dwy000

How/where do I sign up for the subscription? Easiest investment decision I've made.

What is the point of this comment? It comes off as a cowardly, not so thinly veiled plea "Sanjeev censor/ban them!".... The thread is about the vaccine.... if you dont like it, dont read it,. Theres red states with policies that make sense, and policies that dont, same with the blue states. Its not politics...its real life effecting everyone. Its real and part of what many people myself included, weigh when looking at getting the vaccine. You see where the puck is going(vaccine passports) and realize theres a path of least resistance whether you like it or not.... I posted whether I was getting the vaccine? Did you? I posted how I got the vaccine? Did you? I posted my thought process on the vaccine. Did you? I posted what I thought was relevant to large scale vaccination and the resulting return to normal..did you? Yes, im getting the vaccine (already got first shot). I didn't post details of how I got it but I'm happy to.  Pretty sure nobody cares though. Thought process - vaccine will prevent me from getting Covid.  Covid bad.  Prefer not to get it. You posted those answers then paragraphs of political crap surrounding it that is nothing but political ranting.  I have never requested anyone to be censored.  Ever.  Never would.  I just hate when every topic gets morphed into a political diatribe.

People want to be led like sheep. They don't want to think. Which is fine for some of us. Time after time, we believe everything these bozos say. And when they change their mind and put up conflicting rules, that they, themselves have no intention of ' following - we still look up to them and don't call them out. Almost all people, including me, want the vaccine - and want to get back to normal. Yet, the bureaucrats DO NOT want that. They want to extend it - and continue to run your life. And you guys have a problem with these clowns being called out for what it is?  A power play. Greg mentioned the NY passport requirement - what an obviously transparent move by bureaucrats. Couldn't be more obvious. Once you get the vaccine - then you have to wear masks for the next year or so?  What crap. I thought they got rid of the politics board

I dont think you read the full article. The article says "hospitalizations increasing by just 37% for adults 80 or older, of which 44% of the population are fully vaccinated in the state." It increased less for older people, but it still increased. Thst was kinda rhe point. Even though 44% of elderly are vaccinated the infection number is rising. Which means it is growing very quickly in the population that has not been vaccinated following the easing of restrictions. Suggests strongly that the previous cautions of masks and distancing worked. Unless what u are suggesting is that the vaccination doesn't work at all which is why infection rates are rising.

That suggests cases are expanding rapidly among those who have not been vaccinated as they start going back to normal (possibly thinking they are less susceptible since everyone else has the vaccine). It really makes the point about effectiveness of masks and avoiding close contact since the population of people it can affect has dropped significantly but cases have gone up.

LongHaul, To me, you're a lucky guy! I preordered this book on March 2nd 2021 via saxo.com. I can't wait to lay my hands on it! John - can you follow up with your thoughts once you get it? I want to get it but generally like to see multiple positives before pulling the trigger.

Has anyone read this? Terry Smith has a remarkable track record so I perked up when I saw he had written a book. This was a good summary and it seems like it could be a good read: https://www.fundsmith.co.uk/news/article/2020/12/28/business-insider---investing-legend-terry-smith's-$30-billion-equity-fund-returned-440-to-investors-over-a-decade I have a reading list that is taller than me at the moment so I want to be selective when I throw another book on the pile. Let me know if you read it and what you thought. Thanks

Interesting because that's kind of what I liked about it. It definitely got more boring near the end when it was less about the scrappy startup and more about the massive company. But I like this kind of book that's more of an autobiography and timeline that some of these other business books that are ego trips about management style more than the business. I just finished Pour Your Heart Into It by Howard Shultz (about Starbucks) and it got really preachy about how wonderful he was in treating employees and staying true to their brand etc. More "look what a genius and nice guy I am" than about the scrappy up and comer trying to carve out a niche. I want to read about the hard parts of building a business that you never knew about when looking at the end result.

I assume you're asking if people would take it right away or wait until it's been better tested. It's worded like you're asking when it will be available to you.

At extreme levels it becomes a problem because you do end up like the North Korea situation where so few have so much that people feel disinfranchised. The problem I have with the arguments of AOC and the like is that it is not a zero sum game. Just because Bezos or Gates add $1bn to their wealth doesn't mean that everyone else has become poorer. I really don't care how much other people have as long as it doesn't impede my ability to use hard work, luck, intelligence or whatever else to add to my pile.

You're not really getting at the problems with wealth inequality, you are referencing the benefits of having opportunity. Some argue that having opportunity is way more important than the resulting inequality. Some argue the negative impact of inequality (eg people with $ billions getting richer and richer while others struggle to make ends meet) needs to be balanced with the greater needs of society as a whole. There's no right or wrong answer and it will lead to arguments. Anecdotally, I have friends here who came over from Sweden (one of the early founders in Pinterest) who felt he had to leave Sweden because there is a belief that it is wrong to put your head up from the crowd (be you smart, ambitious, lucky etc) or it will get chopped off (taxes, regulations, limits etc). He loves it here. His wife wants desperately to go back because she likes it that everyone is pretty equal back in Sweden and there's no continuously trying to outdo your neighbors. Your view will often depends upon your level of ambition and anyone on this board probably has more than average.

Great news, no question. Before getting too excited though, Pfizer's vaccine requires a follow up booster shot and must be delivered in freezing storage. That will significantly limit the ability to mass immunize. The test released today was only after the initial vaccine shot, not the booster. So there's still a month or more of data to analyze. I think the J&J vaccine is much more promising in terms of ability to mass vaccinate. It takes only the initial dose and requires cold storage but not freezer.

You say you understand but the poster above didn't really explain it. Inventory went down, meaning it was sold and hence generated cash. The carrying value of the inventory would be expensed through COGS. The *total* cash flow generated from the sale is really the gross margin (from your income statement) plus the carrying value decrease (change in inventories). I thought the explanation was fine. Now do inventory write downs. An inventory write down is a non event for the cash flow statement. If a writedown was taken as an expense it would be reflected in net income and thwn added back in the cash flow statement as a non-cash expense.

Okay. But whether it is a mutated strain, more young people, better treatment...whatever the rationale, unless there is strong evidence that the rate is going to jump up again, the idea of having new lockdowns makes no sense (and plays right into Trump supporters' hands). The UK had less deaths each day this week than the week before the lockdown was lifted. Canada had 1 death yesterday. If there is talk of new lockdowns based upon that data we have thrown science out the window in the other direction.

I don't understand the rapidly declining mortality rate. Case levels in Europe have exploded to levels similar or way higher than the peaks of April but death rates are a tiny fraction. Belgium and the Netherlands are experiencing case levels above the peaks of April but deaths are consistently countable on one hand. Point being that it will be extremely hard for governments to argue for new lockdowns and economic closures if hospitals are not being overwhelmed and very few people are dying. Is it just timing? Is this the new normal?

Just adding my less than 2 cents here but the other interesting tidbit is that online prescription fulfillment has not been growing. That may have shifted during Covid but through last year the % of scripts being filled online has stagnated. People seem to want to talk to the pharmacist at first fill and then just keep rolling. The big growth online has been in $ since most specialty drugs are fulfilled onlinr as opposed to in store. Finally, telling that CVS, through Aetna is now offering plans with lower co-pays and pharma costs if you fill thru CVS.

I must admit I don't understand how the Martingale system purports to work since it seems to imply that spins are not independent of the previous spin. But the argument on Labouchere is actually the opposite. That spins are independent. The logic is simply to take your win off the table and double down every time you lose. By simple math, as long as a winning spin eventually comes up you will ultimately win back that original $1. Yes you could be betting hundreds of thousands of $ to win back $1 if enough spins go against you in a row but the math is sound. Labouchere method spreads it out so you don't double every time but its the same logic and math. The problem is when a long series goes against you, the table limit comes into play quickly and you lose a ton. Reverse Labouchere therefore switched it around to use that table limit in your favor. Instead of doubling down when you lose, you double down when you win. In a normal sequence you will continue to lose $1 each series but eventually a long run will put you at table limit where you stop, pocket the money and start over at $1. The risk you take is that the small losing bets while waiting for a long run of wins could exceed the amount you win over the long streak. Whether you buy into it or not, I'd suggest the book. It's a fun read and goes into a ton more detail and reasoning than we are talking here.

There's a roulette system called Reverse Labouchere that claims to have broken the banks in Europe and the strategy is replicable in blackjack - probably even more so because there's no "0" or "00" so your odds can be better. There is a book called Thirteen Against the Bank that describes how they did it (pretty interesting read). Roughly speaking the Labouchere method uses the premise of a near 50/50 bet (i.e. a blackjack hand) and if you win, you pocket the money and if you lose you double down over and over until you win (its more complicated than that but that's the general gist). The problem was that if you went on a losing streak you would hit the bet limit before you could win back the original bet - and the combined bets would make you broke. So they reversed it and if you won you would double down over and over again until you lost. If you went on a run of doubling your bet each time you would hit the casino limit at which point you would start over at the minimum bet. I read it like 20 years ago and I'm shocked given all the blackjack card counting books and movies this hasn't got more light shone on it.

Summary of the impact of proposed changes by the site I consider the absolute best source for info on the drug industry and channel: https://www.drugchannels.net/2020/07/trumps-executive-orders-on-drug-pricing.html Spoiler alert - no impact because implementation is not realistic or possible.

While drug prices are always good headlines, the truth of the matter is that overall drug spend has been flat or up by low single digits for the past few years. Over 90% of subscriptions now are generic. The rising prices are largely led by the specialty drugs used for personalized medicine. Capping those without substantially harming supply and development will be nearly impossible. If you want to tackle healthcare costs, start first and foremost at the hospital level. Even the drug costs are abnormally impacted by the prices.charged in hospital vs thru drugstores.

$1.46

The stimulus package was approved by both the Senate and the President. Any new stimulus package will be the same. Hard to see this as a Democrat initiative when 2 out of the 3 approves are Republican.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds Tend to agree. The ability to effectively lockdown like China is unrealistic for a long period of time. No matter how much sense it makes it simply won't happen.

she's hilarious. Which is really weird given all she does is lip sync word for word.

Child. I have to be really ignorant to disagree with you? Just jealous? Oh yeah, fame and money just attract these accusations... Gates, Buffett, famous and far richer. So many women coming forward against them too, no? Why would he need to when he is in such a loving, committed, close knit marriage? Donald and Melania are inseparable and monogamous for life.