It would be about the resilience of public health systems and the ability of the key decisionmakers to react quickly. The market would take its cue from that.harvestbook wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:16 amPandemics are a constant "known unknown," and that's part of the theoretical reward I get for taking risk. Therefore I don't have to do anything, because not doing anything is the job.
It does make me wonder what the US-only investors would be saying if this had broken out in several large US cities instead of China.
Philadelphia v. St Louis, 1919. One closed public theaters and swimming baths (many more people would not have had access to bathing facilities at home in those times, so would have had their bathing in a public facility) much sooner than the other - the civic government reacted more quickly. And consequently had a much lower infection and death rate.
I do remember the anthrax panic after 9-11 - after a few individuals were murdered with it. Gaps in the system were exposed, then. I don't remember what the stock market response was.
Also there was that tuberculosis & flying panic in the 1990s some time after the homeless turned up with drug-resistant TB - vaguely remember that (it was a specifically American thing).