I'm not aware of stats relating to how many asymptomatic individuals go on to develop full blown symptomatic Covid-19. My assumption is that testing PCR positive while remaining asymptomatic the entire time is by far the most common experience.
Of course, whether you go on to develop symptoms or not, its still highly pertinent information if asymptomatic spread is not a major driver of infection. As long as you self isolate upon symptom onset that should be enough. It does call into question whether isolating the apparently healthy is an evidence-based public health policy intervention though.
Just as a side note, asymptomatic spread is a contested topic. If asymptomatic spread were a major driver of infection, this would be the first respiratory virus to work that way.
Massive confounding factor here is that starting around April seasonality into summer was putting massive downward pressure on the epidemic across Europe anyway. There's no mention of attempting to control for this effect in the paper.
As it happens the UK's second wave kicked into exponential increase around mid August - the only major public health policy intervention coincident with this was mandatory mask wearing. So yeah.
Well, a country is a shared endeavour isn't it? We collaborate together by following our national laws, paying our taxes, follow our customs and traditions and engage in cultural renewal and repair when required. In this way, everyone in the country is responsible for fostering a peaceful and prosperous environment that can prove to be fertile infrastructure for advancements and breakthroughs. Why not take some small measure of pride in this? It's a generational effort.
What you're missing is that amongst a certain class of Brit, and across much of the West, relentless and savage cultural self-criticism has become the norm, and a currency used for in-group signalling. Even when people in the UK should be celebrating, as literally the first country in the world to develop an approved C19 vaccine in record breaking time, and enjoy the privilege of a free health system that can roll it out within _weeks_ they still find a way to twist it. Asking them to truly recognise the fact that there indeed exists big differences between the UK and much of the world in this respect will fall on deaf ears - it doesn't serve their purpose - which to be clear, isn't truth-telling or (heaven forbid expressing pride in their national achievements) it's a habit of personal advancement at the expense of others and dissolving their own culture in an acid bath of manifold criticism. It's only where this sort of criticism is expressed in forums with international readers, many in far less fortunate positions, does it begin to reveal itself for the pathology that it is.
Instead of downvoting why not prove me wrong? My first sentence is as far as I know plain truth, and the second is just describing the popular counter-narrative, not making any claims as to its veracity. When the social ill-effects of a lockdown policy are as severe as they are, we should be able to have a healthy public debate about the balance of harms and under-pinning evidence.
There is no evidence available that proves a robust "cause and effect" between the current national lockdown, and the drop in cases. The counter-narrative is that the rate of growth in cases was already reducing throughout the UK before the second national lockdown started (easily independently verifiable using the governments own stats dashboard), and cases plateaued in the early stages of the lockdown - happening too early to be reasonably attributable to the effects of the lockdown starting to bite.
It feels like some of these suggestions reduce the readability and maintainability of the TypeScript, as well as rail roading you into patterns that perhaps don't suit your architecture. Manually annotating return types of functions rather than letting them be inferred, and preferring interfaces to intersections for example.
I think I'll largely continue to write my TypeScript in the way that seems best to me using the syntax provided to me, and let MS hopefully optimise these issues under the hood over time.
None. Longitudinal trails are required to assess safety - literally waiting and seeing what happens. There's no other way to assess long term effects on the human system. For the avoidance of any doubt none of the new vaccines have had anything like the proper amount of time for a bare minimum longitudinal trial. Whether you decide to take a vaccine nobody in the world is more than 6 months out on will hopefully be left to personal choice.
I'm not discouraging people from "taking vaccines" in general. My 2 year old daughter is fully vaccinated. I'm just indicating that in the current scenario, where the vaccines on offer haven't undergone any longitudinal trails is extremely unusual and the usual calculus where people may weigh up the balance of risk does not apply.
But you don't need to be anti-vax to understand the game theory implications of neither vaccine undergoing a normal longitudinal study (waiting >1 years for side effects to develop), and both being based on new mRNA vaccine tech. Better for you and your family not to take the vaccine in the short term, and benefit from people around you taking it. I understand that is anti-social, but the logic cannot be denied if you're interested in optimising risk for you and yours.
Taking a vaccine that no trial volunteers have lived with for more than a year is a _substantial_ risk whichever way you slice it.
I take your point, and agree, but it's become deeply untenable to share a NYTimes article to prove any contested political point. That place has well and truly set fire to its reputation as an impartial reporter.
I think it would be unusual _not_ to develop hypochondria at some point this year. The levels of existential threat, perceived or otherwise, have been sky high.
It's amusing how you put "cellular immunity" in scare quotes. It's not a new or novel concept, but an extremely well understood mechanism that has been taught to immunology first years for decades. That a coronavirus should exhibit a cellular immune response should be the baseline assumption, rather than the inverse.
Seems like the solution here is for Facebook to consider Quest activity (playing games, active session on the device etc.) as legit Facebook activity.
Surely this is a glitch, probably happening in small numbers, that'll get sorted soon enough?
Why on Earth would they want to ban active users of their VR headset? Every active VR user, even if they don't use the Facebook site, is surely a precious asset. If Facebook continues to move into VR and AR, then surely many of its future users may only be interacting with its services exclusively in those mediums.
Coronaviruses like SARS-COV-2 mutate relatively slowly and minimally compared to others. So mutation isn't expected to be a huge concern, unlike say influenza which mutates relatively rapidly and requires an annual tweak to the vaccines.
What's more, any new strains we do see spreading more widely will do so because their mutations confer a competitive advantage. In practice that usually means more drift towards higher infectiousness but less severe symptoms - the same mechanisms that have left us with 4 other endemic but mild common cold coroanviruses.
The new SARS-COV-2 vaccines may be a useful tool to get us over this hump where the virus is still novel to a large proportion of the population, but are unlikely to be required indefinitely.
This is great and all, but I'd be interested what proportion of the entire cohort demonstrated a T-cell immune response, not just the 100 who tested sero-positive for SARS-COV-2. There is growing speculation that a significant minority of people may mount a T-cell immune response without ever contracting SARS-COV-2 itself, based on exposure to other coronaviruses. This would be great news since it further reduces the effective threshold for endemic equilibrium.
More likely it's because 6 months have elapsed. Cellular immunity to SARS-COV-1 (2003 outbreak) is still robust 17 years later - the two coronaviruses are fairly similar.
What sources are you using here? The UK has one of the best vaccination coverage rates in the world, and the largest ever roll out of the winter flu jab is well underway (reaching a record breaking ~50% of the population).
Causation !== correlation. An alternative explanation is those more likely to catch COVID-19 are more likely to be a cohort with lower IQ to begin with (e.g. have lower skilled jobs that put them in harms way etc.). Without a before and after IQ test of biologically confirmed COVID-19 patients this is junk.
Completely false. Weekly new cases per capita is merely a function of number of tests performed by authorities, and furthermore the false positive rate of those tests too. Percent positivity of those tests is a somewhat more accurate indication, but those figures rarely see headlines because they are less sensationalist. For example, UK test positivity rates are less than 1/10th what they were at the peak.
The NY Times is engaging in its favourite kink - activism while wearing the garb of journalism and feature writing like a macabre skin suit. It's simply proclaiming only what it wishes were true - that an enlightened and just cultural revolution is underway that deconstructs whatever is deemed to be undesirable (spoiler - anything pale, male and stale). In its hubris it still thinks it has the cultural sway to mould reality by constructing narrative. It is mistaken, and instead which each article of this nature is frittering away its prodigious reputational inheritance painstakingly assembled by generations of journalist that knew what it meant to report the facts and "allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions".
Young people are not more fair and ethical, new generations don't just suddenly gain purity and enlightenment out of thin air, they just have a different hustle.
Yes it's expensive, but a future where most infrastructure is underground, from mass transit to power and communications, allowing nature to return to the surface, for future generations to enjoy seems like a worthy goal imo, even just on the aesthetic merits, saying nothing of the ecology. Just a damn shame we couldn't build these boring machines in the UK, and funnel the spending into the domestic economy.
Let's be more accurate. The protests are caused by the police. But the riots, violence and looting is caused by opportunists and criminals, in many cases instigated and enflamed by white revolutionary anarchists and/or white supremacist cells more than willing to sacrifice minorities and their neighbourhoods to their insane political projects, i.e. blood soaked revolution or race war.
I'm confused why people that are anti-Trump don't wish his remarks, that they would presumably characterise as completely and unambiguously unacceptable, to face the scrutiny of the public to the fullest extent. Especially in an election year. It seems clearly in the public interest that this sort of speech by the president isn't censored and is discussed far and wide, and exposed to the light of day. The only reason I can think of for people wanting to suppress it is that they have such a low estimation of the average American, that they deem it simply too dangerous to be publicised. I must admit, I don't think any private business, or group of individuals, should make these sorts of judgements on behalf of an entire nation. The only way out of this crisis is by rapid and painful evolution, with the threat of failure real and ever-present. Coddling, control of information and censorship isn't the answer.
Hmm, same for me perhaps. New MBP 16 and Catalina connected to a external monitor via USB-C (a HP Z27 4K UHD).
If I leave it to sleep for a long duration, then it panics when waking from sleep and just black screens for a good few minutes, then turns on the fans full blast for like 2 seconds and reboots.
I've taken to just shutting down completely when finishing work and not letting sleep.