I made 24 high-quality Covid illustrations. Free for commercial and personal use
pixeltrue.com
pixeltrue.com
* https://undraw.co/illustrations HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858822
* https://www.drawkit.io/peach
You may be interested in joining the Lifeology community.
https://lifeology.io/lifeology-community/
"The Lifeology community connects scientists, health experts, artists, storytellers, expert reviewers and audiences to improve how we all communicate about science and health."
They have published various COVID-19 resources for adults and children: https://lifeology.io/coronavirus-center/
Thank you!
Do you know any community for 'Self reporting symptoms of long COVID'[1]?
[1]https://needgap.com/problems/170-self-reporting-symptoms-of-...
I'm curious how long something like this takes to put together. Not the website so much as the illustrations themselves.
It seems common with the generation of consumer facing companies that launched about 10 years ago and since, I'm thinking of Warby Parker or Oscar Insurance as examples among many others. It also seems to be heavily influenced by a Japanese style of "cute" marketing I remember from trips to Tokyo.
In my head I've always considered it to be something like the "millennial marketing" style but I wonder if designers have an actual name for it.
See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22890877
CC has a license chooser to help you pick one: https://creativecommons.org/choose/
Edit: Just noticed that someone else had the same question, my bad: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25301038
Sounds like it will be CC-0 when the license is sorted out, which is awesome! If true, advertising that these are public domain will probably be an even stronger selling point!
I've just updated the license to this - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Let me know if that works well :)
all the best
Whether you choose CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is up to you but the title says "free for commercial use" which CC-BY-SA is not or at least not for the use cases shown.
What I actually want the license to be is CC-BY-SA - I think this mean that people shouldn't making money out of the illustrations e.g. putting it on a t-shirt and selling it, but rather using it in their commercial website/app.
Is this correct?
That just means everyone you share your stuff with must share alike (what SA stands for) anything they choose to publicly publish that they’ve made out of your copylefted work (their derivative works), in the same way you shared it with them (as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ says: “ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original” — in this case CC-BY-SA).
That doesn’t mean they can’t sell it, it just means they can’t claim it as their own and refuse to let any one else make their own derivative works of it under the same terms they made theirs.
(Edits: Formatting and quote)
The only way to have that situation is to keep it All Rights Reserved and make separate contracts with people for all uses. That would totally undermine your goals.
I think CC-BY-SA is what you want. People aren't likely to sell it on a shirt, and if they do, they still have to give you credit (that's the BY part), like on the shirt itself I'd think even. If you left off the -SA part, people could make new versions and make those versions restricted instead of sharing them under the same terms.
> You are free to [share and adapt] for any purpose, even commercially
You might be thinking of the previous* NC (Non-Commercial) variant, e.g. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
If you really mean the share-alike part, i.e. that when you modify the image then anyone is free to use your derived version under the same terms, and you actually object to that clause, then I'm sorry but that's just stealing the author's free work without sharing whatever small edits you made back.
* incorrect, Non-Commercial is still an available variant of CC also in version 4.0, see u/quadrangle's comment below.
But you are right that NC is the anti-commerce or rather, commercial-rights-reserved license.
Without the NC, SA is indeed free for commercial use!
Just a minor point, but your captions are offset from the illustrations in Firefox.
Edit - I took a couple of screenshots; captions for the last row aren't visible: https://imgur.com/a/kTvfeKn
Please note that you do have a link to creative commons, but I could not find the specific license these are released under.
However as a summary you'll be able to use them for personal or commercial use without attribution :)
Given how TG is being used to spread misinformation, having more positive and helpful content on there can't hurt
To get an idea, type "kawaii" in Google images. Or check wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KawaiiSemi-related: The Noun Project is also a great resource for free icons : https://thenounproject.com/
What is Quarantine Life intended to communicate?
Still waiting for a very convincing evidence that most masks that people use actually do something. Agree that even with the lack of evidence, it's probably better to wear one, but it's pitiful that by the end of 2020 we still don't really know for sure.
So does this mean that between:
- virus spreader wearing a mask + non-virus spreader not wearing a mask
And:
- virus spreader not wearing a mask + non-virus spreader wearing a mask
The former is safer for the non-virus spreader?
Meaning that we’re more dependent on those spreading the virus to be diligent about wearing masks, vs. those not infected to be wearing masks?
I’m trying to make sense of why we’re seeing more cases now vs. earlier in the year when there was less knowledge and awareness of masks, and this might partially explain it.
Mask on virus spreader: Mask will capture a very large amount of the viral load being shed.
Mask on non-spreader: Will filter some amount of the air you're breathing in and lower your initial viral load. Giving you either
A) a low enough dose your immune system kills it off or
B) a low enough dose your immune system has more time to mount a defense before the viral load in your body rises high, potentially leading to a more mild infection.
That's why we ALL need to wear a mask and stay 6ft/2 meters apart.
BTW, further is better 6ft is not a magic bubble.
Also there is aerosol transmission(floating covid in the air). Ventilation is CRITICAL for this to be stopped. Germany is spearheading ventilation as a way to stop the spread as far as I know.
They are making rules about intervals windows need to be opened etc.
Heres a BBC article covering Germany on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54599593
Here's a random blog that gets into it: https://dirkpaessler.blog/2020/08/13/corona-wie-co2-messgera...
I still think it's highly likely that mask wearing is effective (even the shitty cloth masks with designer brands printed on them, and in a sense beyond it being a good idea to as a cheap precautionary measure), but the lack of convincing evidence of that is surprising.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
Please do keep in mind the time it takes to gather the data needed and then to write, peer review, and publish a rigorous epidemiological study.
You'd be very hard pressed to meet that standard in less than 9 months. Which means the first solid epidemiological evidence would not be available until, if we say that the epidemic went global in Feb 2020, until Nov 2020. And guess what, there it is!
I hate to say "right in front of your nose" because that's where the mask sits....
As others have pointed out, the reasons doctors wear surgical masks is because they prevent the spread of infection. Why do you think they are called 'surgical masks'? Why do you think doctors wear them?
The N95 standard (if you want to upgrade to a N95 mask) requires that the mask have a certain ability to filter out aerosols.
I would consider that pretty strong evidence that a (properly fitted) N95 would reduce your chance of exposure via aerosol transmission, and also reduce your ability to spread it to others via the same route.
Is this really so hard to understand?
If you prefer epidemiological studies linked specifically to Covid,
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati...
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%...
So I don't wear one and I have never been in accident.
"Wash Hands" and "Swab Test" could use some "ethnic variety".
The rest, with animals, are universal in that regard.
Having lived in NYC my whole life, I experienced life within the "epicenter" of this "tragic" pandemic. I have never seen the parks so full of people in December - every bench is occupied. Every bench.
In my neck of the woods, many people have largely lived their lives on park benches, doing everything they can to have connections with other people in as normal a way as possible. People "socially distance" as much as they can, sitting as far apart from one another as possible, and talk. Usually with masks on.
In Brooklyn, NY, this is possibly the best way to remain sane without risking being a victim of the huge increase in random senseless crimes, and without risking being a perceived nuisance to the public.
It's sad to see it, because it's so obvious what trouble people are going through to get this all done. To see people bundled up in winter coats, barely able to move, so they can bare the near-freezing temperatures - just to socialize - really shows how hideous these lockdowns are and how much they threaten the human spirit.
I am in the "epicenter" of the virus - NYC. Everyone I know who has contracted the virus - male, female, old, young, thin, fat, black, and white - had about one day of illness followed by 12 hours of recovery. On day two, all of them awoke to feeling pretty much entirely over it.
Anybody who's even remotely healthy has nothing to worry about with this pandemic. If people are truly being killed off by COVID-19, we have much bigger public health problems to be addressing than this stupid virus. By not ever addressing immune system strengthening, healthier diet and lifestyle choices, etc., to fight the virus, we enabled the pharmaceutical companies to continue to herd us in whatever way gives them the best chance at profits.
Obviously, it is this group of people to whom our governments are directing their attention. Obviously, these self-interested elites are using government as a vehicle for compulsive adoption, turning huge profits in the meantime.
The people that died from COVID were going to die of the very next infectious disease they contracted. To have died of COVID, you had to be on death's door already, or so statistically unlucky as to make your suffering a rounding error. If this is a truly global crisis, we're all fucked anyway.
A typical US president amasses a 1mil+ kill count by the end of their first term in office. I am far, far more concerned by these tragic deaths. And I am quite lonely sometimes holding that contention. But I know I am right. Notice how nobody is talking about foreign policy, and hasn't for the entire year, thanks to this pandemic.
Absolutely untrue: [1]Otherwise healthy people have died from COVID-19. And [2], healthy, asymptomatic carriers have infected friends and family members who have themselves died from it.
The parent comment is misleading, dangerous, and should be removed.
---
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-19-underl...
[2]https://www.uchealth.org/today/the-truth-about-asymptomatic-...
(edited for styling purposes)
I never said they didn't. In fact, I directly acknowledge the healthy cases:
>> To have died of COVID, you had to be on death's door already, or so statistically unlucky as to make your suffering a rounding error.
Sorry if this was too much of a value judgment for you, but I do not consider any respiratory illness with a less than 0.5% death rate to be something which we need to bring the world to a halt over. I do not think that these unlikely deaths, nor the even more unlikely "asymptomatic spread" purportedly part of this virus's nature, can be used as evidence to the contrary without some actual analysis on your part.
You have, thus far, provided none.
Is this the new normal?
"Do people really respond better when they are told their fight will be supercharged with all the awesome features?" - Good question, I'm not sure but hopefully people will!