Off Topic Thread 5.0

swiwi_

Neil3030 wrote: »

Don't worry, we're still friends.

In these tough Covid times, a feel good story always warms the heart. Would have struggled to cope with a messy online divorce between Neil & Podge TBH.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

In these tough Covid times, a feel good story always warms the heart. Would have struggled to cope with a messy online divorce between Neil & Podge TBH.

I was itching for a bit of drama tbh

Neil3030

Deleted User wrote: »

I was itching for a bit of drama tbh

I have sent my buddy in JnJ that Judge Judy GIF every day since I saw you post it on here about a TV show.

Neil3030

Nice.

He's getting that one when we see the efficacy data.

Quick glance over some of the UK media and it's good to see they aren't calling for all out war. Just.

Former Former Former

Neil3030 wrote: »

And it's just such an unusual stat, too. 8% would almost certainly be within a confidence interval that would cover 0, i.e., no evidence of an effect.

My money is on a misread of the geezer proportion of the sample outright.

People are very hung up on the 8% stat and I agree that it's very open to misinterpretation.

However, that is only part of the story. The other part is that the EU are only going to authorise it for the under 65s. That is a lot more important and a lot harder to get muddled.

Clegg

Hopefully this clears things up. Someone has gotten it horribly wrong in Germany.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1353999453028577280?s=09

Former Former Former

Former Former Former wrote: »

People are very hung up on the 8% stat and I agree that it's very open to misinterpretation.

However, that is only part of the story. The other part is that the EU are only going to authorise it for the under 65s. That is a lot more important and a lot harder to get muddled.

And that is going to be down to a lack of data, rather than a guarantee of low efficacy, unfortunately something spinnable (at least for the time being).

aloooof

Clegg wrote: »

Hopefully this clears things up. Someone has gotten it horribly wrong in Germany.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1353999453028577280?s=09

That's a monumental misunderstanding / misrepresentation by whoever leaked that. Very welcome news, tho.

irishbucsfan

That’s a phenomenal screw-up. That paper should be utterly ashamed

They should dedicate their front page to a retraction and an apology for that, or something of that scale

Interested Observer

God knows how much damage that has done.

Buer

Interested Observer wrote: »

God knows how much damage that has done.

Fortunately, it didn't really gain much traction in the wider media. It was noted in the body of some arrticles but generally passed over.

The journalist/newspaper at the heart of this haven't commented yet but they were really doubling down hard late last night:

https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353841867029438465

We have confirmed the story with multiple sources familiar with the German vaccination policy. Our sources, including members of government coalition and experts, spoke on condition of anonymity so we cannot source the story “on the record” nor make public any underlying data.

Someone should lose their job somewhere along the chain of misinformation.

So my best attempt to summarise this:

1. AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured in the EU was diverted to the UK, as the UK signed off on the vaccine with partial data and had begun vaccinating patients earlier
2. The EU manufacturing site then ran into problems and is unable to deliver the expected amount of vaccine to the EU having already delivered much of their stock
3. Simultaneously it's reported that vaccine efficacy in 65+ doesn't have enough supporting data and the EMA / FDA are now likely to only recommend it for under 65s for the time being
4. When more data is available this should (hopefully) change
5. Two German newspapers got bad information or misinterpreted information suggesting low efficacy among over 65's.
6. It appears that efficacy in 65+ is not entirely clear, but the 8% figure came from the number of over 65's involved in the trial
7. The German government has corrected the record but it still looks likely that over 65s wont get the AZ vaccine in the EU / US for the time being
8. A propaganda war is now taking place online with all sorts of accusations being tossed around but the EU appear to be saying that as a result of AZ sending doses meant for the EU to the UK to keep up with their demand, the EU now wants notice of doses leaving the EU

I think that's the state of play - but it's hard to nail down the specifics.

jacothelad

aloooof wrote: »

And that decision could come back to bite them in the ass if there's any truth to this:

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1353802566623227906

That page seems to have disappeared...

Neil3030

So worst case scenario we would just have to prioritize geezers getting the Pfizer shot. At risk younger groups jump the queue. Not the end of the world.

<checks British media>

Oh...

OldRio

I suppose in years to come children will be taught the causes and effect of the first 'Vaccine World War.'


On that cheery note is it to early to start drinking?

Neil3030

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quick glance over some of the UK media and it's good to see they aren't calling for all out war. Just.

http://arethebritsatitagain.com/

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

Watching Its A Sin on Channel 4. A really good show, but f

---

cccckkkk is it heavy.

Is it entertaining? My rule is pretty strict now: if it’s boring I’m out. It looks like an earnest sort of series but hardly a box of laughs.

molloyjh

swiwi_ wrote: »

Is it entertaining? My rule is pretty strict now: if it’s boring I’m out. It looks like an earnest sort of series but hardly a box of laughs.

It is. Theres a good bit of humour to it. Not belly laugh type stuff but amusing nonetheless. It starts as young kids finding themselves so there's funny situations that arise from that. It mixes the humour and light heartened with the earnest pretty well. It would be a tough watch otherwise.

I actually started watching Kingdom the other night too. Only 1 episode in but it looks decent so far.

awec

Wish I owned some Gamestop stock

Dave_The_Sheep

Some amount of ****ery going on on WSB there alright. Lots of people going to lose out eventually, I'm sure.

Clegg

No, non, nyet, nien

https://twitter.com/McConnellDaniel/status/1354192903380283392?s=09

Neil3030

My understanding is that when you enter a short position you sell an asset that you don't own and you borrow money from the brokerage to do that. You're hoping that the price of the stock will drop and then you can buy back the asset at a lower price and essentially pocked the difference.

However, when the trade moves against you i.e. the stock price rises, then you're going to start losing money, and because this is money you've borrowed from the brokerage (i.e. margin), there's a point when the brokerage says "enough is enough" and forces you to cover your position (i.e. a margin call). This means you have to buy back the stock at a higher price. If this happens with enough people, it causes the stock price to continue to rise, and this is a "short squeeze".

What we're seeing here with Gamestock is a short squeeze on biblical proportions, presumably coordinated by the wallstreetbets group.

awec

Neil3030 wrote: »

My understanding is that when you enter a short position you sell an asset that you don't own and you borrow money from the brokerage to do that. You're hoping that the price of the stock will drop and then you can buy back the asset at a lower price and essentially pocked the difference.

However, when the trade moves against you i.e. the stock price rises, then you're going to start losing money, and because this is money you've borrowed from the brokerage (i.e. margin), there's a point when the brokerage says "enough is enough" and forces you to cover your position (i.e. a margin call). This means you have to buy back the stock at a higher price. If this happens with enough people, it causes the stock price to continue to rise, and this is a "short squeeze".

What we're seeing here with Gamestock is a short squeeze on biblical proportions, presumably coordinated by the wallstreetbets group.

Yes, they are screwing the institutional short sellers.

Neil3030

Wonder if they have an exit strategy.

Gamestop have 70m shares outstanding, so they've blown the value of the company up to approx $16.8bn in after hours trading.

It looks like such an obvious move when you see this https://www.highshortinterest.com/

errlloyd

Neil3030 wrote: »

My understanding is that when you enter a short position you sell an asset that you don't own and you borrow money from the brokerage to do that. You're hoping that the price of the stock will drop and then you can buy back the asset at a lower price and essentially pocked the difference.

You don't have to borrow money at all. It is easier to think of it as borrowing a stock.

Person A owns a stock (valued at 50 dollars).

Person B borrows the stock - and says they'll give it back on March 10th.
Person B then sells the stock they have borrowed (at 50 dollars) hoping they will be able to buy it back for cheaper before March 10th (when they have to return it).


The "squeeze" we are seeing happened because a few (borrowers) short sellers were approaching the time they had to give back the stocks they had borrowed. Suppose they had to return them on February 1st, and they had borrowed them at a value of 30 dollars when the Redditors started buying stocks in Mid January, and the price approached 30 dollars, the short-sellers who needed to buy stocks at less than 30, all had to suddenly buy. That created a knock-on effect that meant even people with longer-term short positions had to buy.

The theory on WSB is that the redditors can all profit at the expense of the short sellers. The reality is that many of the redditors are going to get burned (as well as the short sellers).

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

You don't have to borrow money at all. It is easier to think of it as borrowing a stock.

Person A owns a stock (valued at 50 dollars).

Person B borrows the stock - and says they'll give it back on March 10th.
Person B then sells the stock they have borrowed (at 50 dollars) hoping they will be able to buy it back for cheaper before March 10th (when they have to return it).


The "squeeze" we are seeing happened because a few (borrowers) short sellers were approaching the time they had to give back the stocks they had borrowed. Suppose they had to return them on February 1st, and they had borrowed them at a value of 30 dollars when the Redditors started buying stocks in Mid January, and the price approached 30 dollars, the short-sellers who needed to buy stocks at less than 30, all had to suddenly buy. That created a knock-on effect that meant even people with longer-term short positions had to buy.

The theory on WSB is that the redditors can all profit at the expense of the short sellers. The reality is that many of the redditors are going to get burned (as well as the short sellers).

Still trying to get my head around shorting... is there always a time limit on when you have to give back the borrowed stock? Does that depend on who gives you the leverage?

MaybeMaybe

Deleted User wrote: »

Still trying to get my head around shorting... is there always a time limit on when you have to give back the borrowed stock? Does that depend on who gives you the leverage?

this page gives a good explanation of it
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortsaleclosed.asp