It's for public use...which was originally supposed to be paid(to help make the apartments affordable), but got turned into free parking. It was an odd turn of words, but was explained later on.
I can't speak about California specifically, but in Canada, if it can be reasonably be proven that the illness was obtained at the workplace, the employer is required to pay for the sick leave by the local health benefits service (State/Provincial/Federal level), which in this case would be two weeks.
The employer can fight the filing, but in the situation of COVID-19, it's reasonably easy to prove it was a workplace based infection (multiple people will get sick).
Side note, when you get payments from the local health benefits service, there's a %90 chance it's being paid by the employer to the health benefits service, which then transfers it to the employee
They use a fair bit of ghee don't they? I went from memory but Wikipedia seems to agree with that.
"Ghee is widely used in South Indian cuisine for tempering curries, in preparation of rice dishes and sweets. South Indians have a habit of adding ghee to their rice before eating it with pickles and curries. South Indians are one of the biggest consumers of ghee."
While everything tastes better with ghee, you can cook a lot of Indian food using plant-based oils. I use sunflower oil for a lot of dishes, but you can also use vegetable oil, olive oil, or mustard oil.
With a bit of effort, you can eliminate animal products from most vegetarian Indian food. It will taste different, but not too much.
I don't think anyways arguing that oil isn't a replacement for butter. I think we're curious about the expectation. Can we expect most Indian restaurants or caterers to use oils instead of ghee? Do you need to ask them if they use ghee?
Fancy Indian restaurants in the West as well as back here are almost certainly using ghee. Cheaper places might use vanaspati (a ghee substitute made with palm oil) or oil. In general, though, you can never tell for sure unless you're doing the cooking yourself.
That's what I'm curious about. With that margin I'd guess CPG with a re-branded product. Most retailers are lucky to see anything north of 50% gross margin. I would have imagined a drop shipper having closer to 20%.
Actually many times I sell products which are available elsewhere for 1/2 the price like on Amazon or wallmart but it doesn't stop people from US buying those products. Not everyone has time or smartness to acquire perfect price info of the market.
I did. We're two days away from matching the top end estimates for 2019 flu deaths[1]
And that's with an estimated ~1/30th of the infections.
Based off the most liberal estimates of deaths directly related to the financial crisis, we're many multiples higher (est: 10,000+)[2] and a couple of day from being par with both direct, and indirect deaths related to stress and financial strife (assuming all the cancer patience died, which they did not) [3].
Actually, not exactly. The antibody tests, everywhere from NYC to California to Germany to Italy, is showing that unreported infections may be 80x as high as reported infections.
In fact, entire homeless shelters have been tested with about a third being infected, and zero showing symptoms.
What this means is that COVID19 is significantly less dangerous than we originally thought.
1 in 5 NYCers have antibodies; and this was sampled a week ago. Given how fast COVID spreads, it could be 1 in 4 now. This means that if we flatten the curve enough, we could possibly see ~3x the deaths (to reach a 80% infected rate) and reach herd immunity.
Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no.
We absolutely cannot be in lockdown till a vaccine is found, we cannot stay at home for 18 months or we will witness decades of economic devastation for 7.5 billion people on the planet (given how connected the world is); not to mention all the mental health harm; as well as physical health harm (deferral of non-essential but still highly important surgeries like hip replacements; less preventative check ups from people going to doctors; etc).
There are trade-offs to be made: we have cars despite the fact that they kill. We allow cigarettes despite the fact that they kill. We allow alcohol despite the fact that they kill.
For anyone who this message resonates to, please join us on /r/LockdownSkepticism. We're about using logic and data discuss what the best course of action is for society as a whole.
There have been tests for antibodies, yes, in NYC. Where is the information for Germany? Italy? California? Two week follow-ups on those test?
Hypothetically speaking, these folk have antibodies, that doesn't mean they're in the clear.
Keep in mind there there are thousands, if not millions of strains of this virus. It is not a static entity, its RNA base means that it can mutate itself to non-existence, or to a more lethal form as it replicates(RNA lacks error correction[1]). That means that even if they have antibodies to a weaker form of the virus, they can still be re-infected by a deadly strain, and be hospitalized, taking up resources for people who are injured, or sick through a normal day.
You have tailing commentary as if I'm disagreeing with your sentiments about lockdown (as of present). I was all for the initial lockdown as the infections needed to be managed (as they were initially miss-managed). Many places are getting a handle on it, and should be able to start opening up over the next couple of months (with social distancing, and random + targeted testing).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343347
As a note, this is why pandemic need to be stamped out immediately. The more people that get infected, the higher chance it has to replicate highly contagious varieties, which can then replicate to more deadly versions along the pathway(if I understand it correctly).
> Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no.
Would you hold the same position if you knew you would be one of those deaths? Or if you knew your mother or father or child would be?
Many people have and will die because NYC is closed. As the potential and projected harm of COVID diminishes dramatically, the harms of shutdown and isolation only continue to compound.
A lot of cancer patients have missed chemo. A lot of brain surgeries rescheduled. A lot of stokes and heart attacks went untreated. And so on...
Here’s an excellent summary from a Stanford doctor;
Even though it should have been obvious from the beginning, now that it has become increasingly obvious that only those at the highest risk should self isolate, the vast majority of people should get back to work, life, and their regular medical treatments.
From my understanding, the prices are set by the store, which can be corroborated by the DoorDash/Uber Eats models. It's impossible for Instacart to handle the prices for all these stores, so they unload that responsibility to the individual stores. The store probably forgets to drop the price, or will mark up volatile prices so they won't have to do weekly updates. I can bet you that you can also find some items that are under priced.
Which goes against what has been said here: https://youtu.be/YOKqAIMh-iA?t=1538 I'll admit both answers can be correct (retailers send the prices for instacart to baseline off of). They have historically marked up the product with their better grocers (who in turn give them a %3 discount to offset credit card processing).
My understanding is that the prices are set by Instacart, based on estimates on what they've seen the store charge in the past, plus some markup for price change risk, and probably some amount of profit/cost of maintaining the pricing data and product catalog.
I'm going to try and translate the simplest concept that tempsy is saying.
The sellers were looking to sell for most of last week, however there fewer buyers as the contract approached its end, and those who were willing to buy wanted a lower price:
Volume of transactions on Friday was 344k, Thursday was 111m, Wednesday was 147m. In the past 30 days, the low was 686k (ex Friday), and the high was 459m. Traders slowed their buying so the market became one sided.
That still doesn't answer: why wasn't it anticipated and reflected in earlier pricing (even if volume-weighted it would be a much smaller drop, it still seems to have been missed even from futures options)?
If you have the answer to the question you are asking, you should change careers into oil contract trading; you'll probably make a bundle.
In short, the reason nobody anticipated it is because the future is unknown. The reason any market is unpredictable is because there are too many variables to account for.
I think he's asking why the market didn't have a better estimate of storage capacity and utilization and what changed in the estimate from yesterday to today.
I think that has to do with how people sometimes do analysis for trading. There's fundamental analysis, which looks at exactly that when attempting to determine the price to bid for a security, but then there's the bubblier "technical analysis" which really just looks at historical and current trends and attempts to divine whether buying now means you might be able to sell in the future.
I'd imagine people just assumed perfect liquidity here, and that they'd be able to sell even "at a small loss which is better than nothing," not realizing that nothing or negative (i.e. you're gonna pay somebody to take this oil off your hands or build your own tanks) is a valid outcome.
I'm going to take a stab at a possible reason the "market" didn't see this coming: Everyone expected the US to top off its strategic reserves, which so far hasn't really been happening. Now that You could be paid like $37 (west Texas crude closed at -$37.63) dollars/barrel, maybe the US will reconsider. I certainly wish I could store a few thousand barrels...
US companies don't want to stop producing oil. Couple that with the Russia/Saudi Arabia skuffle going on over oil prices, I'm not surprised. What surprises me is the absolutely rapid/rabid decline in the price. It just seems like pure insanity to me...
> Now that You could be paid like $37 (west Texas crude closed at -$37.63) dollars/barrel, maybe the US will reconsider.
Indeed, it looks like the US is reconsidering:
President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. is "looking to" add as many as 75 million barrels of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Trump spoke after an historic day in the oil CL.1, +103.61% markets, in which the May WTI crude contract closed at -$37.63 a barrel, a one-day drop of 306%. Trump said he was considering the move "based on the record low price of oil," and that the action would "top it out." Speaking at a White House press briefing, Trump said, "we'd get it for the right price."
Based on a vague memory from years ago - so I could be totally wrong here - you're assuming knowledge he doesn't have.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: The people doing the trading are middlemen, and have no capacity period. They expected to be able to sell it all off to the energy companies, even at a loss, so they normally don't accept any physical product. But the energy companies ran out of capacity - something the middlemen (traders) don't have direct knowledge of - so got caught unexpected with contracts they can't sell, and now have to accept the physical product.
> That still doesn't answer: why wasn't it anticipated and reflected in earlier pricing
Because despite the people that like saying all future events are reflected in current prices, the fact is humans, both individually and aggregated into markets, are imperfectly prescient, thus future events are basically never perfectly priced in to to current market prices.
People say things to the effect of “if it is going to happen, it is already priced in” all the time, on HN even.
> All KNOWN future events are priced in.
There are no such thing as known future events. Market participants estimation of the likelihood of future events, weighted by inclination and capacity to invest, are priced in.
The answer is, literally anyone with cash could sign up today and have an oil contract tomorrow. It is extremely easy to take part in oil contracts trading and those people who basically just have an office can't actually keep the contracts now and must unload. Contrary to what people think, you don't have to be an expert or have any special knowledge to trade physical contracts.
In Toronto, Ontario, we've been in a state of emergency since the 16th, so far we're only being requested to go out only when needed, and to not interact in close quarters unless you live with the person. People still go for walks, and such, but the penetration of infected people was still fairly low ( we're at under 600 people hospitalized). It's a softer approach, but it's still challenging even for introverted folk. The spread has stabilized, so maybe a lighter approach is okay once the urgency has set in.
It was the panic from the rest of the world, at the beginning of March it was business as usual. It became real when Italy locked down its people.
During SARS-1, I was in high school, and there was no major panic outside of downtown. I don't know about internally, so perhaps the hospitals were better prepared because of it this time.
