I know what an endowment is and I know that they are mostly earmarked some as temporarily restricted and some as permanently restricted, but my point still stands, those schools aren’t hurting for money, yet.
If this is accurate, on the high end you'd be talking about a .27% mortality rate. Low end would be .14%.
On the balance sheet? Sure. Although the endowments took a small plunge with the market. But you don’t operate a budget off of a balance sheet. Our cash flows are drying up. We’re refunding tuition, housing, meal plans, etc. which are all lost revenue streams. We aren’t able to operate any of the on-campus stores. And we aren’t bringing in anything from spring sports, plus we have people pumping the brakes on booster memberships and ticket installments. In Florida, they’ve already cut back on funding to higher education. We can’t just fill the gaps with endowment money, because as DelapThrows said, the endowments 1) aren’t liquid and 2) are legally prohibited from funding operations.
I did not know that colleges were refunding tuition and perhaps it’s poorly worded on my part but I’m just not believe that colleges should’ve been eligible for the small business loans under the 3rd phase of the CARE Act.
I don’t think it was under the small business loans. I believe colleges got $14 billion of the $2.2 trillion carved out separately. Harvard at almost $10 million only got 3rd most of the Ivy League schools and some of the big enrollment public schools for a good bit more.
We all know there will be stories about FL/TN/GA MAGAs driving to see meemaw in states that are still closed b/c my state is open so it must be over.
Trump has influenced them to do this, and they gladly get on their knees for him. I bet SC isn’t far behind.
so IF these antibody studies are true, we have two of them now with ranges north of 20x cases all the way to 86x when you apply this to NYC it doesn't square at all so we'll ignore that but I still don't know the best way for us to deal with something like multiple times more infectious than the flu AND substantially more deadly even if the IFR ends up at say .3%. if we need 80% on the low end for herd immunity that puts us at 800k deaths based on my very poor math?
Are we believing that the flu data is completely above board and accurate or only the coronavirus data is flawed?
this study is 600/220,000 = .0027 or .27% 17-18 61,000 deaths/ 45 mil .0013 or .13% so about twice as deadly on the high end if those numbers are right
Posted in other thread but it’s very clear we are underrepesenting a truck load of cases due to lack of testing for minimally symptomatic otherwise healthy and non-hospitalized people. Mortality rate is likely at 0.5%. Mortality rate of 0.12%-0.14% isn’t possible mathematically given NYC numbers as well as some areas of Italy. The problem with the antibody studies is that it’s mostly getting samples from volunteers, many of whom are signing up because they think they had it or knew/were exposed to a positive case and want to know if they are immune. So the samples aren’t the “general population” is the authors usually “model” their samples to try to apply it to the rest of the population. Also, from the studies I’ve seen, they are mostly testing young people. I haven’t seen many if any 80+ year olds in the antibody studies. So, these antibody studies are giving people assumptions that aren’t true. what IS true is this is definitely no where near 4% mortality and most people who get it have mild cases. What IS also true is that in 80+ year olds this still has double digit mortality rates. Also none of this shit is peer reviewed and anyone who has submitted or edited for medical journals isn’t shocked that completely shit studies aren’t being looked at by professionals are likely full of misleading statistics by team’s trying to make a name for themselves in the field.
I just have hard time believing these preliminary antibody studies. Why are some areas seeing mass hospitalizations while some had just as many people get it and they didn’t even know they had it? Seems far more likely to me that these antibody tests don’t work and are picking up false negative antibodies from people who had flu or something else that registers a false positive.
Exactly. People have spent so much time comparing coronavirus to the flu when the flu numbers are completely made up. I don’t believe the flu numbers at all personally.
local cannot be more restrictive? The fucking guy is crazy. I don’t think Georgia has tested even 1% of their population yet.
well yeah the problem is basically all these antibody studies when comparing to NYC or portions of italy quickly have % infected rates north of the total populations that live there