Taken to the hospital for evaluation, while there he becomes combative so they arrest him, take him to jail, then back to a mental hospital? I can't make that make sense.
Also, 7 fucking deputies were transferring this one person?
I was also confused. Then I found another article. Makes more sense when you learn he was taken to the first hospital and then jail on Friday. The trip to the second hospital was Monday.
Still not great (could’ve/should’ve been treated at the first hospital). But a more realistic timeline than it all happening in the one day, which was how I was reading it.
Do you not have access to a school psychologist? I thought most high schools had them now. If available, that would be my first step. Free and you can likely get an appointment very quickly rather than waiting for months. They’ve also got direct access to the teachers, which can help with accurate assessment.
A GP can write an open (non specific) referral that you can take to anyone in that specialty.
So the question is why they didn’t. Could be they have strong opinions on your other options and think that specific psych is worth waiting for. Could be that everyone local is basically closed to new patients and they’re calling in a favour to even get that “long time away” appointment. Could be they were simply not thinking of specialist waiting lists and would be happy to change it to an open referral. Unfortunately, you’ll have to go back to the GP to ask what the logic was.
But also, double check the referral first. If it’s addressed to “dear psychiatrist” or similar and the only reference to a specific psych is on a different piece of paper, then it is already an open referral. Sometimes docs will say “take this to Dr Smith”, but they’ve written the actual referral as open, and Dr Smith is just a casual recommendation.
You can take the referral anywhere anyway. Regardless of whether or not there's a name on it. The referee can simply go elsewhere wherever they like.
Yeah, but that still leaves the question of why didn’t the GP write it as an open referral in the first place. When that’s an option, choosing to make it specific implies they want you to see someone in particular.
So I don’t think it’s a good idea to say “doesn’t matter, you can take it to whoever”, because maybe there’s a good reason it was addressed to a specific specialist.
It’s also quite possible there’s no good reason, and the GP just made things unnecessarily complicated. But it’s not like we can tell from here.
All my Aussie power point switches have a visible red dot when on (nothing when off).
My light switches don’t have the red dot, but I would expect visible red = active/on.
Yes, but we call it spousal maintenance (to go with child maintenance).
So you might’ve heard someone say “maintenance”, and assumed they were talking about the kids when they were really talking about two payments.
Doesn’t make sense from my personal experience in Western Australia. We managed to keep covid out for 2 years, eventually choosing to drop the borders and let it in.
If your theory was correct, we should’ve had an increase in conspiracy theorists (or similar cognitive impairment) after we finally had our first covid wave. But no. No noticeable increase in conspiracy theorists. They’d all already lost their minds about covid a year or more before we had cases.
If anything, some conspiracy types relaxed a bit once we started to return to normal and the “new normal” they were fearing didn’t eventuate. Some are still firmly stuck in the cult as hardcore believers, but the ones who were only on the fringes aren’t obsessing over it any more.
I'm still dubious about this. I recognize that their theories are largely wishful thinking, but I am not yet sure I accept that the majority of Qs and the like actually think that if enough people "believe hard enough" it will literally alter reality to better align with their belief. Partly because it would be an acknowledgement on their part that what they believe ISN'T true, at least "not yet", and they definitely don't agree with that.
I don’t know if there’s many that are thinking about it as if weight of numbers will magically change reality.
But I’ve seen plenty of excuses for missed predictions that go something like “X was delayed because the normies wouldn’t be able to handle the truth yet.”
That’s less mystical but would have the same practical result - they want to spread the word so the thing can happen.
Can you explain 'the increase in interest rates from the Fed lowers bond asset prices'? I'm still learning all this
To start, think of a bond as paying $100 for a promise that you will be given $100+x interest, paid out after 10 years. If interest rates are 1%, you’re handing over $100 now and will get $110 in 2033.
At that level, it’s very similar to a regular person putting their money in a long term deposit. After a set time you get your money back and some interest that was set when you signed the contract.
But what if interest rates increase to 2%? Now there are new bonds that are offering $120 in 10 years for $100 cost now. If you want to sell your old low interest bond, you’ll have to do so at a discount. No one’s going to pay $100 for your bond that’s worth $110 if they can buy one that’s worth $120.
So increasing interest rates available on new bonds lowers existing (lower yield) bond prices.
It’s all a bit more complicated because you get small regular interest pay outs rather than it all waiting until the end. So a 1% bond that is already a year old has already paid $1 and will pay out $9 more over the years. That one still isn’t that attractive. But one that’s 9 years old and will therefore mature and pay $101 next year) might be more attractive to some buyers than a brand new one that’s got a higher interest rate but locks their money away for 10 years.
Thank you! I have another doubt though. If they had a lot of long term bonds, how did they provide loans to so many tech firms? Is it mostly from people's deposits in the bank or other investments?
They weren’t really providing a LOT of loans to tech firms. (A few, but that’s only part of the problem.) They had a lot of deposits from tech firms.
The problem is really that the main customers were start ups. A start up gets given cash, let’s say $10 million, by a venture capitalist. That has to last them a few years until they are profitable. They deposit that in the bank. They don’t want loans, they already have money to last a couple of years.
Bank has to make money somewhere, their main customers don’t want loans … so they put it in a very safe investment - government bonds.
This is okay until interest rates rise. Venture capitalists stop throwing money around, so you’ve got fewer new huge deposits. Your older customers are still slowly drawing down their deposits.
This is still fine because you can slowly unwind from those bond investments.
But if everyone panics and wants to withdraw their money at once, you’ve got a major issue.
Load more comments
Karma
Cake day
Trophy Case (3)
Five-Year Club
Wearing is Caring
