DimPrawn's trading thread

[jamesbrown]

Which makes it different from the UK, US, Germany, etc, how?

By order of magnitude. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Old Greg]

The Covid stats out of China are like the economic stats out of China. Fake news.

The problem with going long in any serious way at this stage is that too many questions remain unanswered. If there’s a second wave when restrictions are substantively relaxed, markets will tank. In the mean time, the economic recovery is looking far less likely to be V-shaped.

On the upside, the vast amount of stimulus does point to the stock markets getting way ahead of themselves, which is an opportunity. But going long in a big way looks like a massive punt to me.

The real problem IMO is not that the infection rate stats are faked and incorrect, it's that they could easily be but not might be.

They would fake them if they need to , but maybe they don't need to. WTF knows for sure?

[BlasterBates]

The reality:

Apple excels in China during Q1 2020 thanks to double-digit iPhone growth

Is Apple "massaging" the figures?

[jamesbrown]

For example, I don’t think there’s any suggestion that the UK gov’t directs the ONS to manipulate their statistics in order to create a false narrative. I think there’s every suggestion that the NBS does that w/r to China. They’ve even owned up to some of it in public

[WTFH]

By order of magnitude. Are you suggesting otherwise?

No, I'm suggesting that the order of magnitude of population means comparing a country of 1.4billion with one of 70 million is rather disingenuous if you talk in numbers. If you talk in %, maybe not that big a difference.

If the UK deaths from covid are out by 50% due to whatever excuse the government has, do we thing that is a significantly smaller % variation than for China?

[jamesbrown]

Te real problem IMO is not that the infection rate stats are faked and incorrect, it's that they could easily be but not might be.

They would fake them if they need to , but maybe they don't need to. WTF knows for sure?

Indeed. But the death rates look implausible for the severity and maturity of the outbreak and comparable rates from other countries. That is why they’re now excluded from many international comparisons, including our own.

[jamesbrown]

No, I'm suggesting that the order of magnitude of population means comparing a country of 1.4billion with one of 70 million is rather disingenuous if you talk in numbers. If you talk in %, maybe not that big a difference.

If the UK deaths from covid are out by 50% due to whatever excuse the government has, do we thing that is a significantly smaller % variation than for China?

I think it’s quite clear that they manipulate official data, which renders your argument pointless. There is no distinction to be made between absolute and relative. They directly intervene as they feel necessary, which also leads to internal inconsistencies too. I am mostly speaking w/r to their economic stats of which we have long-standing experience. Thus, why should we trust their Covid stats? We shouldn’t.

[CheeseSlice]

Te real problem IMO is not that the infection rate stats are faked and incorrect, it's that they could easily be but not might be.

They would fake them if they need to , but maybe they don't need to. WTF knows for sure?

Of course they need to. The party needs to project an impression of success and control. Didn't you see the recent 'correction' for Wuhan where they added 50% additional deaths to the tally? The figure was exactly 50%, the same as you would get if you put the numbers in a calculator and multiply by 1.5.
Even Number 10 has quietly dropped them from the daily reports.

Number 10 removes China data from daily press briefing charts amid suspicions over 'inaccurate' figures

Downing Street has removed China from its comparisons of other countries’ responses to coronavirus amid suspicions their figures vastly downplay the scale of the outbreak.

Ministers were showing the nation’s low rate of infections and deaths on its charts in the daily Number 10 press briefings until Thursday, before it disappeared.

A study by experts at Hong Kong University, published in The Lancet this week, suggested more than 232,000 people may have tested positive - four times higher than official figures - in the country’s first wave of infections.

Some Conservative MPs fear the inaccurate figures could send the UK’s response off track and have set up a China Research Group to “promote debate and fresh thinking” over Britain’s relationship with China.

Tom Tugendhat, its founder and chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: “This data is used to judge the effectiveness of our own response, whether good or bad. It’s important we are comparing like with like, otherwise our own responses could be distorted leading to more deaths in the UK.

“Clearly No 10 believes the same as the rest of the world — that China’s data is unreliable and possibly false.”

[Old Greg]

No, I'm suggesting that the order of magnitude of population means comparing a country of 1.4billion with one of 70 million is rather disingenuous if you talk in numbers. If you talk in %, maybe not that big a difference.

If the UK deaths from covid are out by 50% due to whatever excuse the government has, do we thing that is a significantly smaller % variation than for China?

The potential for greater variation in China is best understood, IMO, by understanding the political, jurisprudence etc. context of China. The CCP has far greater control of 'messaging' and there are far fewer checks and balances (try getting a court order against the government to release documents) than is the case in liberal democracies. And China has substantial 'form'.

[jamesbrown]

The potential for greater variation in China is best understood, IMO, by understanding the political, jurisprudence etc. context of China. The CCP has far greater control of 'messaging' and there are far fewer checks and balances (try getting a court order against the government to release documents) than is the case in liberal democracies. And China has substantial 'form'.

Precisely.