11
« Last post by jakaitch on Today at 05:47:35 pm »
Solly K D has repeated Isles of Wonder SDS, agrees with Aidans proposed grade https://www.instagram.com/p/C7hNUQcNctQ/?igsh=MTVnZDR1OTBuZGMwaA==
12
« Last post by jshaw on Today at 05:44:09 pm »
Sorry to hear this James. Regarding infectiousness of COVID, a general rule of thumb is: you are potentially infectious while you have symptoms. Infectiousness can vary from person to person. Many people will no longer be infectious after 5 days, some will be infectious for up to 10 days (source: NHS guidance).
Edit: was skimming and missed the follow-up Q.
The relationship between antigen test positivity and COVID-19 infectiousness is complicated. But a negative antigen test (provided it isn't falsely negative) would mean you are less likely to be contagious as the antigen will be below detection in your upper airway.
13
Got my first ever positive test today (3 days before dad’s funeral - NNFN…).
What’s the general advice these days, just rest up and don’t overdo things when things start improving?
And how long would one likely be infectious - is a negative test enough to risk mixing with high risk family?
I’m feeling medium rough with shivers and everything aching so will probably just have some lemsip for now.
I’m guessing the fact I never hear anything about it now means it’s basically just part of life…
14
« Last post by Tony on Today at 04:40:46 pm »
Forgive me if its buried somewhere in the arguments about water quality, but I thought the cost was £180k, and 49k has been raised. So who's making up the £131k shortfall
It is not generally in my nature to reward sloth but… The PDNP Foundation is not the PDNP Authority. My response was to a query regarding the funds raised by the former. The latter made the estimate of £180k for the work that they were seeking to have undertaken. You can see some approximations of whence the Authority hoped the funding would come by using an internet search engine.
15
« Last post by SA Chris on Today at 04:07:12 pm »
A bridging loan (sorry)
16
« Last post by SamT on Today at 03:42:01 pm »
Forgive me if its buried somewhere in the arguments about water quality, but I thought the cost was £180k, and 49k has been raised. So who's making up the £131k shortfall, (the BMC??  )
17
« Last post by AJM on Today at 03:34:26 pm »
It's difficult for this not to become quite technical quite quickly, but at a very simple level a large disconnect between asset and liability behaviour tends to point to a risk the scheme is exposed to.
So where you say "the sensibly managed pension funds would not consist of 50year gilts at 0.25% yield" - that's not necessarily the case. The benefit of that sort of investment strategy is that all your guaranteed outflows would be funded by guaranteed inflows, which leaves the scheme with very little residual risk and very little chance of needing to make sudden cash calls on a sponsoring employer.
Many schemes would love to be funded on a low risk or self sufficiency basis (the fine detail of pensions regulation is not my precise field, but I think it's an expectation from the pensions regulator for mature schemes?). Either this, or a buy out (transfer of the liabilities to an insurance company). And when pension schemes transfer their liabilities to insurance companies (which again has attraction for many schemes because of the certainty it provides), insurance companies will look to fund all the outflow from some sort of gilt, corporate bond or similar assets.
Where schemes aren't funded on this basis, again very simplistically you could say it's because they need to earn a higher return than that strategy can provide (or, equivalently, they don't have enough money to fund everything from low risk assets) and so are having to take more risk in order to do so.
18
« Last post by Tony on Today at 03:20:53 pm »
Out of interest, how much as been raised so far. I emailed the the PDNP Foundation, I was grateful and pleased to receive the following response: £49k towards to cost of the [Cress-brook Mill] bridge has been raised or donated via the Foundation.
This includes £12,024 raised via the Enthuse platform (plus gift aid), £10k from the BMC Access and Conservation Trust, £5k from the South Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire Ramblers and a £20k donation from the Foundation’s own core funds. I believe the Foundation was pleasantly surprised by the success of this appeal. I gather it is hoped that the bridge will be open before the end of the year.
19
« Last post by stone on Today at 02:41:30 pm »
The whole point as far as I could see is that the sensibly managed pension funds would not consist of 50year gilts at 0.25% yield. They would consist of an asset mix that would see little or no change in asset value when gilt yields fell from 0.5% to 0.25%. Meanwhile the liabilities would get a bonkers increase in value. To try and bridge that disparity, they entered into these swap contracts. Those swap contracts were what caused them such problems when gilt yields went in the other direction from 0.25% (or whatever they were) to 5% or whatever.
20
« Last post by AJM on Today at 02:23:30 pm »
You won't get a sensible comparison if you allow for the impact of interest rates on the liabilities but ignore its effect on the assets (the change in the market value of a 50 year gilt when gilt rates fall from 0.5% to 0.25% is equally bonkers, given the maths works in the same way for both).
It's a good way to end up concluding that the whole thing is nonsense, which is fine if that's all you want to get out of it, but it isn't a comparison that makes any sense from a technical perspective.
|
Recent Posts