• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Hi,

The index does not appear on trend macrolytics front page any more, do you need to log in to get it now??

The last few days BCRX and SVA were doing quite well. Today SVA and MEDI were up while the market was down. Dont know whether it is stock specific news on top of the general market move.

Was expecting poor performance on all the bioflu plays as Northern Hemisphere flu season comes to end. newsflow on google is still around 2700 level which is low. However the Eygpt and Indo cases may do not seem to want to turn down.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Hi Doe: I found Luskin's article (and graph) doing a search (on his website)for 'avian flu' but I did not have to log in. I guess he now just does updates periodically. MEDI was up on takeover rumors but I haven't heard news on the others.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Don Luskin sent me an update:


bfi.JPG
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

That chart looks a whole lot more reasonable than the one I posted; clearly there was some major error afoot when he produced the earlier one that covers essentially the same dates.
I was very surprised when no one commented on the one that I posted since it indicated that something major was going on. Your updated chart seems to more accurately portray the real situation now - a low threat level. Thanks for posting that; it clears up a lot of confusion. :confused:
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Today just before close: AVII up around 4 %, BCRX up around 8 %, and NVAX up around 10 %. Bears watching tomorrow.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

you don't don't view that as just general speculation in this current market?
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

lets wait and see what happens tomorrow

biota was up this morning but may a follow through from some good company news a while ago

market seems to want to go up and high beta stocks do well
 
How about broader market indicators?

How about broader market indicators?

I notice bio is a hot topic on this thread and in the markets at the moment - but what are your thoughts on the broader indices? It seems to me that the markets have blown off the top similar to 2000. I would tread very lightly going forward as a long.

I bought Sep puts on QQQQ at strike price of 46 and 47 today.

I am going to add to these positions - perhaps Jan 08 as I think a severe correction is on its way by Summer.

Regards, Ken
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

This is a mature or late bull market so "speculative" plays come to the fore

Biotech is risk, Bioflu is riskier still. To be expected that they may do well in this sort of market. However an analysis that strips out their general riskiness is needed to make any analytic judgement.

In terms of the general view of the market going up we do seem to approaching another bear capitulation point so every investment has to be weighed up with fear. However that is something I prefer to discuss on other boards that are not so flu specific.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

BCRX up 3 %, AVII up 4 %, and NVAX up 5 % at midday. Biotechs, in general (IBB), are up only 1 %.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

BCRX Up 0.25%
SVA Down 0.33%
GENEREX BIOTECH CORP Down 2.03%
AVI BIOPHARMA INC Up 2.46%
VIRAGEN INC Down 22.64%
PEREGRINE PHARMA INC Up 1.04%
VICAL INC Down 0.21%
EFOODSAFETY.COM INC Up 1.28%
AVANT IMMUNOTHERAP Down 3.94%

Bit mixed, generally over the last week or so the overall level is probably a bit down relative the the nasdaq, of course I have no proper index to make a proper comparison

media interest is falling a lot the google h5n1 hit is around 1700-1800 now so I am looking to see if I can pick end of flu season drop.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Market up today

However many of the bioflu speculative stocks up quite a bit

Google count risen from 2092 to 2874 in last week

H7N2?

Since market is pretty exuberant probably just high beta noise
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

BCRX up the last few days. Market generally down, bioflu mixed

some stock specific news in offing

(BCRX generally is way down over 1m, 3m, 6m etc)
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

BCRX Up 7.16%
SVA Up 5.36%
BAX Down 0.28%
SOLVAY Up 0.06%
CRXL.AS Up 3.50%
NVAX Up 2.30%
GNBT Down 2.25%
AVII Up 6.99%
VRA Down 13.89%
PPHM Down 1.80%
VICL Down 1.29%
AVAN Up 8.14%
GMED.PK Up 11.11%

I know the market generally had a moderately good day and technology is in vogue but this seems a tad strong?
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

This AM on CNBC, Jon Najarian reports heavy buying of gold stock call options (AU, ABX, NEM) indicating that large institutions and hedge funds are betting on a gold price spike. AVII up over 1 % pre-market. Probably nothing but it will bear watching for sure. :)
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

I've just posted a portion.

How the Free Market Would Handle Quarantines

By Robert P. Murphy

Posted on 7/16/2007

WHAT ABOUT QUARANTINES?

The possibility of quarantines is just a specific application of the above ideas. In a free society where pieces of property are all assigned ownership to specific individuals, there would be no such thing as a person having his "right to walk around" revoked — because there's no such thing as a "right to walk around" in the first place. Rather, what could happen is that someone is considered so dangerous that all of the reputable health agencies place him at the top of their lists, and they hold news conferences, send out emails and faxes, etc. to alert the relevant owners to look out for this person. Major property owners would probably have prearranged agreements on how to deal with cases like this, so that the response could be coordinated.

Private businesses aren't stupid; they don't need the government to order them to keep lepers away. And if a particular church, say, wants to open its doors to such a person, that's perfectly within their rights. (As a matter of courtesy, we would hope this policy would be announced to others who might not want to visit the same building.) Indeed, the final repository for such people would be buildings where the owners thought they could safely contain the disease. And the common name people would use for these buildings is "hospital." In a free society, to be "quarantined" would simply mean that most owners (of roads, sidewalks, malls, hotels, factories, etc.) would refuse access, and so a contagious person would have few choices outside of treatment facilities.

In any event, the bogeyman of a self-centered fugitive carrying a highly contagious disease is a bit unrealistic. As Andrew Speaker himself has said, he was furious when he was told that he might be a danger to others — because had he known that, he wouldn't have been in the same room as his fiancée's young daughter! Those with communicable diseases are people too, and they don't want others getting sick. On top of that, if they want to be treated, they need to go to the hospital anyway.

CONCLUSION

The free market could deal more effectively with contagious diseases, just as it beats the government when it comes to computers, cars, and crops. The very idea that we should give the government the right to lock somebody up because it classifies him or her as a health risk sounds pretty sick to me.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

the bogeyman of a self-centered fugitive carrying a highly contagious disease is a bit unrealistic.
To the contrary, that is often how contagious diseases and damage from mental illness is transmitted. A person may know they have the disease but for various reasons denies the illness or the impact on others.

No one statement is going to be true for all people. Policies and interventions must account for diversity in options, beliefs, behaviors, choices and consequences.
Joe Thornton, M.D.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

I've just posted a portion.

How the Free Market Would Handle Quarantines

By Robert P. Murphy

Posted on 7/16/2007

WHAT ABOUT QUARANTINES? . . . .

I read the entire article. This fellow has no understanding of infectious diseases and is simply trying to sensationalize a particular point of view regarding free market economies versus government intervention.

More quotes form the article:

If the government relinquished its role in handling contagious diseases, the public would be far safer.

First and most obvious: the government restricts freedom of association, and more specifically, the freedom of property owners to exclude whomever they desire. In the current legal environment, it would be pointless for airlines, bus carriers, amusement parks, hotels, etc. to maintain their own list(s) of people with contagious diseases. If these people weren't considered health risks by the government, then they could sue if (say) Disneyworld refused to let them into the park.
But suppose the government did act as if owners really had the right to control who used their property. What voluntary institutions would spring up to help a free society cope with the problem of contagious diseases?

There are two competing principles that we need to consider. On the one hand, it's bad for business to exclude potential customers for health concerns, especially if it turns out that the exclusion was based on mistaken information. On the other hand, it's really really bad for business if a bunch of customers contract a contagious disease from another customer because of lax oversight.

Since business owners are in no position to make these judgment calls themselves, they would gladly pay for independent health experts to advise them on how best to run their operations and minimize the risks to their employees and customers. [comment: isn't the tax-subsided CDC suppose to be providing that information now?] Through such consultations and (as always) the profit and loss system, over time an efficient portion of resources would be channeled into disease prevention. For example, salad bars would have sneeze guards, critical employees would wear gloves, and bathrooms would have soap dispensers.
But beyond these fairly obvious safeguards, more sophisticated ones could emerge. For example, specialized consulting firms could assemble teams of medical experts to monitor the world, and identify individuals for the airlines who are at risk for contagious diseases. In order for these flagged travelers to buy tickets and board the plane, they would first need to be checked by the medical consultants (or by their own physicians, if the airlines recognized their competence).
The great difference between voluntary mechanisms versus the monopoly CDC is that the former would have every incentive to do a good job. If an airline turned away certain customers because Ace Medical Consultants said they had TB, when in fact they didn't, this would be horrible for business. Ace's competitors (who had a better track record) would advertise this fact in their brochures and the airline would switch if it thought the rival could do a better job.

Once there is a highly infectious disease and the R0 number exceeds 1.0 there will be very little time for the screening of airline passengers or customers coming through the front door especially if there is a long incubation or infectious period without symptoms.

The "free market", business-motivated quarantine will succumb very quickly once a pandemic starts.
 
Re: Pandemic threat-level market indicators

Newsletter Watch: A "bird flu" play

Steven Halpern | Jul 20, 2007 6:29am EDT | User Rating N/A

The subject of today?s column, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCRX), comes with numerous caveats, not the least of which is that it has been a terrible performer over the past two years, falling from above $20 to single digits. Further, as a development stage biotech this is inherently a risky situation. The fact that is has yet to receive regulatory approval for its drugs adds further risk.

It also holds the inherent risk of being a small-cap stock, with a market capitalization of $235 million. And, it is working in a highly speculative area; the company is developing a drug, Peramivir, as a treatment for flu, as well as Fosodine, a treatment for leukemia.

BioCryst is often considered a ?bird flu? play, as its Peramivir is being tested as a treatment for Avian influenza. As a result, the stock rose sharply through the second half of 2005, when media and investor attention were focused on the potential for a bird flu pandemic. It has fallen equally sharply since early 2006 as concerns over the Avian flu have abated.

The severe decline in the shares over the past year, however, has not deterred two leading biotechnology advisors who continue to see significant long-term potential. Both foresee continued development success with BioCryst?s Avian flu treatment. And both foresee additional potential in its pipeline.
 
Back
Top