For what it is worth, www.financialtrader.com just came out with a research report for the probability of a bird flu outbreak in 2006 at 60% and 2007 near 95% using quantitative selection (monotreme, any comments?) and species barrier breach among other tools. I have not seen anyone in the mainstream that have reported solid numbers to date and thought that this would be a good thread to capture actual statements and facts from industry leaders rather than soft words and caveats. The report is US $20 so they are not just guessing, but financialtrader.com does respond to email inquiries or at least to mine…
Anyone else have solid numbers for pandemic probabilities in the media?
The report contains two paragraphs on the pandemic probability but they do come out in the open and state it as a matter of fact. The stock they researched was Sinovac, the Chinese Biotech with the Panflu vaccine. We have a good thread here with contributions from Anon22--world class by the way— and others that have commented on the viability of vaccines and Sinovacs as well.
Exactly where on that financial page do you find the report? Searching and so far unable to locate. Thanks
Could you give a more specific link? I didn’t see the info on the link provided. There was no search function at the site and I don’t have the time to sift all their links.
Also please pick a handle, suggestions: anonymouscauseI’mUnimaginative, or anonymous2annoy.
The location is the following: http://www.financialtrader.com/Sinovac_Report_Samples.html The outline is free but the report is content sensitive and requires a purchase. They go on record with their numbers and probabilities for a pandemic, 65% in 2006 and 95% in 2007 for what it is worth.
Certainly nothing strikes me as odd about a stock-selling company issuing a report predicting a pandemic very soon and and selling stock in a company offering a vaccine, company. No conflict here.
Disgruntled at 1338, they are a research compnay and not a stock selling company. They do not get compensated from the street or anyone for that matter but their research buyers, so it is pure journalism at its best for what that is worth.
I am quite alarmed by these numbers, but I do not understand the source, so am trying to be analytical here. HL, can you explain, from your access to this journal, who exactly is making this assesment? Is this a scientist, or a financial person? What expertise does does this person(s) have in this, or how are they arriving at this number. Is there a “byline” or editor’s name attached to the article?
For once, :-) I agree with disgruntled. If they are trying to recommend pandemic related stocks, they will of course give such predictions.
Try searching for pandemic predictions from insurance sector analysts!!
CCP from what I understand they are using simple quantitative methods based on species barrier breach, host selection and software based (weather type) forescasts. Their background varies from software modeling folks to financial risk and fundamental research resources. But computer modeling is just that, a computers model. It does however agreee with some of the thoughts and intuitive analsysis here by folks like Tom DVM, motronome and others. Thats why I am interested in hearing their input. The editor can be reached from the main page as can the report writers— Shanley, I think. I have a note in to the editor. In summary, I would say loosely they are using typical scientific methods and risk analysis which is relatively common in the disaster recovery industry—that much I do know. Whatever the case, they are now on record and they appear relatively modest. I’ll let everyone know if I get a response from the editor or staff…
anon_22 – at 14:29 ++marks date on calendar with red pen++
Historiographer Lou – at 14:32
I haven’t read the report in detail but 95% for 2007 is not modest at all!
Anyway…back to work…
All I have to say is that it (the report) is very well written and easy to read…a plus for those of us who don’t have time to nitpick through everything and try to figure out what it means.
Historiographer Lou – at 13:46 Disgruntled at 1338, they are a research compnay and not a stock selling company. They do not get compensated from the street or anyone for that matter but their research buyers, so it is pure journalism at its best for what that is worth.
I don’t know how well you know the financial sector but the difference between ‘research’ and ‘promoting a client’ has become laughable for many years. These folks are good at setting up holding companies on trust companies on subsidiaries on joint-venture partners, etc, so us regular mortals have very slim chances of figuring out whether any analyst is ever truely ‘independent’.
Just saying…
The report actually says that there is a 95% probability that high-path H5N1 is already in the U.S. and a 60% chance of a pandemic this year. It doesn’t say anything about next year.
I do a lot of work in the financial industry. I do not know this co. firsthand, but after a cursory review of it’s site, I do not put much merit in its advice. The site is thrown together haphazardly and unprofessionally. If I were an investor looking to buy research, I would not have faith in this company. It claims to have no financial stake in the stocks it recommends, but the site’s lack of credibility calls that into question. And for all we know, anonymous at 12:48 may be the author of the report and trying to get more mileage out of the report by posting here.
What anon_22 – at 14:57 said. 100%.
The calculations are supposed to have been made by Watloosoft (Black Box Technical Analysis), an “inference engine” which “found a geometric pattern in the data in both H5N1 geography, species infected with H5N1, and human H5N1 clusters.”
I can’t find anything about Watloosoft. The report gives Sinovac a “Strong Speculative Buy” rating. It reads more like a persuasive document than a strictly objective report, though it aspires to objectivity.
Boiler room?
Also, I wouldn’t exactly call it “mainstream” media. The publication, for what it’s worth, is extremely targeted. Now, if People magazine rana story on it, then you know it’s gospel right? ;)
I would like to hear, and find, reports that say why this will not happen!! In keeping with my life’s moto, “I don’t believe, but I don’t disbelive”, I think it important to read, and research everything.
InKy – at 15:21
Found this Waterloo Software site. Maybe the same. I am dashing out the door and don’t have time to ask them about the software.
Sounds fishy to me. I think a few of the “intuitive analysts” here at fluwiki shoud be getting a cut of whatever monies this pitch generates. Is that “gs” out there playing both sides of the street? : )
(All in good fun, gs. All in good fun).
Medical Maven – at 15:48 anon_22 – at 14:57
I can not for the life me see how any one can make the statement 60% this year. The HCW’s throw up way to many unknowns and the math will not support it.
The problem is, “There is insufficent data to support their conclusions” For that matter almost any conclusion where H5N1 is concerned.
I think the generators of the report thought they needed numbers, so they found a means of concocting some.
Oremus at 15:21 - My spelling of the software or source is the same as that on the report. I don’t get any results when I google “Watloosoft.”
Anon_451 at 15:57-When “There is insufficient data to support their conclusions” that is where Intuition comes in to play. : )
I, by the way, intuited 50/95 not 60/95. Hope I am the biggest fool in the world and will celebrate it, if I am.
“Forever a fool in the eyes of my future self”-that’s my motto. Life has taught me that much. So let us hope my motto comes through again.
Is there room in your boat for two? /:0)
Tom DVM-Two fools in a rowboat working the oars in opposite directions. Let us hope it comes to that-a farce turning in circles.
Medical Maven – at 16:26 my intuition says 80/95 but what do I know??
I can crunch numbers, write plans and make things happen but you Medical types are in another world.
Tom always have room in my boat for you and yours.
black box software is by WARNACO GROUP INC . It appears to be a typical model that asks you what you think, crunches it a bit, and spits out what you just said in a way that makes you think it’s news.
M.M. Yes. But we will be two ‘fools’, drunk on life and Canadian Whiskey…count me in!!
Sorry, missed Anon 451′s comment…that makes three…might need a bigger rowboat.
anonymous. I ask you the following philosophical question. On Dec. 25 2004, what would you estimate the probablility of an Asian tsunami at…the last really serious one occurred in 1825 and killed 25,000 persons…
…having worked out the odds of a tsunami…what would the odds on Nov. 25, 2004 be to have a tsunami the next day killing more than 200,000 people, approx. ten times the previous highest kill rate.
There was at least one scientist who would have thought a tsunami imminent on Dec, 25, 2004…he was a Canadian who had begged Governments to install a tsunami warning system…
he was a nut on Dec 25, 2004…what was he on Nov 27, 2004?
Tom and Med: the 95% came from the fact that 5% of the birds might have just taken the circuitous Husdon International waterway versus land to PEI in Canada:)
Historiographer Lou. Thanks. It seems a lot has been made very recently of the fact that a pandemic is not imminent because we can’t give an estimate of timing…probablilities etc.
Too me as I tried to point out at 18:46, this is a ‘fool’s game’…even though all of the evidence points in one direction and there is no evidence of any kind pointing in the other.
But if I was to put my philosopher’s hat for another moment, I would state categorically that on one probability we can be sure…
…the probability of a pandemic tomorrow is greater than the probability today…if you consider the one sure fact we have…periodocity.
Tom DVM at 19:02-Uh Oh, Tom. I fear the wrath of the “mathematicians” is about to be unleashed. I have felt their lash and labored long on the wheel of logic to escape, though escape I did. : )
Medical Maven – at 19:07 Are you talking bad about me again <Grin> I resemble that remark.
Anon_451 at 19:17-If the resemblance fits you must acquit! (Or something like that).
www.financialtrader.com
Ok, clicked on the link above, then where do I go? Do I need to order the report? Sorry, not sure how to get to where the report is.
click the link provided at 13:31
On a less mathematical note AABB has published their planning guide for pandemics. While there is a lot of good information, one thing that leapt off the page was the statement that the probability of a 1918 pandemic was “low”.
Since I am going to the AABB meeting in 2 weeks I am going to ask the authors, who are presenting on panflu, how they arrived at that conclusion. I hope, (but expect to be disappointed) that they have some backup for this assertion. I expect that this will turn out to be ungrounded politically motivated spindoctoring, but we’ll see. This does conflict with the Red Cross strategy document which posits a 10% CFR.
OnandAnon.
You are quite right in questioning the statement about the unlikelyhood of a 1918-like pandemic.
The evidence indicates that of the six pandemics of the last two centuries three pandemics were of high virulence: 1918, 1890 and 1830.
I believe making the above statemement provides short term gain in exchange for long term pain…because if the evidence is clear, credibility is lost…and once lost it is very difficult to regain.
……………………………………………………………..
1) “A recent analysis showed that the pandemic of 1918 and 1919 killed 50 million to 100 million people,1 and although its severity is often considered anomalous, the pandemic of 1830 through 1832 was similarly severe — it simply occurred when the world’s population was smaller.”
Preparing for the Next Pandemic…Michael T. Osterholm, Ph.D., M.P.H. New England Journal of Medicine Volume 352: 1839–42 May 5, 2005.
2) “During and after the 1889–90 influenza pandemic - with the exception of 1918–19, the most severe influenza pandemic in the last three centuries - …”
Page 261, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry.
Please let us know how they respond to your question…it should be interesting considering the evidence is clear that their estimate is absolutely incorrect.
OnandAnon What does the AABB stand for?
AABB = American Association of Blood Banks?
I spoke with a county public health person today. Clearly he thinks there is just a slight chance of a pandemic (sigh). I mentioned two weeks preps as listed on the governement panflu site and he said “oh, that’s a maximum. We don’t think it’ll be that bad” I asked what was being done to inform people. He mentioned a flyer that was in the paper a few weeks ago. OK, but it was right in there with the grocery store flyer and the furniture store flyer. He mentioned lots of meeting with other agency people (but very little out to the public) — “We don’t want to alarm people unneccesarily” — so emphasis will be on hand washing and covering coughs. School closure is “an extreme measure” — sounds like that is contemplated only after the horse has left the barn, the property and the county. More sighs.
My motto for many years has been “Onward through the fog!”. So appropriate so much of the time.
Goju’s charts to school boards next week . . .
Dennis Thanks.
dummy at 19:31
You have to click on the “more” link for New Sinovac Report, toward the top, and then you have to pay $20 to download and access the report - if you really want to, that is. There’s just a paragraph about the probability of a pandemic.
Olymom et al-Who in the Hell are these idiots! I am sorry, they are unmitigated morons. “idiots” was too kind.
This website appears to be related to market timing services you can buy to try to beat the market. He is discussed briefly by what appear to be retail/neophyte traders on ‘trade2win.com’ See this link to a reference to him - it seems these market-timing gurus have multiple shingles out. Caveat emptor. I do not believe NASD regs apply to predictions of natural phenomena, but the logical link to sector trades is disturbing. The website is in California, but he may be doing business in Germany and Britain.
Traders are basically legal gamblers. Just like gambling sites will take odds on whether Tom and Katie will break up, “legal” traders will place odds on hurricanes, wars, etc. Not at all surprising that someone is trying to figure out the odds on pandemic AF. However, given their background is financial, not scientific, I wouldn’t put any faith in the numbers. Survey those here on the wiki and you’re likely to get a more realisitc number.
Closed to maintain Forum speed