Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

The widening gap between household employment and payrolls is causing concern the weaker message from the household survey is the more accurate. However, the reality probably lies somewhere in between, and the jobs market is not yet weak enough to justify significantly lower yields.

Jobs day has come round again and focus will be on the mounting difference between the number of jobs recorded by the household survey and the establishment survey, i.e. payrolls. The household data is looking increasingly weak, prompting speculation we are on the precipice of a jobs market that’s about to crack.

But there are reasons to think the household survey may be stronger than the data currently suggest, and also that payrolls may be weaker. Overall, that would mean the “true” state of the jobs market is somewhere in between the two surveys, i.e. this is a slowing jobs market, but not one that is going to trigger an imminent recession, nor corner the Federal Reserve into making near-term rate cuts.

1) The household survey may not be properly accounting for increased immigration. A recent Brookings paper posits that the survey may be using too a low an estimate for the civilian population. That would bias employment growth lower, and unemployment rates (both national and state) too high if the estimate of the size the workforce is too low.

2) The BLS adjusts the household data to take account of the differences between the two surveys (orange line in the chart above). This series is also showing weakness, leading to speculation that even payrolls data is inherently soft. But the very jobs taken out of the payrolls survey to make the adjustment (agriculture, the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid family workers in family-owned businesses) are among those that are predisposed to having a bias towards immigrants.

3) On the other hand, payrolls – as it tracks jobs rather than employees as with the household survey – is doing more double counting. The number of multiple job holders is at a 30-year high. Payrolls could thus fall more quickly than household employment when the labor-market decisively turns.

4) The birth-death adjustment for payrolls, to account for new and closed businesses, is making an unusually large contribution to the data, adding 2.8 million jobs since March 2022. That has happened at the same time as survey response rates have dropped notably since the pandemic. It’s conceivable the adjustment is flattering payrolls, and it will eventually be revised away.

Today’s data will shed some light (and probably some heat too), but we would need to see a decisive weakening in both surveys to justify a significant turn lower in yields.

A Pfizer-funded, peer-reviewed paper authored by Pfizer scientists reveals that the company's antiviral COVID medication Paxlovid completely sucks, confirming what everyone's known since it came out.

In a randomized phase 2-3 trial of the drug conducted between Aug. 25, 2021 through July 25, 2022, 654 out of 1,296 patients were dosed with at least one 300mg dose of Paxlovid + 100mg of protease inhibitor ritonavir vs. a placebo group. The results showed that the median time until COVID-19 symptoms ended through day 28 was 12 days in the treatment group vs. 13 days in the placebo group.

According to the authors, the result of the drug, which is also known as nirmatrelvir, "was not significant."

"Similar results were observed in the high-risk subgroup (i.e., participants who had been vaccinated and had at least one risk factor for severe illness) and in the standard-risk subgroup (i.e., those who had no risk factors for severe illness and had never been vaccinated or had not been vaccinated within the previous 12 months)," the authors added.

And while 0.8% of the Paxlovid group suffered 'hospitalization or death' vs. 1.6% of placebo recipients, the authors also concluded that it was not statistically significant, however placebo recipients had longer average hospital stays and were more likely to be admitted to intensive care units.

According to the authors, "the usefulness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19 has not been established."

The trial included adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 and shown at least one symptom, had previously received the COVID-19 vaccine, and had at least one risk factor - such as being a cigarette smoker.

Pfizer had previously announced that they were halting enrollment in the trial over "a very low rate of hospitalization or death observed in the standard-risk patient population."

Paxlovid was previously found not to reduce the risk of long COVID either.

As the Epoch Times notes, Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiology professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the research, said on social media platform X that the trial showed Paxlovid "doesn’t work in vaccinated people."

"It was embarrassing to watch the administration and many ID doctors recommend this without any credible data," he continued - criticizing the government for spending upwards of $12 billion for Paxlovid "without much trial data."

A previous Pfizer trial, which was run to assess Paxlovid’s efficacy and safety among the unvaccinated, found that Paxlovid shortened the time to sustained symptoms alleviation and reduced the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. The trial enrolled people with COVID-19, with symptoms, and who had a risk factor for progression to severe disease or were 60 years of age or older.

Based on the results from that trial, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 authorized the drug for both unvaccinated and vaccinated adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were deemed at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. -Epoch Times

"The benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19," wrote Drs. Rajesh Gandhi and Martin Hirsch in an editorial about the new paper. That said, they also concluded that "it still appears reasonable to recommend the drug to older people and people with substantial underlying conditions."

What?