That he got fired in that time?
Edit: I don't see the same change I guess? The main difference I see is the removal of "friends".
1,889 karma · joined September 2, 2013
fer at fer dot ex why zee
https://www.fer.xyz
Edit: I don't see the same change I guess? The main difference I see is the removal of "friends".
The viral loads in respiratory mucous at the peak are similar, sure, so from that one-dimensional metric that antivaxxers seem fixated in, it doesn't matter.
But vaccinated people:
1. Have fewer chances of getting infected.
2. The incubation period is shorter so, if infected they go around spreading it for a shorter amount of time.
3. Their disease lasts for much shorter so, again, less time spreading it around.
4. The symptoms are milder, so the chances of contaminating via coughing/sneezing are lower.
And let's not forget infecting other health workers reduces the quality of healthcare access overall.
In the European countries I'm familiar with, those people are now on unemployment benefits and their contract temporarily suspended. As a tax payer, I'm fine with that. I don't want unvaccinated health workers to get in close contact with my elderly mother, thank you.
It's unfeasible to carry out research on every little aspect of any medication, except for the very long term. That's why drugs get approved all the time, yet trials and studies continue for decades to account for long term and extremely rare side effects.
That said, literally anything can change the menstrual cycle (flu, stress, changes in nutrition or exercise levels), and especially given that menstrual symptoms correlate more with inflammatory markers than with actual hormone levels [0], it's to be expected that treatments that elicit an inflammatory response might have an effect in menstrual symptoms. It's good this research is done, but I doubt these changes come up as a surprise to any physician.
> Is it ethical to enforce vaccinations (via mandate) with these matters unresolved?
I think so, unless you consider to keep enforcing lockdowns, travel restrictions, or a Children-of-the-corn-light type of scenario to be ethically better.
https://www.trustnodes.com/2021/10/20/99-of-creditors-approv...
[0] https://www.nomadproject.io/docs/install/production/requirem...
They sure have advantageous tax rates to promote certain types of residency/investment, but the financial secrecy isn't really there, which is what this index is about.
But otherwise it is severely deprived of cache for anything in the middle.
The fact that no rat behavior change was reported until the 3 week mark heavily suggests external factors; hardly a cumulative effect as any long exposure effect would display.
Moreover an interesting paragraph:
> The average rectal temperatures of rat were observed to be 33.71±0.56 (control), 35.3±0.63 (EMR-900 MHz), 35.48±0.67 (EMR-1800 MHz) and 36.96±0.55 (EMR-2450 MHz) before and 33.91±0.82 (control), 35.5±0.51 (EMR-900 MHz), 35.66±0.60 (EMR-1800 MHz) and 37±0.78 (EMR-2450 MHz).
Seems to indicate the 2450 MHz rats were ill or otherwise stressed (rat body temperature hovers around 35.5, though it can increase at night), but no verification or mention is done on this whatsoever. I honestly believe many of effects described in the paper can be explained with the body temperature differential.
Also worth mentioning:
> The animals after being exposed to 900, 1800 and 2450 MHz EMR, the average power density was found to be 0.1227 W/m2. While the overall value of whole body average SAR was found to be approximately, 0.0227, 0.030 and 0.0616 W/kg.
Again not my field but I doubt 120mW/m2 can result in 50% absorption (61.6mW) per kg of rat. That means 2 kg of rats would absorb 100% of the radiation, while obviously not covering a full square meter. Please correct me if I misunderstood something.
I'm not saying that 2.4GHz radiation has no ill effects, there's tons of research on rats since the inception of the microwave, but it generally show changes at higher (and certainly more clear) SAR levels.
>Do not send me email like this:
>>Hi Guido,
>>I came across your resume in a Google web search. You seem to have an awesome expertise on Python. I would be glad if you can reply my email and let me know your interest and availability. Our client immediately needs a PYTHON Developers at its location in ***, NJ. Below are the job details. If interested and available, kindly fwd me your updated resume along with the expected rate and the availability.
>I might reply like this:
>>I'm not interested and not available.
Guido van Rossum 2013-09-18T20:32:32.876Z
He was well over 50 at the time.
Of all PCR confirmed cases [0]. Disclaimer: preprint.
There are browser plugins to filter out groups, pages and ads from your feed. That removed, it's basically a ghost town, at least for everyone I know that tried. It's become a glorified web portal/forum from the dot com boom at this point, and not a particularly good one at that. Within 5 years FB (the website, not the company) as it is will disappear or become irrelevant.
No, they don't. [0][1]
From [1]
> Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.
Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3].
Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take.
Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4].
[0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...
[3] https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/8...
Is this the kind of information you're worried will be deleted, that is, gross misunderstandings of reality in the best case, outright lies to generate engagement in the worst?
At least compare with a previous wave to see if there's a change according to vaccination rates (spoiler: there is), because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.
"It doesn't fully stop spread, so it doesn't work as a whole". Thanks for giving another example for my comment.
It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics.
Two sides of the same nonsense coin.
This is statistics, so an n = 1 doesn't really help your argument.
I agree though, that physiognomic "accuracy" based on self-assessments is of little value, like most self-assessments, and not very different from tarot readings or online IQ or MBTI tests.
Now when there are external assessments, these types of correlations are to be handled carefully in social sciences, because they can be self-fulfilling prophecies (people don't trust you because you look untrustworthy, so you end up behaving the way that gets you treated that way anyway) or straight up spurious, so the independent variable(s), if any, can be extremely non-evident: nutrition, environmental, cultural... This is, again, not unlike intelligence tests.
The best hard data we have is on a less delicate subject: aggression in hockey, where certain facial features correlate with quantifiable aggressive behaviors [0].
The 30-40 year figure assumes the related virus is a direct ancestor and it stayed within the same species, which is quite a big if. It's useful as a metric within a single population, but not exactly evidence hard enough to play genetic detective.
If they just share ancestors that time is basically halved towards the most recent common ancestor, which puts it back somewhere in the mid 2000s. When evolving in parallel, within different species, the divergence grows really quick. Also when viruses jump species the mutation rate skyrockets at the beginning[0][1] to adapt to the novel host, which could easily account for most of the difference between RaTG13 and Wu-1 anyway.