From what I understand there use to be a stress test. I.E. government employees would hypothetically withdraw a lot of deposits and see what would happen.
The threshold for the test was recently changed from 50 billion to 250 billion AUM, so SVB no longer met the threshold and didn't have to do the stress test. I have heard the stress test would have caught this.
Dodd Frank != stress testing and nobody was ever stress testing regional banks. Maybe they should start now given that depending on the region bank failure can have national security consequences
It should not have taken a stress test for the FRBSF or CA State Examiners to see the high risk to solvency a run would create for SVB given the size and state of their HTM portfolio.
This is only the case because the vaccine has been so effective that the disease is close to being infected, and a vaccine-caused case is much less severe than a wild case, but they're still looking into a different vaccine type that will lower the risk of vaccine-caused infections.
That article says nothing about the relative risk of no oral polio administration vs. the small number of people who can get polio from it. The level of death pre oral polio vaccine vs after is clear.
The article is simply pointing out that it would be better if everyone could get the vaccine without live virus because the live virus oral version is beginning to have some unintended issues. The use of oral polio vaccines has saved huge numbers of lives but it needs to be modified now. It is not speaking against vaccines in general.
After March 2023, the message should be an unequivocal "no, not even a little bit."