Charting the Future of COVID-19: Is “Back to Normal” Within Reach?

Published on
January 25th, 2021
Duration
68 minutes


Charting the Future of COVID-19: Is “Back to Normal” Within Reach?

The Interview ·
Featuring Justin Stebbing and James Rasteh

Published on: January 25th, 2021 • Duration: 68 minutes

How effective are the different COVID-19 vaccines? How does the science suggest we best move forward – and when will the world itself be rid of this deadly disease? In this interview, James Rasteh, founder and chief investment officer of Coast Capital, welcomes Justin Stebbing, professor of Cancer Medicine and Oncology at the Imperial College of London, to explore these critical questions. Stebbing gives a rigorous overview of the unique transmissibility and fatality rates of the virus and how the efficacies of the various vaccines, which are generally high, mean that a “back to normal” scenario is somewhat likely by around April 2021. Nevertheless, Stebbing thinks it is will be extremely difficult to eradicate COVID-19 completely and that, simply put, “coronavirus is here to stay.” Filmed on January 20, 2021. Key learnings: The plurality of highly-efficacious vaccines means a return to normal is within sight. But yearly booster shots will likely be required, and full eradication will be extremely difficult—if not impossible.

Comments

Transcript

  • JB
    Jack B.
    26 January 2021 @ 13:26
    Thank you for the conversation. I'm concerned with the polymerase chain reaction tests; in particular the cycle settings in US and Europe at 40 and above. It seems the WHO warns these tests are just an aid for diagnosis, but the CDC and FDA say they can used for negative/positive results. I read where Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, “If you perform the test at a cycle threshold of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule. You almost never can culture the virus from a 37 threshold cycle… even 36.” Hoping you can shed some light to help me better understand case numbers coming from US and Europe for past 9 months.
    • SS
      Steven S.
      26 January 2021 @ 17:27
      This isn't exactly what I research, but PCR-based diagnostic tests are dependent on many factors. If 1) the primers are very specific, don't form dimers, and anneal with high affinity, 2) the reverse transcriptase is very high quality and the DNA polymerase (Taq) is also high quality with proofreading ability, 3) you have the right PCR mix (Mg concentration, etc.) and 4) the sample is very clean and pre-processed well, then you can get away with higher cycles. If not, then with higher cycles you wind up amplifying up non-specific junk in the sample. With lower cycle counts, you run the risk of missing low viral load samples. So, it's a complicated optimization procedure to develop a good assay. The connection between case counts and PCR conditions is complicated and there are many other factors involved besides cycle numbers. If I was trying to assess this, I'd use the published sensitivity and specificity numbers for the different diagnostic assays (and there are many ...numerous institutions in the US, for example, have developed their own PCR assays), and try to calculate case counts from that. The estimates of total cases is uncertain at this point and could very well be 2x the number of reported cases in developed nations.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 21:50
      The cycle settings were a clear arm of the plandemic angle to further scare people with tests and the known reality that most would induce MANY false positives. Most PCR cycles across all research are far closer to the 20-30 cycle range, for this very reason.
    • SS
      Steven S.
      27 January 2021 @ 00:01
      We regularly are in the 35+ cycle range for genotyping applications in human genetics.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      29 January 2021 @ 03:01
      The higher you go, obviously the higher false positive rate you will have. Given the fear brought on by that many false positives (again the IFR is low, but cases people, cases!), cycles in this kind of atmosphere MUST be addressed. You may not have controversies or costs at 35+ given your application, Steven. But they exist here in making the picture clear of what's going on and how dangerous it is.
    • SS
      Steven S.
      2 February 2021 @ 02:28
      Lemony, there are not significant cost issues or controversies going to 35 cycles for a large number of applications. If you have a messy sample that is not prepped well, then there can be issues. I can put you in touch with the top PCR experts, including the first person to do PCR, if you'd like further explanation.
  • TP
    Timothy P.
    25 January 2021 @ 18:48
    The funny thing about "conspiracy theories" is when they are proven to be true. Remember when people had a "conspiracy theory" that China was lying about no human-to-human transmissible cases? Yeah, that one? They were mocked and ridiculed in early January. Not so funny now, is it?
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 20:11
      I'm not sure that was a conspiracy theory. this was, from the onset, seen to be a contagious disease...
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      26 January 2021 @ 00:03
      @James R - Don't make me get the video clip of Dr Fauci explaining how it wasn't a "big deal". You're either uniformed, or selectively remembering. The WHO tweeted that there wasn't any human transmission early on, its been archived and referred to as time has worn on. Seriously, no one remembers China downplaying this? Its bizarre, because they most certainly did, including not stopping any international flights at all.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      26 January 2021 @ 00:08
      Vid clip -- wait for the zinger at the end where Fauci says "This isn't a threat to the United States..." and so on -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqg2kQDlPKw And just for extras - here's our beloved Fauci saying masks aren't needed -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pEcgDmEUk "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask" This is why people don't trust governments and their supposed "experts".
    • SS
      Steven S.
      26 January 2021 @ 00:55
      China was well-aware of human-human transmission very early on and those of us in the medical community were also aware of this. Not only was China aware of this probably well before October 2019, but they also knew the structure of the virus, information about the receptors, the sequence, that males, people with hypertension, smokers, elderly, etc. were at higher risk and had reasonably good estimates of mortality rates and Ro. Indeed, it was from the information from Chinese investigators, officials and medical professionals that I bought N95 masks in early January 2020. I do think it's fairly clear that China tried to downplay the impact of SARS2. That said, they also took many dramatic steps within China to curtail the spread which bought the rest of the world time to prepare ...time which wasn't used properly. Fauci made the statement about masks to save precious PPE for frontline healthcare workers. I personally don't agree with his approach, but reserving PPE for frontline workers was the right thing to do. Fauci is an excellent administrator, scientist and a hero in my book. I work directly with NIAID and can say he has an exceptional reputation in the medical science community, both long before COVID and now. In any case, Stebbing's statements are exceedingly valuable as they are evidence-based, honest, and based on data interpreted through his powerful lens of scientific expertise.
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      26 January 2021 @ 02:56
      The information-value content of your comment is low.
    • WM
      Will M.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:19
      Yes Timothy you make a couple of good points here. Fauci probably did the best he could, BUT his comment about masks being useless was a huge mistake. A commenter below mentions about saving the PPE for 1st line health workers being the reason, however, if that was the case, then Fauci should have come out and admitted that is why he said what he said. He has not, or if he did its not been widely reported. Once again this sort of behavior just boosts conspiracy theories. I bought N100 masks on Feb 1st and got loads of looks from my co-workers. I think the messaging about masks has been shocking. I believe masks clearly reduce transmission from the infected to the uninfected. I also believe the wearer, if the mask is worn correctly and is at least an N95, has REDUCED chances of catching the disease if the viral particle is associated with exhaled liquid droplets.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:14
      And still, the funniest part is, amidst all the lies and government policies killing more people by far than COVID ever did, the disease is nonlethal by any measure. Especially if you aren't old or a fatass.
    • DG
      David G.
      31 January 2021 @ 03:41
      Where did James go?
  • TT
    Timo T.
    27 January 2021 @ 14:07
    Best video I have seen on RV for a long time. Could be because I know so little about this subject so felt like learned so much new stuff.
  • LS
    Lemony S.
    26 January 2021 @ 21:46
    I don't know why there isn't more focus on the IFR being exceedingly low as dominating the conversation that it just isn't all that meaningful of a virus. Why? It isn't, according to the data, as Dr. Stebbing would say. That we have to act like it's a big deal and suffer bureaucratic and government intrusion is super silly - and that's being nice because it's not about people or deaths or policies it's about central powers acting like they care in order for more of their power to be exerted. That's why Dr. Stebbing is somewhat scary in his comments at 40:00, but also gives glimpses of how absurd it all is when he notes that SARS 2004 patients have Ab against SARS Cov2 - fully debunking the garbage assertion that humans wouldn't have immunity, more fear that "it might go away" or that most of us can't fight it off as healthy and cross reactive functions of former coronaviruses. Those should be obvious, default assumptions. I liked the discussion very much I just don't think that the approach to the topic deserves as much seriousness at it gets. We have lots of old people. We have lots of fat people. We have lots of unhealthy and risky people on all manner of levels. Why should we damage our economy far more than this virus ever could have, and we have proven that --- and keep up the charade? That's the real question that we lose in all of the details. I'm not anti-vax but I would ask Dr. Stebbing, why should I as a 30-something with ideal BMI and near perfect health get this vaccine? Why would I, as the same patient, be an asymptomatic carrier, even? There is no DATA to suggest that, at all.
    • BC
      Burton C.
      27 January 2021 @ 00:37
      Bravo your comments, BTW this was such a biased one sided love fest. Jame's body language in support of every point made was a bit telling. There have been serious side effects from this Vax, but they were totally glossed over and blamed on statistical death rates.. really gentlemen?
  • BP
    Bryce P.
    26 January 2021 @ 07:12
    Pure BS. Absolute silliness and total garbage. Lots of naivety on this thread too. Keep drinking the pablum.
    • SS
      Steven S.
      26 January 2021 @ 17:29
      Typically, effective scientific critiques are based on established evidence and well-reasoned arguments.
    • WM
      Will M.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:25
      Sorry Bryce, you are out of line.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 21:51
      I'd like to see what his claims are and his reason for thinking the way he does. As he didn't do it, yes, worthless post. It could have been interesting, I guess.
  • JG
    Jonnie G.
    26 January 2021 @ 13:39
    Thought Justin was brilliant. I really enjoyed watching the interview. It's something that is at the forefront of all our minds whether you're into making money or not. I would love to get him back and give us an update especially as things progress in this field as there are still a lot of uncertainties. I thought that James was great but interrupted Justin a bit too much for my liking, otherwise a top video.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 21:49
      James did a good job, I thought.
  • WS
    William S.
    26 January 2021 @ 20:44
    Need to let your guests talk and not interrupt except to keep on track....
  • JS
    John S.
    25 January 2021 @ 23:04
    My concern with these vaccines remains the unknowable long term side effects
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      26 January 2021 @ 02:46
      No. The long term side effects are known. Not taking the vaccine results in economic depression and millions of deaths. Good luck with the balance on your Fidelity 401(k) statement in an economic, and then financial, depression. Good luck landing in that lakeside house on Lake Geneva, WI, in those sunset years. For anyone in their 50s or above, I cannot imagine the concept of not wanting to receive the vaccinations because of unknowable long-term side effects.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:12
      Phillip, your responsible is beyond irresponsible and lacking all humility. Not taking the vaccine didn't cause any economic depression, policies have already caused economic depression and millions of deaths, as a matter of fact. In what world would long term side effects of an mRNA vaccine, a novel one never followed before long term (it's impossible to as it's never been employed), be known or even possibly known? Gates? Fauci? Is that you? I didn't know your real first name was Phillip.
    • TS
      Tamim S.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:31
      Phillip B. appears to be a sociopath. It's important to note that 4% of the US are sociopaths.
  • WD
    William D.
    25 January 2021 @ 15:08
    Fantastic to hear a focus on the serious cases of COVID-19 in trial vaccine recipients: ZERO. The media report on infection rate efficacy, which is ultimately misleading. Post vaccine, the virus is a complete non-issue.
    • BA
      BURHANUDDIN A.
      25 January 2021 @ 23:19
      I agree. I haven't studied the other vaccines more closely, such as the ones from Russia, China & Johnson&Johnsone ones, but for Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca the cases of symptomatic, as opposed to asymptomatic cases, is almost zero.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:15
      The best part about being healthy is not even worrying about covid. The worst part? Others trying to jab you with needles for no good reason.
  • WM
    Will M.
    26 January 2021 @ 19:38
    Good discussion. Justin came across as a very reasonable and knowledgable professional. One point on the vaccine; it is going to be made mandatory whether you like it or not. I personally have some concerns about the lack of vaccine testing and especially the new RNA vaccines. As a not too serious aside, I am reminded of the doctor played by Emma Thompson in the Richard Matheson inspired movie "I am Legend". She invented the vaccine to cure cancer, but within a few years most of humankind turned into vampire like creatures...... and this is a joke folks before anyone responds negatively.
  • DS
    David S.
    26 January 2021 @ 04:59
    Mr. Stebbing, the real question is what normal will be in April, August, and December? DLS
    • WM
      Will M.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:24
      Yes David. I suspect quite strongly, that "normal" will not be coming back anytime in the near to medium term future. The economic carnage is going to get worse.
  • BC
    Burton C.
    26 January 2021 @ 02:12
    James your comment in response to Justin's comment that the anti-vax movement is well organized in which you said "maybe that's Darwin at work". You are one sick MF
    • WM
      Will M.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:22
      Oh come on, just no need for the invective here.
  • nc
    neil c.
    25 January 2021 @ 13:55
    If possible I would be interested in Justin's comments re details within Pfizer's report (page 42) on their vaccine trial that I believe could significantly alter the published efficacy rate. They describe 1500 patients in both the vaccine group and the placebo group (out of 20,000 patients in each group) that presented with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 that tested negative. I am a physician, and during the time of the study a very high percentage of patients with classic COVID-19 symptoms had negative PCR tests, many on multiple tests, and clearly were false negatives. In their report, Pfizer does not describe the cycle threshold used in their PCR testing. Because their efficacy data was based upon a very low number of patients ( 6 positive cases in the vaccine group vs 172 in the placebo group), if only 10-20% of these 1500 patients within each group did in fact have COVID-19 yet were false negative PCR test, and thereby included in the data, it would significantly drop the efficacy of the vaccine closer to that of the flu vaccine. Admittedly, based upon my experience (Vioxx as an example), I am biased with skepticism of how Pharma sometimes presents data in a most favorable light. However, I would love to hear an expert explanation to wipe away my concern for excluding this large number of patients from the data analysis.
    • WD
      William D.
      25 January 2021 @ 14:28
      As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR- confirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for seriousness. Two serious cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 were reported, both in the vaccine group, and narratives were reviewed. In one case, a 36-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, malaise, nausea, headache and myalgias beginning on the day of Dose 2 and was hospitalized 3 days later for further evaluation of apparent infiltrates on chest radiograph and treatment of dehydration. A nasopharyngeal PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on the day of admission, and a chest CT was reported as normal. The participant was discharged from the hospital 2 days after admission. With chest imaging findings that are difficult to reconcile, it is possible that this event represented reactogenicity following the second vaccination, a COVID-19 case with false negative test that occurred less than 7 days after completion of the vaccination series, or an unrelated infectious process. In the other case, a 66-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, myalgias, and shortness of breath beginning 28 days post-Dose 2 and was hospitalized one day later with abnormal chest CT showing a small left-sided consolidation. He was discharged from the hospital 2 days later, and multiple nasopharyngeal PCR tests collected over a 10-day period beginning 2 days after symptom onset were negative. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that this event represents a COVID-19 case with multiple false negative tests that occurred more than 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen, and more likely that it represents an unrelated infectious process. Among 3,410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 15:21
      HI Neil If you email me I will ask him those great questions and forward you the answer.
    • nc
      neil c.
      25 January 2021 @ 17:53
      James, may I have your email. Thank you.
    • nc
      neil c.
      25 January 2021 @ 18:00
      William, the addendum you have quoted from the report is in reference to possible adverse effects of the vaccine. My concern rather relates to the possibility of actual false negative COVID-19 cases not being included as part of the vaccine or placebo arms of the trial. If indeed these patients had COVID-19 and were excluded from the data because they were false negative, it would significantly reduce the reported effectiveness of the vaccine.
    • WD
      William D.
      26 January 2021 @ 01:53
      Hi Neil, As you point out, the reported efficacy is almost definitely falsely high given PCR tests have only 80% sensitivity, based on Johns Hopkins testing. But these Phase 3 trials are not powered or designed to diminish testing inaccuracy. The focus on real world, clinical outcomes, whereby only serious cases are examined for testing accuracy, is in my opinion the correct approach. These are emergency authorised vaccines that have a primary goal of reducing the clinical impact of the virus (hospitalisation and mortality) not to eradicate the virus altogether. In my opinion it is dangerous to emphasise to infection rate outcomes as it misses the entire purpose of medicines, in this case vaccine, and confuses public perception of medicines' efficacy. If a cure for cancer was discovered, whereby two injections led to ZERO serious cases of cancer, would the media and medical community nit-pick the rate of carcinogenic cells and cancer-like symptoms detected in a trial population? No, it would be viewed as an utter triumph of medicine, as these COVID-19 vaccines should be judged.
    • nc
      neil c.
      26 January 2021 @ 17:20
      Hi William. You make a great point. I agree this should be all about reducing hospitalization and death. Perhaps the authorities recognize the fear surrounding COVID-19 and they are skewing data to publicize a high "efficacy" rate to give the public confidence in returning to normal life. To your point about reducing hospitalization/death rates, while it is likely the vaccine will be efficacious in this regard, the data thus far do not confirm that, as there has not been a long enough time nor large enough patient numbers to reach that conclusion. While I am straying a bit off topic, from not only a purist but also a practical medical point of view I would have wished that data during this pandemic be presented in a consistent manner. In my view the vaccine will undoubtedly lead us out of this mass. However I am saddened that the same liberal analysis of the vaccine data has not been applied to data surrounding prophylaxis, early and late therapeutics with Ivermectin, as I believe this treatment would serve as a useful bridge for patients before vaccination.
    • WM
      Will M.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:03
      Good questions Neil. I am especially supported of the ivermectin comment. For some reason the authorities have ignored some good papers on this. This type of action only serves to increase conspiracy theories. I secured ivermectin myself for immediate use IF I should fall ill with this virus.
  • WB
    William B.
    26 January 2021 @ 18:40
    Both Mr. Stebbing and Mr. Rasteh, delivered a brilliant participation in the discussion. Thank You.
  • PJ
    Peter J.
    25 January 2021 @ 10:40
    No politicised agenda, little or no pre disposed bias and no conspiracy theories. Makes for the best and most informative discussion on Covid to date. Massive thumbs-up
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 12:57
      We actually had our best year last year and I’ve benefitted from this lockdown in that allows me to catch up w family and friends - so please be aware of your false assumptions and prejudices.
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 12:59
      Sorry Peter the comment was not meant for you. Many thanks for the compliment.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      25 January 2021 @ 18:39
      < Takes off glasses, looks pensively off-camera > Reconcile these two statements: "The (virus) doesn't mutate much at all..." (Oh good, we're getting out of the woods here!) "These new variants in different countries are concerning..." (Ah, stoke the fear narrative, well done.) Which is it, boys? Oh, nevermind -- just seeing this contradiction is enough to tell me where the bias is. Good show, lads. Lets keep that fear going, can't let expansionist tendencies of local govts be hindered at all...
    • TS
      Tamim S.
      26 January 2021 @ 01:19
      Good catch Timothy P.
    • SS
      Steven S.
      26 January 2021 @ 17:36
      Timothy P: For an RNA virus, the mutation rate for SARS2 is low. SARS2 also doesn't undergo reassortment like influenza does. The fact that new variants pop up (and thousands of new mutations have occurred for SARS2) doesn't mean that the mutation rate is very high (it could have been a much larger number of mutations) nor does it indicate that new variants aren't concerning. Those two statements are not in contradiction.
  • SG
    Stephen G.
    26 January 2021 @ 08:51
    This was absolutely brilliant , just so thoughtful and eloquent in connecting with his audience. The interviewer was rather too instructive and long winded,, otherwise brilliant
  • DJ
    Damien J.
    26 January 2021 @ 04:43
    Damn Pangolins!
  • CD
    Chris D.
    26 January 2021 @ 01:55
    This was a ridiculously good interview. The best information on Covid I have come across. Bravo RV!
  • JH
    Joseph H.
    26 January 2021 @ 00:58
    Awesome, learned a lot of really interesting information, thank you both.
  • JH
    Joseph H.
    26 January 2021 @ 00:58
    Awesome, learned a lot of really interesting information, thank you both.
  • TS
    Tamim S.
    25 January 2021 @ 23:57
    I like it when they bring medical professionals on, it helps prevent things from getting stale around these parts
  • JG
    Jason G.
    25 January 2021 @ 21:23
    Justin was fascinating to listen to and I hope we see more of him on RV. While I appreciate James may have been concerned about the interview running 'over time', I feel his interview style would benefit from allowing a guest like Justin to fully explain his thoughts without being cut off or talked over. Overall though, this is excellent content, thank you.
  • IL
    ISAAC L.
    25 January 2021 @ 14:43
    Easter 2021 or 2022?
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 20:18
      Hold on...will let you know in May ;)
  • MM
    Mike M.
    25 January 2021 @ 18:37
    Simply Brilliant!!!!! Thank you..Thank you...Thank you...
    • KB
      Kirk B.
      25 January 2021 @ 20:02
      Justin Stebbing's comments were indeed brilliant. The most knowledgeable, thoughtful and credible observations that I have experienced regarding Covid-19. However, while the interviewee was fantastic, the interviewer was not. Rather than guiding the interview, James Rasteh spent way too much time with his monologues trying to show us and the interviewee how smart HE was, often talking over the interviewee. While the interviewee's comments were clearly data based, Rasteh's clearly expressed his biases in his monologues.
  • sS
    sille S.
    25 January 2021 @ 09:44
    I can not comment on China, I am sorry.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      25 January 2021 @ 18:43
      I can -- lets not forget that the world is in this position because WHO initially said "No human-to-human transmission" then flip-flopped later. Not to mention Doctor Li, who tried to signal the alarm but was interrogated and later died. China doesn't care about their citizens. For those who don't know -- look up topics such as "Forced Relocation", "Interment Camps", "Human Rights Abuses" and such. Its plainly evident. And for those who can't bother -- look at Hong Kong, the CCP brutally put down a democratic protest and arrested all the leaders. They have no interest in honoring their "Two systems, One country" pledge - in fact, they already violated it. But again, we get a lot of China apologists on this platform, because frankly they're just interested in hitching their profit-wagons to the CCP train, no matter what the moral hazard is.
  • SS
    Steven S.
    25 January 2021 @ 17:44
    Thank you for having Stebbing on. Very nice to hear his thoughts.
  • MO
    Master O.
    25 January 2021 @ 15:39
    By the way here in the UAE we are getting the Sinopharm vaccine and not the Sinovac one, which according to the Ministry of Health has an efficacy rate of 86%. The UAE is confident that by the start of the summer 70 to 80 percent of the population will be vaccinated.
  • CB
    C B.
    25 January 2021 @ 15:14
    Great discussion and a resounding upvote for the mRNA platform. Are there other biotechs besides Moderna leading in this space?
  • DO
    DIOGO O.
    25 January 2021 @ 14:05
    Exceptional! SUPERB Cheers!
  • sS
    sille S.
    25 January 2021 @ 10:03
    As the economy can’t go on like this, as my fund can’t sustain itself like this, as I want to travel again - therefore we will have a positive outcome.
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 12:58
      We actually had our best year last year and I’ve benefitted from this lockdown in that allows me to catch up w family and friends - so please be aware of your false assumptions and prejudices.
  • DL
    D L.
    25 January 2021 @ 12:46
    In general, great interview with little bias i am able to perceive. That being said two things i did not like. So he adheres to data and rational thinking and then smirks and says life isnt logical, somethings just arent explainable etc... what a weird cognitive flipflop. Secondly, stop the ass kissing please, hard to listen to. Also not productive. We already know u appreciate the qualities of the other person, just stop mentioning it, it is off-putting honestly (i.e i have bo clue how u fit that in with ur busy schedule kinda comments) Apart from that, thank you
    • JR
      James R. | Contributor
      25 January 2021 @ 12:56
      Thanks DL. Helpful to know that the compliments don’t translate. Justin is a very, very gifted human being - but i will try just to refer to people’s accomplishments going forward. It helps put the value of their commentary into perspective.
  • JS
    John S.
    25 January 2021 @ 09:35
    Fascinating discussion and hopeful