Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Deeper Than South Park

The impetus for this blog post comes from an unlikely source in my opinion. I was watching an episode of South Park about a week ago. I have to admit I find South Park unbelievably entertaining and think that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have really developed quite a brilliant show. Anyway, the show that I was watching in particular was an episode called Tonsil Trouble. This episode debuted the 12th season of South Park, and my goodness, what a start to a season.

The plot of the episode is as follows. Cartman, the loud, obnoxious fat character on the show has to get his tonsils removed. During the procedure he is accidentally infected with HIV. The idea of this happening is utterly ridiculous. Throughout the show Cartman is then trying to gain sympathy from all the people around him, his classmates and his friends, but because Cartman is typically mean to everyone else, they find it hard to pity him.

The plot obviously gets far more ridiculous at this point as most South Park's usually do, but underneath it all is an amazing underlying message that we can all walk away with. The long and short of it is that they go to visit Magic Johnson, because Cartman is aware of how long he has lived with HIV but has not yet passed away, as is the unfortunate case with HIV patients.

While on the trip to Magic Johnson's home, there is a commentary on the state of HIV in today's society. Nobody appears to take HIV seriously anymore, and rather it's all about Cancer these days, HIV is a "retro" virus made popular in the 1980s. I'll explore why this is the case later.

When they get to Magic Johnson's they see that his room is filled with money. Magic Johnson claims that he sleeps with all of the money he has made in his room. Cartman therefore deduces that the reason that Magic Johnson was able to live so long with HIV is due to a chemical intrinsic to money.

Cartman and his friend Kyle, who Carman malliciously infected with HIV, then go back home and begin research on the effect of money on containing HIV. All the researchers are absolutely amazed when you take a large stack of money and blend it up into a liquid and inject it into the body that it is capable of suppressing HIV. Ultimately, they realize that all it takes to cure HIV is a "$180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream."

This brings a lot of ideas to mind that I think should be addressed. Therefore, I went out and did a little bit of digging around the Internet to see if there was any truth to what South Park was suggesting. I broke their claims down into two assertions:
  1. HIV is a "retro" virus. Today we are more concerned with Cancer.
  2. In order to control HIV, you would need around $180,000.
I'll tackle both of these assertions one at a time.
  • Findings
HIV and Cancer are equally scary illnesses and it is an absolutely horrendous thing to afflict anybody. Based on Avert.org, which has worldwide statistics on AIDS, I found out that the current trend in relation to HIV aids patients follows an increasing number but at a decreasing rate. The graph below summarizes the statistics relating to HIV since 1990.
Currently, there are an estimated 33 million people around the world who are suffering from HIV/AIDS. This has grown by a steady rate since 1990, but has slowed significantly in recent years. Along with the above graph, there is a trendline that expresses the rate of HIV infections worldwide. The equation for HIV infections worldwide can be summarized as: -0.0653x^2+2.7956x+4.2083, where x is equal to the amount of years after 1990. Under this assumption, I project that HIV/AIDS could be completely contained and eradicated by the year 2034. See graph below:
This is quite an idealist and optimistic perspective to take on the current state of HIV/AIDS, however, it is merely based on current trends. Furthermore, 2034 is 26 years from now in which there is ample time for education to take the forefront in combating this disease. Teaching people about contraception and means of avoiding this disease is truly the way that we can eradicate this disease. The most important region to focus on is sub-Saharan Africa, where 59% of all infected cases live. The world will most definitely be a different place in 2034, so why not make it a world free of HIV/AIDs.

In comparison to Cancer, however, HIV/AIDs has begun to take a backseat and therefore this verifies the claims made by South Park that HIV is perhaps a "retro" virus. According to the American Cancer Society, there have been 1,437,180 new cases of Cancer reported in 2008.

In 2006, there were only 36,187 new cases of HIV reported in the United States, barely 2.5% of the same number of new cases of Cancer. The peak of new HIV cases occurred in 1984-85 in which there were 130,000 cases reported. This really puts the magnitude of Cancer in perspective. South Park, while making a satire of this situation, is accurate in their assessment that Cancer is truly the big killer disease at the moment.

One of the things about Cancer is that there are so many different ways that it can get you. For men, it appears as though Prostate cancer is the most prevalent, affecting 25% of all cases, whereas for females it is Breast cancer, which infects 26%. However, it should be noted that for both genders, the number one killer is lung and bronchus cancer. Then behind this type of cancer the two most prevalent cases for each, prostate and breast, respectively, are the next most serious killers.

Cancer is definitely a very scary and looming disease. There is still a lot more that we need to figure out about this deadly disease and ways to avoid it. We have made huge strides with HIV/AIDs in a very short time and I feel similarly optimistic about humanity's ability to take on Cancer.

The second assertion that South Park made is that through the aid of $180,000 "injection" you could live with HIV. South Park was making the statement that if you have $180,000 to spend on antibiotics, medications, hospital visits, etc. in the amount of $180,000 you can live with HIV, not actually inject yourself with money.

I did some research about that. I found an article written on November 2, 2006 published by CBS News citing that people with HIV can get an extra 24 years of life on average using modern treatments that will cost $618,900, or $2,100 per month.

This is far higher than the estimate given in South Park. The findings are based on a "Cornell/Johns Hopkins/Harvard/Boston University research team that analyzed the costs and benefits of modern HIV treatment." These costs are made up of the 24 available drugs available on the market that in tandem with one another could add up to 24 years on a life.

The costs of keeping someone alive who is infected with HIV is astronomical. At the end of the South Park episode when they figured out that they could save someone by injecting them with money, the scene cuts to a poor village probably somewhere in Africa, and a man jumps out of a car and yells over to a gaunt looking native, "Hey! They found the cure to HIV! All you have to do is inject yourself with $180,000!" He jumps back in the car and drives off leaving the native with nothing.

That is one of the biggest issues with combating these diseases, especially HIV. A lot of people who are afflicted with the disease are very poor and can't pay for this sort of medical treatment. That is why education is truly the key to keeping the numbers of infections down.
  • Conclusion
HIV/AIDs and Cancer are two deadly diseases that infect millions of people around the world. The purpose of this blog post was to verify the assertions made by South Park in the season 12 opener, Tonsil Trouble.

Based on my findings, South Park is mostly accurate in their assertions.

South Park alleged that HIV was a "retro" virus that was prevalent mainly during the 1980s. This true based on the level on infection rates both worldwide and in the United States. However, millions of people still live with HIV everyday. Cancer, however, does afflict more people a year.

The second assertion related to the cost of maintaining life when one is infected with HIV. South Park suggested that this was $180,000, whereas evidence shows that it would cost more on the order of $618,000. Both of these sums of money are astronomical though, and the point was made in my opinion.

The key to fighting HIV/AIDs and Cancer is education. Knowing the signs, knowing the ways to avoid it, knowing anything that can help you stay away from these terrible diseases is the best thing one can do.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Have You Ever Wondered if Volume and Percent Stock Change Correlate?

I thought about an aspect of the stock market this evening that I thought I'd quickly decipher for myself, and my devoted blog readers. It appears as though every time I look at a stock that has a small volume, there also appears to be equally negligible movement in the stock. As a result, why would anyone want to invest in stocks that have volume of 10,000 or less; it wouldn't make sound sense. However, people invest in stocks regardless of volume. I wondered why nobody really cared about the particular volume of a stock and why this isn't a determining factor when firing off a trade.

By looking at the opening and closing prices of every single stock on the New York Stock Exchange on September 3rd, 2008 (3,243 current listings), I was able to determine the association that volume of a stock has with percentage change.

I had to locate every stock on the New York Stock Exchange for an assignment at school, and obviously with such a surplus of information, I did a lot of cool things with the Excel document that I found. One of them was to determine this correlation.

In order to figure this out, I merely performed the equation for percentage change, (New-Old)/Old. So in our case that would be (Closing Price - Opening Price)/Opening Price. By graphing these two variables on the X and Y axis accordingly, one is able to determine an association between the two variables.

The best association between two variables equals 1.00 after performing a regression analysis that Microsoft Excel takes care of when adding a trend line for a given data set. 1.00 represents that the X and Y coordinates create a perfect line together. On the other hand, a regression analysis of 0 indicates that there is absolutely no association between the variables and is typically seen as a haphazard cloud of points completely in disarray.

Based on this information, we can analyze just how close the relationship is between the two variables.
  • Results
As the graph above indicates, based on the data accumulated (courtesy of EOData.com), on September 3rd, 2008 the New York Stock Exchange had a 0.0322 r-squared value describing the association between volume and stock percent change.

This is a tiny number and unbelievably close to 0, which is indicative of little to no association between these two variables. As you can see, the points look like a cloud of information with some random outliers. If the correlation between these two were stronger, one would see the points follow the linear trend line inserted in the graph.
  • Conclusion
Although further sample days are probably needed, I think the association between volume and stock percentage change can be put to rest. While I may encounter stocks with low volume having low or no percentage change at all, there is absolutely no rule of thumb for these two variables.

A stock with high volume may have a low percentage change, while the exact opposite of a stock with low volume might have high percentage change. Both statements are unavoidably the case based on empirical research done on September 3rd, 2008 for the New York Stock Exchange.