r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 4, 2021 11:49:59 GMT
Wherever they stick it though, surely the real headline is the second line in the article:
"On Wednesday, the UK said it would unilaterally extend grace periods for Irish Sea border checks, a move the EU said was a breach of international law."
Not what they've actually used:
"The EU is "negotiating with a partner it simply can't trust" in post-Brexit talks, Ireland's foreign minister has said."
Which sounds like a woolly piece of non-story.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 4, 2021 11:43:57 GMT
The BBC is going especially heavy on the latest Royal news, I notice. I care equally about anything to do with this as I do for the Daily Mail taking a snap of a C-list celeb walking down the high street. I really could not give even the slightest toss who is right or wrong, as it has no implication on anyone either way. Meanwhile, the whole 'breaking international law with the NI protocol again' thing is presumably safely tucked in the lifestyle section? It doesn't seem to be anywhere of note - not important I guess. ermm, it's on the front page? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56278125Isn't that link for the europe sub-section? here it's not: www.bbc.com/news or here: www.bbc.com/news/ukedit: in any case, your link for me comes up with "Karachi affair: French ex-PM Édouard Balladur acquitted" taking up the whole front page. The only Brexit story I see is "EU can't trust UK in post-Brexit talks" which doesn't really cover it (at least as a heading) often the way though isn't it? As well as interpreting things differently, we are all actually presented with different material with different placement.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 4, 2021 11:40:58 GMT
The BBC is going especially heavy on the latest Royal news, I notice.
I care equally about anything to do with this as I do for the Daily Mail taking a snap of a C-list celeb walking down the high street. I really could not give even the slightest toss who is right or wrong, as it has no implication on anyone either way.
Meanwhile, the whole 'breaking international law with the NI protocol again' thing is presumably safely tucked in the lifestyle section? It doesn't seem to be anywhere prominent, anyway. Just not as important I guess.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 2, 2021 17:09:56 GMT
Worth checking this thread out from the guys at FT. Aside from the vaccine effect, personally very pleased to see "Elsewhere in Covid Good News. UK to significantly speed up vax rollout, hitting ~4 million doses/week by end March By our calcs, this could mean 1st doses for all adults by mid June, 2nd doses by mid July, 30-somethings getting 1st jab April or May"
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Chat
Stocks
Feb 26, 2021 11:56:19 GMT
macq likes this
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 26, 2021 11:56:19 GMT
Yeah sorry, should have said down that much in the last few weeks. Still, that amount of fall in 2 months is pretty huge for the 'safe' part of one's portfolio. Yep it will be making p2p look safe soon! Even some of the better strategic bond funds are struggling but i guess if you have picked bonds or gilts you really have decided on the long term so its best to set & forget. Must admit i am not really up on bonds so would pick a manager but i do wonder if rather then using something like the Mentioned VGOV whether something like VAGS might be better as a safer passive option Just googled vags. That was a mistake.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Chat
Stocks
Feb 26, 2021 11:51:47 GMT
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 26, 2021 11:51:47 GMT
VLS 20 down 1.35% & VLS 40 down 1.52% on the week - wish some of my funds had tanked that well I guess everything is relative.
Just found it suprising that funds that I thought were 'low risk wealth preservation' type funds were doing worse than VL 80 and 100. Come back emerging markets, all is forgiven.
I find bonds far harder to get my head around than equities, but every time I've probed into them to balance out my portfolio, I've always drawn the conclusion that there's only really one way for them to go at present - down (this is over the last few years), because interest rates haven't got much room to fall further. It makes me feel uncomfortable slightly, as much as of the passive portfolio history is about 60/40 or 70/30 stocks/bonds, but it just doesn't seem that the bond component has all of its previous function. That said, lifestrategy would have been a smoother if ultimately less profitable ride through 2020 if you're the nervy type. Certainly seems at the moment that cash savings at 1-2% has been a fair equivalent over the last few years. Perhaps if this fall continues it might be an opportunity to finally invest in Govt. bonds.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Chat
Stocks
Feb 26, 2021 11:40:09 GMT
macq likes this
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 26, 2021 11:40:09 GMT
Not much better but HL & Morningstar seem to show VGOV down about 2.25% over the week & 8% YTD? Yeah sorry, should have said down that much in the last few weeks. Still, that amount of fall in 2 months is pretty huge for the 'safe' part of one's portfolio.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 26, 2021 11:29:02 GMT
😬11 times more deadly than b117 Not to comment on the veracity of these claims in particular, but I recall that this guy is definitely towards the doomster end of the COVID punditry scale. Every rise in cases is going to be catastrophic, every fall in cases presages the next wave, any new variant is super-deadly etc etc. Again, not saying he's wrong in any of the above, just a note of caution. edit: looking at the tweet again in particular, the use of the phrase "triple worrisome" is a bit of a red flag Also, from the article, what kind of asshole scientist voices the phrase "the devil is already here" ..
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 25, 2021 9:56:10 GMT
Interesting happenings in the world of stocks/bonds/currencies. Long-term Government bonds are seeing a steep rise in yield over the last few days. If you hold a 'boring' bond ETF like VGOV, it's down over 9% in a few days, which I think is a pretty dramatic shift for what's meant to be ballast in an old fashioned stocks/bonds portfolio. Linked to that, rumours abound of much money suddenly being put on interest rates rising all of a sudden, which would probably help explain why Sterling is continuing to go up nicely. Who knows, perhaps we'll be able to earn more than 0.6% interest on a 1 year fixed savings account soon! It does also all suggest that the seeds of inflation may have been planted, which is not surprising given the vast sums pumped into the global economy of late. It feels like a big economic shift is underway.. edit: all explained much better by the FT than me (search result) edit2: oh! hoo-f'ing-rah, google finance appear to have re-improved their charting again, so you can at least add a few comparison funds again.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 22, 2021 16:45:18 GMT
Exactly. If that is the reason, then why August? Why not 2023, when the whole of Africa might be done? I'm not advocating carte blanche on all travel by the way, but this strikes me as crossing the line between appropriate criteria-based restrictions and a noticeable loss of freedom of movement with insufficient reason - as it (apparently) stands. Because all adults in the UK would have been offered their first jab. Btw I'm not justifying the UK govt policy (129,498 deaths with Covid on the death certificate attest to that) but just explaining the implied logic. Yes, you're probably right that that's the 'logic', though we had permitted corridors last year with zero vaccinated people, and I don't recall any significant negative outcomes being reported from the travel that took place (mass infections, new variants etc). There was far more heat for the consequences of 'eat out to help out', and rightly so. I imagine as the time becomes closer, especially if cases here and in Europe follow similar/better trends to last year, that pressure will grow for the Govt to act. It's certainly not a great starting point though, and unnecessarily damages the travel industry as well as the plans of those not just on holiday but also who haven't seen family for extended periods.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 22, 2021 12:39:39 GMT
I think the policy is being influenced by the fear of importing vaccine resistant variants. If so then that will (literally) never end. There will ALWAYS be a possibility of importing the next vaccine resistant strain. Exactly. If that is the reason, then why August? Why not 2023, when the whole of Africa might be done? I'm not advocating carte blanche on all travel by the way, but this strikes me as crossing the line between appropriate criteria-based restrictions and a noticeable loss of freedom of movement with insufficient reason - as it (apparently) stands.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 22, 2021 11:47:08 GMT
<mounts hobby horse> Ref this:
I have to say that if this transpires, I'll be peeved. Given that last July we were seeing <30 deaths a day with zero vaccines, why would now be subject to more restrictions rather than less this year? Unless I'm missing something, by May/June we should be seeing vanishingly few serious cases and deaths.
I'll point out also that I'm fortunate enough to currently be in what is a holiday spot in Spain. People are permitted and very much are flying in from Germany and other countries right fricking now for holidays. I don't think this is an entirely good idea at present, mind, but how we can have one (generally pretty conservative) country saying that travel is permitted now, but the UK reckoning that even the Summer is too soon?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 22, 2021 10:46:27 GMT
Guardian reporting a Scottish study that shows "By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospital admission from Covid-19 by up to 85% and 94%, respectively, they found" A rare victory for AZN in efficacy... I wonder what accounts for the discrepancy between phase 3 trials (100% avoidance of hospitalisation) and the 94%? Did they not control for haggis consumption?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 22, 2021 10:04:53 GMT
The 100% protection bit - is that based on the 100 or so trialists that caught Covid not getting seriously ill? If that's the case, it would be a pretty bold claim wouldn't it ?. If its based on bigger numbers that really would be good news. Thanks a lot all for all your interesting/useful comments on this. Mornin....it says "The primary analysis for efficacy was based on 17,177 participants accruing 332 symptomatic cases from the Phase III UK (COV002), Brazil (COV003) and South Africa (COV005) trials led by Oxford University and AstraZeneca, a further 201 cases than previously reported." Re: travelling, I did hear a report this morning saying that the potential issue with just taking one dose is that no-one knows how long the protection will last. It would be anticipated that the second shot would give you much longer lasting protection. So that would be the concern with my (possible) plan of heading off on one dose.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 21, 2021 20:56:55 GMT
I think we can all feel your understandable anxiety. I'd try not to be too concerned with which one I was offered because at the end of the day it's outside of your control (and I assume/hope you'd take whatever was offered). I appreciate it's easy for me to say. If I were you I'd be more interested in when to flee. Following the 1st dose, 2nd dose or booster in the autumn (and potential future shots)? Could I return easily for future jabs etc (perhaps being required to serve a managed quarantine)? I face a similar travel dilemma. My current view is: 1) I will personally feel totally safe to travel anywhere after the first dose (based on current info), though accept it is of course possible to still be hit with a mild/moderate case. 2) Would like the second dose only really for the tick in the box if vaccine passports etc arise (I think the only change in stats is an increase in efficacy for mild/moderate of a handful of %), but that may prove problematic with travel quarantines etc. So will have to see how it goes. Happy doing without if I can get around where I want to be without it.
|
|