I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
Sorry, could you point it out to me? And like I said, I see no reference to the CEO.
Bless, You think an unexpected early deal between - cough - Israel- - and - cough - Pfizer - was made on the basis of the sharing of medical data?
Israel. And. Pfizer.
Hm.
Or the deal was made because Israel agreed to pay BILLIONS over the odds to secure the global life-raft of the Jewish people? Colour me cynical, but I suspect a large amount of money played a significant role
I didn't say he mentioned the CEO. I was adding that in for context because it was the only way I could explain the "cough cough" thing. Do you not know the form and content of antisemitic tropes? This is pretty classical in its form. I even provided helpful link to the EHRC definition, on two separate occasions to try to alert people to what's happening here. I mean, there's even another hint, at the end, right in there with the money stuff, the stuff about "the Jewish people". Cyclefree pointed out the UK has also paid over the odds. But if she's said it terms of "the life-raft of the Anglican community" wouldn't that jump out at you a little bit? Make you think twice?
I read that post about six times before I commented on it, looking at angles and trying to convince myself there was nothing untoward going on, and I could not. I still cannot.
Did it not occur to you how German "pfizer" sounds? And as for the community comment, they are a self-proclaimed Jewish state.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
Sorry, could you point it out to me? And like I said, I see no reference to the CEO.
Bless, You think an unexpected early deal between - cough - Israel- - and - cough - Pfizer - was made on the basis of the sharing of medical data?
Israel. And. Pfizer.
Hm.
Or the deal was made because Israel agreed to pay BILLIONS over the odds to secure the global life-raft of the Jewish people? Colour me cynical, but I suspect a large amount of money played a significant role
I didn't say he mentioned the CEO. I was adding that in for context because it was the only way I could explain the "cough cough" thing. Do you not know the form and content of antisemitic tropes? This is pretty classical in its form. I even provided helpful link to the EHRC definition, on two separate occasions to try to alert people to what's happening here. I mean, there's even another hint, at the end, right in there with the money stuff, the stuff about "the Jewish people". Cyclefree pointed out the UK has also paid over the odds. But if she's said it terms of "the life-raft of the Anglican community" wouldn't that jump out at you a little bit? Make you think twice?
I read that post about six times before I commented on it, looking at angles and trying to convince myself there was nothing untoward going on, and I could not. I still cannot.
Its not antisemitism. You're seeing something that's not there.
Israel is a Jewish state, they have used their money here, and they have done it for the right reason - and it is being PRAISED not condemned.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
They are Reddit posters investing to move the price because it’s “fun”
Entirely the wrong sort to be manipulating the markets.
Market manipulation is a crime. Whenprofessionals do it, they go to jail.
When Reddit users do it, they make a tonne of money, and then the poor idiots who follow them lose all their money.
The number of subscribers on r/WallStreetBets increased from 3m to 4m in one day this week. That's one million patsies who are going to engage in buying call options on illiquid stocks driving prices (temporarily) higher. (And who are effectively allowing earlier players to cash out.)
I would suggest your criticism is misplaced. Better to direct it at the short sellers whose whole existence is based on manipulating the market. What the Reddit users did was simply playing them at their own game.
Yes, until they started (inadvertently or otherwise) encouraging their hapless and greedy supporters (many of which unsophisticated retail investors burning their stimulus cheques) to buy in at stupid levels, promising them that they could keep forcing the stock ever higher and bring down Wall Street. The short sellers weren't actively trying to manipulate the price down, they'd just taken a view that it was headed that way (based on fundamentals, and probably correct).
In Reddit parlance, Everyone Sucks Here.
On what evidence do you conclude that one side was manipulating, and the other wasn’t ? And sustained short attacks, despite what Charles tells us, can have real world consequences for companies well beyond ‘providing us with price information’, as this story rather neatly demonstrates: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/amc-stock-reddit-movie-theaters-memes.html
I get the strong whiff of double standards being applied.
A good way to look at this is to ask what would have happened to the share price if the short sellers had not been trying to destroy the company. If you look at the period since last autumn when the changes to GameSpot strategy and management were announced the share price has been steadily rising in spite of repeated attempts to drive it down by the short sellers. It may be the case that it was doomed as Robert claims but that certainly wasn't apparent from what the mainstream investors were doing.
Yes the Reddit users may be no saints but they are complete angels compared to the short sellers.
I like the fact that most of those calling us xenophobic bigots are complaining at the people who are saying morally it it better to help the third world that european nations.....the thought occurs they are total hypocritical bigots
I'm not moralising or name calling. I'm just making the point that a nationalistic warrior approach is the wrong one here. It will get in the way.
I agree with you kinabalu, that this is an issue where breast-beating, no matter how satisfying and natural, is unhelpful. But the most hypocritical players here are the EU. They demand diversion of UK supply to them to get their fair share, whereas, at 17% of supply for 5% of global population, if they were so keen on fair share they should be giving away some of what they already have to other countries worse off than they, rather than doing what they are doing.
And properly funding COVAX, the UK and US are funding £8 and $12 per capita vs €1 from the EU. It's a joke, even counting in all of the individual nations that only brings it up to €1.50, it's immoral for the EU to talk about it's "fair share" while they short change the world's poorest. @kinabalu doesn't want to talk about it, he can't face up to the EU shafting the poorest.
They need to be contributing far more. If they don't I'll be extremely disappointed in them. Let's see how things develop.
Is that it, extremely disappointed. They've had months to do it and they had a limited time where the UK was matching £1 for every $4 donated but chose not to take advantage of that either. It's an absolute scandal IMO that the world's second richest set of nations is refusing to pay it's "fair share" to help the world's poor.
Equitable access to vaccines starts with properly funding COVAX. Biden is stepping up with $4bn. Ursula has committed €500m. Trump did $0, Ursula's contribution is almost on the level of Donald. She's shafting the poorest and talking about Europe's fair share.
Time to have a think about your position on this.
I hope it changes, for one thing. This story has a way to go. And if it doesn't - and the individual member states play scrooge too - then we can revisit. But "extremely disappointed" is quite strong for me. I don't tend to go effing and blinding on things other than Donald Trump.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
I think we've reached some irretrievable point for the EU. In the microcosm of this blog WilliamGlen, SouthamObserver, MysticRose, Anabobazinajobabobbaboyscout, RichardNabavi, even Eagles, have criticised the EU heavily in the last 72 hours. However the Beeb try to spin it for now the story will get through to a percentage of the people who care about our EU membership, and not in its favour.
You can criticise the EU on this specific issue but still believe it was a mistake to leave it, as I do.
Perhaps the reason that people who think as I do are rather quiet on here at the moment is due to the rather unpleasant, bullying tone deployed towards anybody pro-EU on here at the moment by several posters. Led by you. It's a pretty good attempt at 'cancelling' those who are pro-EU (in general, rather than on the vaccine debate).
But that's no fun, is it?
Yeah- the EU vaccine procurement process is slower and has spent less money than the UK did. That's worked out to their disadvantage. The public stuff over the last few days isn't dignified- though how much of that is performative while the real work goes on behind-the-scenes remains to be seen.
And the approval has been less nimble- but given the antivax culture in parts of Europe, that's probably necessary to get confidence for the doses they do give out.
And despite the mistakes and structural problems, Europe as a whole is vaccinating about as fast as Canada, and Japan and Australia have barely started. Europe will be fine, and the vaccine scarcity world looks like it won't last long at all.
It's just a shame that the UK's genuine achievement in vaccination isn't enough; it has to be combined with obsessing about the failure of others.
I don’t think that adequately describes the situation. What you say isn’t wrong, but it somehow ignores a real and very high level row going on at the highest levels of government. Europe clearly still feels it has some sort of legal case, which is outlined here: https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-best-efforts-defense-coronavirus-vaccine-fallout/ It seems to me a pretty thin one, given the comparison between the amounts, and timing of investments made by the UK and EU into the vaccine development, but there is more going on here than their just having a strop.
I like the fact that most of those calling us xenophobic bigots are complaining at the people who are saying morally it it better to help the third world that european nations.....the thought occurs they are total hypocritical bigots
I'm not moralising or name calling. I'm just making the point that a nationalistic warrior approach is the wrong one here. It will get in the way.
But you're wrong and should have the humility to accept you were wrong.
A "nationalistic warrior approach" is what is needed here. It is what has allowed the UK to pay over the odds to create new vaccine manufacturing to create supplies that didn't previously exist. None of these vaccines just fell in our laps - they've been funded by a "nationalistic warrior mentality" which is what allows them to exist - and allows them to be exported around the globe.
Thanks to the "nationalistic warrior mentality" there will be more than enough vaccine doses for the UK plus vaccines going to the rest of the globe and Covax for the third world.
If the EU had adopted more of a "nationalistic warrior mentality" then maybe they'd have paid for some bloody vaccines. How the hell do you think the world can eliminate this damned bloody virus if European countries won't even pay for vaccine development?
Its a war against the virus. It needs a warrior mentality not just idly waiting for it to be delivered to you at the cheapest rate possible.
Every single word of this drips with pure unadulterated little englander europhobia. And you pretend to have voted Leave because of the "democratic deficit".
Busted. Busted beyond redemption.
Course I knew anyway. Think most with faculties do.
Bullshit. Learn to fucking read.
I want the EU to get their chequebook out, pay for some blood vaccines and pay for Covax. That's not phobia.
I know you drink a *LOT* of coffee but do you drink alcohol as well? Like a few on here you seem to get a bit more lairy and sweary as the night wears on.
No sorry, just angry at his bullshit and didn't filter it because of the time.
"Busted beyond redemption" because I want rich countries on this planet to pay for vaccine development and Covax?
The only thing "busted beyond redemption" is his integrity.
He's a guy on the internet who you've never met, not Jimmy Savile who fixed it for your best pal's sister when you were knee high to a grasshopper.
Nah. Kinabalu is miles out of order here. He really has lost the plot the last few days. Something seriously wrong with his moral compass.
Nevertheless still a guy on the internet who you've never met.
Not sure why arguing against europhobia and warning about vaccine nationalism is so beyond the pale. Most odd reaction from people. It's like I've removed a Churchill bust from the PB reception or something. ☺
Because what you are claiming as europhobia and vaccine nationalism is nothing of the sort. You are simply ignoring the facts and making stuff up to suit your own preconceived ideas that anything the EU does must automatically be right and anything the UK does must automatically be wrong. It is a very poor position to take.
Are you really saying that there has been NO element of europhobia and vaccine nationalism on here over the least few days? That seems as partial a reading as that which you're ascribing to Kinbalu.
Not from the target of Kinabalu's attacks. Philip has gone out of his way to be clear about where he thinks the faults lie and also to promote the idea of helping those countries who really need help because they have no way of affording the vaccines rather than those who have just been inept. And I am sorry but as I said earlier the EU response here has been atrocious.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
They are Reddit posters investing to move the price because it’s “fun”
Entirely the wrong sort to be manipulating the markets.
Market manipulation is a crime. Whenprofessionals do it, they go to jail.
Poor Kinabalu - who I had previously respected as a top poster despite the fact that he and I are opposed on virtually everything - has completely shredded his reputation as a sensible poster on here tonight.
Such a pity when Remoaners demonstrate their complete hatred for Britain!
YOU used to respect me as a top poster? That is actually quite worrying! Thank god I've turned that around.
I think we've reached some irretrievable point for the EU. In the microcosm of this blog WilliamGlen, SouthamObserver, MysticRose, Anabobazinajobabobbaboyscout, RichardNabavi, even Eagles, have criticised the EU heavily in the last 72 hours. However the Beeb try to spin it for now the story will get through to a percentage of the people who care about our EU membership, and not in its favour.
You can criticise the EU on this specific issue but still believe it was a mistake to leave it, as I do.
Perhaps the reason that people who think as I do are rather quiet on here at the moment is due to the rather unpleasant, bullying tone deployed towards anybody pro-EU on here at the moment by several posters. Led by you. It's a pretty good attempt at 'cancelling' those who are pro-EU (in general, rather than on the vaccine debate).
But that's no fun, is it?
Yeah- the EU vaccine procurement process is slower and has spent less money than the UK did. That's worked out to their disadvantage. The public stuff over the last few days isn't dignified- though how much of that is performative while the real work goes on behind-the-scenes remains to be seen.
And the approval has been less nimble- but given the antivax culture in parts of Europe, that's probably necessary to get confidence for the doses they do give out.
And despite the mistakes and structural problems, Europe as a whole is vaccinating about as fast as Canada, and Japan and Australia have barely started. Europe will be fine, and the vaccine scarcity world looks like it won't last long at all.
It's just a shame that the UK's genuine achievement in vaccination isn't enough; it has to be combined with obsessing about the failure of others.
Jaw dropping spin
ALL of the angst is because the EU got it wrong and are lashing out at us and threatening, yes threatening us.
Speaking for myself - I'm not obsessed by their failure but I sure as fuck am not be willing to roll over as they attempt to steam roller us
They made their mistakes and they bear the consequences
I think we've reached some irretrievable point for the EU. In the microcosm of this blog WilliamGlen, SouthamObserver, MysticRose, Anabobazinajobabobbaboyscout, RichardNabavi, even Eagles, have criticised the EU heavily in the last 72 hours. However the Beeb try to spin it for now the story will get through to a percentage of the people who care about our EU membership, and not in its favour.
They've still got kinabalu in their corner. He's batting away in a way that would impress even Geoffrey Boycott.
Gower. Please...
You mean you’re about to comprehensively lose the argument, with a post of quite scintillating style ?
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
They are Reddit posters investing to move the price because it’s “fun”
Entirely the wrong sort to be manipulating the markets.
Market manipulation is a crime. Whenprofessionals do it, they go to jail.
When Reddit users do it, they make a tonne of money, and then the poor idiots who follow them lose all their money.
The number of subscribers on r/WallStreetBets increased from 3m to 4m in one day this week. That's one million patsies who are going to engage in buying call options on illiquid stocks driving prices (temporarily) higher. (And who are effectively allowing earlier players to cash out.)
I would suggest your criticism is misplaced. Better to direct it at the short sellers whose whole existence is based on manipulating the market. What the Reddit users did was simply playing them at their own game.
Yes, until they started (inadvertently or otherwise) encouraging their hapless and greedy supporters (many of which unsophisticated retail investors burning their stimulus cheques) to buy in at stupid levels, promising them that they could keep forcing the stock ever higher and bring down Wall Street. The short sellers weren't actively trying to manipulate the price down, they'd just taken a view that it was headed that way (based on fundamentals, and probably correct).
In Reddit parlance, Everyone Sucks Here.
On what evidence do you conclude that one side was manipulating, and the other wasn’t ? And sustained short attacks, despite what Charles tells us, can have real world consequences for companies well beyond ‘providing us with price information’, as this story rather neatly demonstrates: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/amc-stock-reddit-movie-theaters-memes.html
I get the strong whiff of double standards being applied.
I don't think either side was actively trying to engage in anything that legally constitutes stock market manipulation, although I am very much not an expert. All I know is that neither side is acting in ways conducive to a healthy and efficient exchange, but it seems to me that the hedge funds were misbehaving less.
One thing I can't quite get a handle on is whether the specific firm being targeted had shorted more than 100% of shares on their own (in which case they are much less deserving of any sympathy) or if it was just unfortunate that a group of firms, not colluding, had more than 100% between them.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
They are Reddit posters investing to move the price because it’s “fun”
Entirely the wrong sort to be manipulating the markets.
Market manipulation is a crime. Whenprofessionals do it, they go to jail.
When Reddit users do it, they make a tonne of money, and then the poor idiots who follow them lose all their money.
The number of subscribers on r/WallStreetBets increased from 3m to 4m in one day this week. That's one million patsies who are going to engage in buying call options on illiquid stocks driving prices (temporarily) higher. (And who are effectively allowing earlier players to cash out.)
I would suggest your criticism is misplaced. Better to direct it at the short sellers whose whole existence is based on manipulating the market. What the Reddit users did was simply playing them at their own game.
Yes, until they started (inadvertently or otherwise) encouraging their hapless and greedy supporters (many of which unsophisticated retail investors burning their stimulus cheques) to buy in at stupid levels, promising them that they could keep forcing the stock ever higher and bring down Wall Street. The short sellers weren't actively trying to manipulate the price down, they'd just taken a view that it was headed that way (based on fundamentals, and probably correct).
In Reddit parlance, Everyone Sucks Here.
On what evidence do you conclude that one side was manipulating, and the other wasn’t ? And sustained short attacks, despite what Charles tells us, can have real world consequences for companies well beyond ‘providing us with price information’, as this story rather neatly demonstrates: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/amc-stock-reddit-movie-theaters-memes.html
I get the strong whiff of double standards being applied.
A good way to look at this is to ask what would have happened to the share price if the short sellers had not been trying to destroy the company. If you look at the period since last autumn when the changes to GameSpot strategy and management were announced the share price has been steadily rising in spite of repeated attempts to drive it down by the short sellers. It may be the case that it was doomed as Robert claims but that certainly wasn't apparent from what the mainstream investors were doing.
Yes the Reddit users may be no saints but they are complete angels compared to the short sellers.
Which is pretty well the same story the Slate article that I posted tells (with more concrete evidence) about another company.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
Sorry, could you point it out to me? And like I said, I see no reference to the CEO.
Bless, You think an unexpected early deal between - cough - Israel- - and - cough - Pfizer - was made on the basis of the sharing of medical data?
Israel. And. Pfizer.
Hm.
Or the deal was made because Israel agreed to pay BILLIONS over the odds to secure the global life-raft of the Jewish people? Colour me cynical, but I suspect a large amount of money played a significant role
I didn't say he mentioned the CEO. I was adding that in for context because it was the only way I could explain the "cough cough" thing. Do you not know the form and content of antisemitic tropes? This is pretty classical in its form. I even provided helpful link to the EHRC definition, on two separate occasions to try to alert people to what's happening here. I mean, there's even another hint, at the end, right in there with the money stuff, the stuff about "the Jewish people". Cyclefree pointed out the UK has also paid over the odds. But if she's said it terms of "the life-raft of the Anglican community" wouldn't that jump out at you a little bit? Make you think twice?
I read that post about six times before I commented on it, looking at angles and trying to convince myself there was nothing untoward going on, and I could not. I still cannot.
You're mistaken. The reference is about Pfizer's history. It's forerunner was a huge Nazi donor and it invented Zyklon B, the chemical used in gas chambers. Hence, err, Leon talking about Pfizer and Israel. I doubt whether he realised the CEO is Jewish, you have made that link.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
UK first, CTA second, third world third.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
This global pandemic will not be best solved by nation states competing to vaccinate their own populations.
Yes it damned well will. That is EXACTLY how it will be solved. The very last thing to do is some kind of soggy Gordon-Brown style international initiative with no country putting their all into getting their own population jabbed, bogged down in quibbles about one country refusing to cooperate with its neighbour, with politicians given a get-out-of-jail-free card because there's no incentive to do well internationally, and with meagre early supplies dissipated around the world in such small quantities that nowhere gains significant immunity and can open up again.
Of course that's not at all to say 'every man for himself'. Quite the opposite, once we've got our own population protected we can go all-out on making vaccines available to other countries, and hope that they too will be competing with each other to get their own populations protected ASAP.
A "soggy Gordon Brown style" international initiative such as the one that co-ordinated global action to respond to the Financial Crash?
Could do worse.
I've never understood what on earth that claim was about. Inasmuch as it wasn't a complete figment of Brown's imagination that he'd 'saved the world', it seems to have comprised him muttering something at an international summit, and then everyone saying 'Yes, Gordon' and going on to do what they were planning to do anyway.
Not at all. He was key to the action taken and it worked. It's the consensus of all involved. C'mon.
I was almost certain, from memory, that "saved the world" was a slip of the tongue, and he meant to say "saved the banks".
Yes, that was a bit of good japes. But it was in fact more than just the banks at stake. It was about not letting a very very bad situation become catastrophic. Brown done good at that time. This is acknowledged by all but the most partisan and churlish. To deny it would be like me saying Johnson has NOT done well (so far) on vaccines.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
UK first, CTA second, third world third.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
I think our logistical help in established commonwealth sites will become invaluable very soon.
This global pandemic will not be best solved by nation states competing to vaccinate their own populations.
Yes it damned well will. That is EXACTLY how it will be solved. The very last thing to do is some kind of soggy Gordon-Brown style international initiative with no country putting their all into getting their own population jabbed, bogged down in quibbles about one country refusing to cooperate with its neighbour, with politicians given a get-out-of-jail-free card because there's no incentive to do well internationally, and with meagre early supplies dissipated around the world in such small quantities that nowhere gains significant immunity and can open up again.
Of course that's not at all to say 'every man for himself'. Quite the opposite, once we've got our own population protected we can go all-out on making vaccines available to other countries, and hope that they too will be competing with each other to get their own populations protected ASAP.
A "soggy Gordon Brown style" international initiative such as the one that co-ordinated global action to respond to the Financial Crash?
Could do worse.
I've never understood what on earth that claim was about. Inasmuch as it wasn't a complete figment of Brown's imagination that he'd 'saved the world', it seems to have comprised him muttering something at an international summit, and then everyone saying 'Yes, Gordon' and going on to do what they were planning to do anyway.
Not at all. He was key to the action taken and it worked. It's the consensus of all involved. C'mon.
I was almost certain, from memory, that "saved the world" was a slip of the tongue, and he meant to say "saved the banks".
Yes, that was a bit of good japes. But it was in fact more than just the banks at stake. It was about not letting a very very bad situation become catastrophic. Brown done good at that time. This is acknowledged by all but the most partisan and churlish. To deny it would be like me saying Johnson has NOT done well (so far) on vaccines.
Darling did well. Brown (or someone, at least) mostly cancelled out his good work with some of the banks by trying too hard to protect Scottish jobs at HBoS, which led to the ludicrous mess of a merger that became LBG.
Digby Jones is right: we shouldnt be smug about the vaccine situation when people in Spain and Portugal arent able to have jabs because theyve completely run out of it.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
UK first, CTA second, third world third.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
I think our logistical help in established commonwealth sites will become invaluable very soon.
Which Commonwealth states are you talking about?
If you're referring to third world Commonwealth States then I completely agree as I've said.
British overseas territories we should be dealing with as part of our own national response perhaps.
But India, Australia, Canada etc . . . they have billions of their own doses.
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
There seems to be some confusion among you lads as to whether vaccine nationalism is a good or a bad thing, so I'm not sure what obligation I have to define it. At least we've confirmed that PB is a Europhobia free zone.
I think we've reached some irretrievable point for the EU. In the microcosm of this blog WilliamGlen, SouthamObserver, MysticRose, Anabobazinajobabobbaboyscout, RichardNabavi, even Eagles, have criticised the EU heavily in the last 72 hours. However the Beeb try to spin it for now the story will get through to a percentage of the people who care about our EU membership, and not in its favour.
You can criticise the EU on this specific issue but still believe it was a mistake to leave it, as I do.
Perhaps the reason that people who think as I do are rather quiet on here at the moment is due to the rather unpleasant, bullying tone deployed towards anybody pro-EU on here at the moment by several posters. Led by you. It's a pretty good attempt at 'cancelling' those who are pro-EU (in general, rather than on the vaccine debate).
Not at all. There has been considerable praise from Leave supporters on here for those Remainers who have differentiated between support for the EU and sensible criticism of the actions taken over this specific episode.
But it is right to scorn those who try to defend the current EU clusterf*ck in spite of all the evidence that everyone else - whether pro or anti EU - can see as plain as day.
And when those posters, or one in particular, decides to try and take the moral highground and claim that those criticising the EU are doing so because of Europhobia - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - they they need to be called out for it.
I don't include you particularly in my observation, as you're generally calm and courteous when you disagree. But if you don't think that Europhobia shines through some posts tonight, you must be reading them very differently from me. And I don't like the vehemence of the attacks - particularly on the poster you mention, who is taking a principled position and is invariably courteous himself (I'm assuming Kinabalu is a him).
Again that is why my criticism of Kinabalu was specifically directed as his comments over the last few days rather than a general attack.
And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Pointing out that the EU has failed dismally to invest in vaccine development compared to other first world countries and that they are now trying to use their economic power to force companies to supply them with vaccines because they also failed to commit to purchasing vaccines early enough or to licence them quickly enough is not Europhobia. Any more than attacking Johnson for his failure to shut borders, put in place a proper track and trace system or protect care homes is Anglophobia.
Kinabalu has gone off the deep end in a quite ridiculous manner and deserves all the criticism he is getting.
You're misreading things, Richard. Apart from diagnosing Philip with europhobia and rampant engnat (which I've said a few times before and is my honest assessment of what mainly makes him tick based on many many hours of conversation) my posts have all been normal and on brand.
And btw, europhobia and engnat are not crimes. They are interesting and valid drivers of political viewpoints. People are being too precious.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
UK first, CTA second, third world third.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
I think our logistical help in established commonwealth sites will become invaluable very soon.
Which Commonwealth states are you talking about?
If you're referring to third world Commonwealth States then I completely agree as I've said.
British overseas territories we should be dealing with as part of our own national response perhaps.
But India, Australia, Canada etc . . . they have billions of their own doses.
We seem to be better off working with India's AZ production and helping them with global rollouts for vaccination than we could now ever be working with the EU.
Sorry just saw your question on the ethical difference between covered short selling and naked short selling.
From a definition perspective, "naked short selling" is the sale of shares which cannot be proved to exist - i.e. (usually) where the short interest is >100% of the stock.
That's illegal. Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics, but it's worth pointing out.
On the difference between shorting when you have borrowed the stock and shorting when you haven't is one of risk. Usually the big institutions lend stock and earn an income from it. If you have to close your short then they will typically extend the contract if you can't buy in the market because they have an interest in an orderly market. (This doesn't mean they will allow you to make a profit if you mess up, but they won't drive you into bankruptcy).
When you short without having borrowed you are taking much more risk because you are exposed to a short squeeze.
The issues I have with this situation are:
(a) Naked shorting is illegal (b) The hedge funds have been stupid and jumped on a bandwagon (c) Retail investors coordinating on a short squeeze are - in my view - engaging in market abuse
No body comes out of this well.
Someone else suggested it earlier, but I reckon the company should do a capital raise. But I doubt that any credible underwriters will run it for them.
I've not been following this in detail, but I note that the business is a video games outfit. Are the legion of retail investors piling in mostly speculators hoping for a windfall, or game players rallying round their business? I know we can't really know for sure, but what sort of groups are pushing it?
They are Reddit posters investing to move the price because it’s “fun”
Entirely the wrong sort to be manipulating the markets.
Market manipulation is a crime. Whenprofessionals do it, they go to jail.
When Reddit users do it, they make a tonne of money, and then the poor idiots who follow them lose all their money.
The number of subscribers on r/WallStreetBets increased from 3m to 4m in one day this week. That's one million patsies who are going to engage in buying call options on illiquid stocks driving prices (temporarily) higher. (And who are effectively allowing earlier players to cash out.)
I would suggest your criticism is misplaced. Better to direct it at the short sellers whose whole existence is based on manipulating the market. What the Reddit users did was simply playing them at their own game.
Yes, until they started (inadvertently or otherwise) encouraging their hapless and greedy supporters (many of which unsophisticated retail investors burning their stimulus cheques) to buy in at stupid levels, promising them that they could keep forcing the stock ever higher and bring down Wall Street. The short sellers weren't actively trying to manipulate the price down, they'd just taken a view that it was headed that way (based on fundamentals, and probably correct).
In Reddit parlance, Everyone Sucks Here.
On what evidence do you conclude that one side was manipulating, and the other wasn’t ? And sustained short attacks, despite what Charles tells us, can have real world consequences for companies well beyond ‘providing us with price information’, as this story rather neatly demonstrates: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/amc-stock-reddit-movie-theaters-memes.html
I get the strong whiff of double standards being applied.
A good way to look at this is to ask what would have happened to the share price if the short sellers had not been trying to destroy the company. If you look at the period since last autumn when the changes to GameSpot strategy and management were announced the share price has been steadily rising in spite of repeated attempts to drive it down by the short sellers. It may be the case that it was doomed as Robert claims but that certainly wasn't apparent from what the mainstream investors were doing.
Yes the Reddit users may be no saints but they are complete angels compared to the short sellers.
As a former Long Only (i.e. no "shorting" or betting on stocks going down) fund manager, I think the good done by short sellers massively outweighs the bad.
It was principled short sellers who discovered the frauds that were Wirecard, Enron, Worldcom and the like*. If they pick on a business with sound fundamentals, and drive the price down, then management has an easy out: they go to private equity and they take the company private and they laugh all the way to the bank.
Ultimately, people playing around with the price of GameStop does nothing to make GameStop's business weaker. People either will buy stuff from them or won't, and their share price won't come into it at all.
The share price is - in the long run - the output of the company's business. It's not an input.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
There seems to be some confusion among you lads as to whether vaccine nationalism is a good or a bad thing, so I'm not sure what obligation I have to define it. At least we've confirmed that PB is a Europhobia free zone.
I think "amongst us lads" we are agreed that the right thing to do is legitimately investing into helping your own nation first, then helping others who need help and can't help themselves second, which should not mean the EU.
This global pandemic will not be best solved by nation states competing to vaccinate their own populations.
Yes it damned well will. That is EXACTLY how it will be solved. The very last thing to do is some kind of soggy Gordon-Brown style international initiative with no country putting their all into getting their own population jabbed, bogged down in quibbles about one country refusing to cooperate with its neighbour, with politicians given a get-out-of-jail-free card because there's no incentive to do well internationally, and with meagre early supplies dissipated around the world in such small quantities that nowhere gains significant immunity and can open up again.
Of course that's not at all to say 'every man for himself'. Quite the opposite, once we've got our own population protected we can go all-out on making vaccines available to other countries, and hope that they too will be competing with each other to get their own populations protected ASAP.
A "soggy Gordon Brown style" international initiative such as the one that co-ordinated global action to respond to the Financial Crash?
Could do worse.
I've never understood what on earth that claim was about. Inasmuch as it wasn't a complete figment of Brown's imagination that he'd 'saved the world', it seems to have comprised him muttering something at an international summit, and then everyone saying 'Yes, Gordon' and going on to do what they were planning to do anyway.
Not at all. He was key to the action taken and it worked. It's the consensus of all involved. C'mon.
I was almost certain, from memory, that "saved the world" was a slip of the tongue, and he meant to say "saved the banks".
Yes, that was a bit of good japes. But it was in fact more than just the banks at stake. It was about not letting a very very bad situation become catastrophic. Brown done good at that time. This is acknowledged by all but the most partisan and churlish. To deny it would be like me saying Johnson has NOT done well (so far) on vaccines.
Darling did well. Brown (or someone, at least) mostly cancelled out his good work with some of the banks by trying too hard to protect Scottish jobs at HBoS, which led to the ludicrous mess of a merger that became LBG.
Well all of the people involved consider that he - Brown - led the efforts and drove them through to fruition. I've read a fair amount on it too. So, there you go.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
There seems to be some confusion among you lads as to whether vaccine nationalism is a good or a bad thing, so I'm not sure what obligation I have to define it. At least we've confirmed that PB is a Europhobia free zone.
I think "amongst us lads" we are agreed that the right thing to do is legitimately investing into helping your own nation first, then helping others who need help and can't help themselves second, which should not mean the EU.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
CTA first, Commonwealth second, EU friends depends on their Portugueseness.
UK first, CTA second, third world third.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
I think our logistical help in established commonwealth sites will become invaluable very soon.
Which Commonwealth states are you talking about?
If you're referring to third world Commonwealth States then I completely agree as I've said.
British overseas territories we should be dealing with as part of our own national response perhaps.
But India, Australia, Canada etc . . . they have billions of their own doses.
We seem to be better off working with India's AZ production and helping them with global rollouts for vaccination than we could now ever be working with the EU.
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
Crap. No one tell the EU.
Ironic, given the EU has exactly (checks...) zero confirmed orders.
But it's all going to look pretty irrelevant in a month or six weeks: AZN, Pfizer, Moderna will all be making more vaccines than now, J&J will also be approved, and it's entirely possible CureVac (which works the same way as Pfizer and Moderna) will end up unblinding its results early.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world. The EU needs more of it.
Europhobia? No, there's been a calling out of a Eurofailing and Eurosclerosis so obvious that even most of its most ardent supporters can see it.
Just like sometimes Boris gets criticised. I've joined in with criticism of Boris before when something's gone wrong on a UK level. Never considered that to be Anglophobia.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing? You'd better let Richard Tyndall know then because he thinks there has been nothing of the sort. Of course if he's wrong on that, who knows about the Europhobia stuff.
What do you define as vaccine nationalism. This is what I meant, quoting from Richard Tyndall and I 100% completely agree with this: And his position on this is not in any way principled. Those he has been criticising have been very clear that the first duty of the Government should be to get their own population protected and then should be to help those who are least able to help themselves - which is certainly not the EU.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
There seems to be some confusion among you lads as to whether vaccine nationalism is a good or a bad thing, so I'm not sure what obligation I have to define it. At least we've confirmed that PB is a Europhobia free zone.
I think "amongst us lads" we are agreed that the right thing to do is legitimately investing into helping your own nation first, then helping others who need help and can't help themselves second, which should not mean the EU.
Vaccine nationalism is a good thing and good for the world.
Yes. I've said I'd define that as nationalism. Others it seems won't. I can't be bothered arguing over definitions if we are on the same page with what we are talking about though.
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
Crap. No one tell the EU.
Ironic, given the EU has exactly (checks...) zero confirmed orders.
But it's all going to look pretty irrelevant in a month or six weeks: AZN, Pfizer, Moderna will all be making more vaccines than now, J&J will also be approved, and it's entirely possible CureVac (which works the same way as Pfizer and Moderna) will end up unblinding its results early.
I presume they will sign a deal next week then we will have this nonsense again about we demand our fair share now, despite the fact they spent 6 months trying to haggle the price down rather than signing any contact.
I think we've reached some irretrievable point for the EU. In the microcosm of this blog WilliamGlen, SouthamObserver, MysticRose, Anabobazinajobabobbaboyscout, RichardNabavi, even Eagles, have criticised the EU heavily in the last 72 hours. However the Beeb try to spin it for now the story will get through to a percentage of the people who care about our EU membership, and not in its favour.
They've still got kinabalu in their corner. He's batting away in a way that would impress even Geoffrey Boycott.
Gower. Please...
You mean you’re about to comprehensively lose the argument, with a post of quite scintillating style ?
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Further investigation needed, would be my assessment.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
No. You are being too incurious.
No, it's obvious it was done that way because the link isn't exactly the most pleasant, relating Pfizer to what happened back in WW2.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
No. You are being too incurious.
No, it's obvious it was done that way because the link isn't exactly the most pleasant, relating Pfizer to what happened back in WW2.
I don't know if that qualifies as "obvious", but it's certainly plausible, and more likely than a "divided loyalties" insinuation.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
No. You are being too incurious.
No, it's obvious it was done that way because the link isn't exactly the most pleasant, relating Pfizer to what happened back in WW2.
I don't know if that qualifies as "obvious", but it's certainly plausible, and more likely than a "divided loyalties" insinuation.
Fair enough. Obvious after having spent the last hour thinking/talking about it!
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
It wasn't vaccines per se, the insinuation was that Pfizer in particular had some hidden loyalty to Israel. Pfizer has a Jewish CEO. If it wasn't clear from just that conflation, the poster actually wrote "Pfizer, Israel, cough cough".
And when confronted about this, he didn't row back and say "no, of course I didn't mean it that way", his early response was "LOL".
I don't see the antisemitism in that quote. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
Well, I did and I still do. Pretty much the same kind of stuff we've seen some left-wing activists in recent years, but for some reason it's easier to see in those cases.
Reading it now, I don't see any connection to the CEO of Pfizer. Looks more like a dark-humoured laugh at the prospect of Israel sending results of medical experiments to company founded by German descendants. The alternative suggestion, that they coughed up, seems plausible.
Full marks for the creative attempt, but even the person in question didn't try to explain it in that way. So no, that's not what they meant.
Still, we've moved on from silence to actually talking about this. I guess that's the PB equivalent of going from Corbyn to Starmer. Probably quite a way to to still.
It would be super cool if you could stop throwing around accusations of bigotry (on behalf of others, I am guessing? apologies if not) like a weapon against people you don't like/agree with generally, when they're not obviously warranted. That way, it's easier to make them stick when we actually need to. Cf the Jeremy Corbyn years.
TIA
What the fuck is that "on behalf of others" about? Where are you going with that?
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
It means I'm assuming you are not yourself Jewish, on the basis that there are vanishingly few Jews out there called Mary. On which basis, you are presumably not personally offended by the comment in question. Therefore, having raised it and discovered you're the only one who thinks it was anti-semitic, you might want to consider more closely the notion that the majority view is the correct one.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
The "cough cough" was unfortunate.
What was unfortunate about it?
It gave it a crafty insinuating feel that begged questions. Questions which btw I am not able to answer. So I'm not joining in the accusation. But neither am I on the defence team. Questions to answer, would be my assessment.
You are reading way too much into it. It's just a way of highlighting an unusual pairing through the medium of text.
No. You are being too incurious.
No, it's obvious it was done that way because the link isn't exactly the most pleasant, relating Pfizer to what happened back in WW2.
That is one possible answer but not the only one. Look, far from reading "way too much" into it, I'm not reading anything into it. That's exactly what I said. I said it gave it a "feel" that begged questions. I'd need the answers to those questions - wouldn't I? - before reading things into it. I do wish I didn't have to say everything two or three times. It's exhausting!
That is one possible answer but not the only one. Look, far from reading "way too much" into it, I'm not reading anything into it. That's exactly what I said. I said it gave it a "feel" that begged questions. I'd need the answers to those questions - wouldn't I? - before reading things into it. I do wish I didn't have to say everything two or three times. It's exhausting!
You're now insinuating there is still a secret meaning to the message. I think we can safely dismiss that at this point.
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
Crap. No one tell the EU.
Ironic, given the EU has exactly (checks...) zero confirmed orders.
But it's all going to look pretty irrelevant in a month or six weeks: AZN, Pfizer, Moderna will all be making more vaccines than now, J&J will also be approved, and it's entirely possible CureVac (which works the same way as Pfizer and Moderna) will end up unblinding its results early.
I presume they will sign a deal next week then we will have this nonsense again about we demand our fair share now, despite the fact they spent 6 months trying to haggle the price down rather than signing any contact.
I hope the UK contract is waterproof: because if I was an EU leader I would be offering 3x the price to jump the queue.
As an aside, Moderna is now available privately in Los Angeles. I don't know what the going rate is (I'd guess it'll be $5-10,000), but my guess is that a wealthy country that had lots of money and wanted to buy some Moderna doses would be able to.
As an aside, Moderna is now available privately in Los Angeles. I don't know what the going rate is (I'd guess it'll be $5-10,000), but my guess is that a wealthy country that had lots of money and wanted to buy some Moderna doses would be able to.
Queue jumping seems to be almost impossible here in the UK which is a good thing IMO. There must be a few people doing it though.
I'm very much enjoying the spectacle of everyone piling onto one poster for saying things that offend their moral sensibilities.
A few days ago we had actual real life antisemitism being spewed on here, and one person, one, spoke up against it.
It's informative to know where people draw their lines.
That was the claim that Israel used money to get ahead in the vaccine game? I'm not sure how that's antisemitic, that's just being clever.
A combination of money and data going back the other way. Call it a large-scale Phase IV trial. The world (and Pfizer) is quickly going to find out what a country with most of the population vaccinated looks like, which is invaluable.
Poor Kinabalu - who I had previously respected as a top poster despite the fact that he and I are opposed on virtually everything - has completely shredded his reputation as a sensible poster on here tonight.
Such a pity when Remoaners demonstrate their complete hatred for Britain!
Seems a bit harsh. I'm more on the side of it being reasonable to get a long way through our own programme before getting into how we can help others use our oversupply, but his heart seems to be in the right place and most people seem on board with the fundamental aim of helping, just not on the path to getting there.
He just seems to gotten this idée fixe in his head that the younger half of the UK population should willingly sacrifice their health and freedom for the rest of the world's population out of sheer self-harming altruism.
This is one of those bonkers policies - like the 'open everything up, we'll be fine' of the Great Barringtonites - that is born of such ideological myopia that you have to thank God that the people who dreamed it up are not in charge of making the actual decisions. The kind of anger it would generate in the public would be like nothing seen in generations.
Yes, nation-states are how we'll beat this thing. Because those are the entities that have the keenest interest and incentive in helping their own citizens back to normal life - and those citizens are entitled to be helped first before anyone else. That's the social contract. If the oxygen gives out on a plane, you put your own damned mask on first before you can help anyone else.
The oxygen mask is a great analogy. Someone who first tries to assist another, usually ends with two unconscious passengers, both overcome by hpoxia.
The correct U.K. strategy is to get everyone in the U.K. vaccinated first, then take what we have learned and find people who are struggling to contain outbreaks in their own countries.
Start with Ireland if they’re behind, and British territories aboard for obvious reasons, then look at places suffering the most with the virus - places where people are dying for lack of treatment and who can’t afford vaccines.
This global pandemic will not be best solved by nation states competing to vaccinate their own populations.
Yes it damned well will. That is EXACTLY how it will be solved. The very last thing to do is some kind of soggy Gordon-Brown style international initiative with no country putting their all into getting their own population jabbed, bogged down in quibbles about one country refusing to cooperate with its neighbour, with politicians given a get-out-of-jail-free card because there's no incentive to do well internationally, and with meagre early supplies dissipated around the world in such small quantities that nowhere gains significant immunity and can open up again.
Of course that's not at all to say 'every man for himself'. Quite the opposite, once we've got our own population protected we can go all-out on making vaccines available to other countries, and hope that they too will be competing with each other to get their own populations protected ASAP.
A "soggy Gordon Brown style" international initiative such as the one that co-ordinated global action to respond to the Financial Crash?
Could do worse.
I've never understood what on earth that claim was about. Inasmuch as it wasn't a complete figment of Brown's imagination that he'd 'saved the world', it seems to have comprised him muttering something at an international summit, and then everyone saying 'Yes, Gordon' and going on to do what they were planning to do anyway.
Not at all. He was key to the action taken and it worked. It's the consensus of all involved. C'mon.
I was almost certain, from memory, that "saved the world" was a slip of the tongue, and he meant to say "saved the banks".
That is one possible answer but not the only one. Look, far from reading "way too much" into it, I'm not reading anything into it. That's exactly what I said. I said it gave it a "feel" that begged questions. I'd need the answers to those questions - wouldn't I? - before reading things into it. I do wish I didn't have to say everything two or three times. It's exhausting!
You're now insinuating there is still a secret meaning to the message. I think we can safely dismiss that at this point.
Not insinuating anything. I'm speaking in a plain & straightforward manner. Nevertheless we again have comprehension issues. That "is" should be a "may". As in there "may" be a troublesome meaning (subject to further review). And you would only dismiss that possibility by being - as I say - incurious to a fault. I really do have to work on here sometimes.
Comments
Israel is a Jewish state, they have used their money here, and they have done it for the right reason - and it is being PRAISED not condemned.
You're being sensitive over nothing.
Yes the Reddit users may be no saints but they are complete angels compared to the short sellers.
Europe clearly still feels it has some sort of legal case, which is outlined here:
https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-best-efforts-defense-coronavirus-vaccine-fallout/
It seems to me a pretty thin one, given the comparison between the amounts, and timing of investments made by the UK and EU into the vaccine development, but there is more going on here than their just having a strop.
Let's keep on it. With a bit of focus we can have the whole adult population done by end April.
Let's support this rather than undermine it! 👍
Also, drawing attention to a specific post is not "throwing" anything "around". It's actually quite specific.
Wealthy nations ought to be looking after themselves and then helping others. Its not rocket science, its a nations first duty.
Thank god I've turned that around.
ALL of the angst is because the EU got it wrong and are lashing out at us and threatening, yes threatening us.
Speaking for myself - I'm not obsessed by their failure but I sure as fuck am not be willing to roll over as they attempt to steam roller us
They made their mistakes and they bear the consequences
One thing I can't quite get a handle on is whether the specific firm being targeted had shorted more than 100% of shares on their own (in which case they are much less deserving of any sympathy) or if it was just unfortunate that a group of firms, not colluding, had more than 100% between them.
I wouldn't prioritise Commonwealth. Third world Commonwealth nations can fall under the third world element anyway but much of the Commonwealth, like the EU, is big enough to look after themselves.
India, Australia, Canada etc are all major Commonwealth nations with major vaccine programmes of their own.
Again, assuming. I apologise if I am mistaken.
https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1354942436158681088?s=19
Imported from where?
If you're referring to third world Commonwealth States then I completely agree as I've said.
British overseas territories we should be dealing with as part of our own national response perhaps.
But India, Australia, Canada etc . . . they have billions of their own doses.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/projects/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-manufacturing-facility/
Novavax’s new vaccine manufacturing facility located in Bohumil, Czech Republic will develop and manufacture the company’s vaccine candidate for Covid-19, NVX‑CoV2373.
At least we've confirmed that PB is a Europhobia free zone.
And btw, europhobia and engnat are not crimes. They are interesting and valid drivers of political viewpoints. People are being too precious.
It was principled short sellers who discovered the frauds that were Wirecard, Enron, Worldcom and the like*. If they pick on a business with sound fundamentals, and drive the price down, then management has an easy out: they go to private equity and they take the company private and they laugh all the way to the bank.
Ultimately, people playing around with the price of GameStop does nothing to make GameStop's business weaker. People either will buy stuff from them or won't, and their share price won't come into it at all.
The share price is - in the long run - the output of the company's business. It's not an input.
* I have my own small place in discovering financial fraud from my Goldman Sachs days.
Upto you if you want to call that nationalism.
That would necessitate the EU treating us as an equal.
Could that ever happen?
But it's all going to look pretty irrelevant in a month or six weeks: AZN, Pfizer, Moderna will all be making more vaccines than now, J&J will also be approved, and it's entirely possible CureVac (which works the same way as Pfizer and Moderna) will end up unblinding its results early.
A rose by any other name ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/first-real-world-data-vaccination-effectiveness-shows-really/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55658942
What do people reckon will be the next leave/remain (whatever that means now, I think we all do know) poll after this?
Could it push "leave" back ahead?
Reaches for "safeguarding" button.
Look, far from reading "way too much" into it, I'm not reading anything into it. That's exactly what I said.
I said it gave it a "feel" that begged questions. I'd need the answers to those questions - wouldn't I? - before reading things into it.
I do wish I didn't have to say everything two or three times. It's exhausting!
Do you know how they manage to produce vaccines so quickly, to an acceptable quality for each batch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RKLFuae8s8
The correct U.K. strategy is to get everyone in the U.K. vaccinated first, then take what we have learned and find people who are struggling to contain outbreaks in their own countries.
Start with Ireland if they’re behind, and British territories aboard for obvious reasons, then look at places suffering the most with the virus - places where people are dying for lack of treatment and who can’t afford vaccines.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0
Nevertheless we again have comprehension issues. That "is" should be a "may".
As in there "may" be a troublesome meaning (subject to further review).
And you would only dismiss that possibility by being - as I say - incurious to a fault.
I really do have to work on here sometimes.