that causes pneumonia.

And, by the way, with respect to the testing issue, there was a reference to "nosocomial infections" - that's a code phrase for "diseases caused by having been in a hospital"; a concept similar to "iatrogenic infections", which are "diseases that are caused by having had contact with a physician".