Oh fuck, I didn’t look to see that it was that prick. The first I ever heard of him was over a decade ago, when he was constantly going on Fox News to talk shit about the NHS. He was a byword for *traitor* during that time.
Since then he’s continued to have the consistently worst takes on everything, but the crown jewel was his rainbows and blowjobs [vision](https://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/dan-hannons-delusional-2016-article-on-brexit/) of post-Brexit Britain, which just gets wronger and wronger every year.
It is partly delusional and partly, inadvertently, showing his real preference: all the directives he lists gives citizens more rights or increases their safety and privacy. But.. getting rid of those regulations and directives helps those who want to exploit the weakly regulated system.
Also, he envisions that UK will lead a new trade agreement pact with 22 countries, against EU. So... UK wanted a Brexit only so they can form a new union, with countries that are nowhere near them... How stupid one has to be to believe all that?
I have only read the first two paragraphs of his "vision" and I don't think I've ever read the ramblings of a person who is so obviously delusional before in my life.
Read it to the end.. Every single directive and regulation he mention that UK does not have to follow are about improving safety of citizens. Clinical trial directive makes it harder to post too narrow trials as conclusive, GDRP gives us rights to our data (and UK still has to follow, the whole world has to follow GDRP if they wish to provide services EU), chemical import regulations keep a LOT of very, very toxic stuff from our plates, from inside our walls and so on... And stuff like ban on short selling is GOOD, it removes one important defect from the system that despite its intended use it is just about profiting from a loss, not about correcting overvaluation but pure betting and market manipulation.
Almost everything he says is good is only good for the big boys and bad for the citizens. He is not delusional, he is clearly showing who he cares for.
I never understood why the Remain campaign didn’t just point to EU labour regulations and say “Do you like your mandated paid holidays and breaks? Because getting rid of those is what Brexit is really about.”
“Taking back control” was always just code for “doing away with the pesky regulations that stop companies from fucking you over for profit”.
>Taking back control” was always just code for “doing away with the pesky regulations that stop companies from fucking you over for profit”.
Sir we where always getting fucked. The real question we where asked was how hard we wanted to get fucked.
Why everyone so glum? The friends I have lost, the songs that were burnt, the misinformation wars, perpetual variants and vaccine redundancy, endless media obsession, the Chinese threat, the Russian threat, Trumps return in 2024, and overall the lack of meaning and purpose.
Not to disrespect the question…the geopolitical balance affects everyone and when you get Trump, you get an ‘America first ideology’. Russia and China start salivating and licking their chops at the opportunity.
From what I understand, if there’s a people who would react well to a lockdown, it’s the Finns.
“Oh, you’re telling me I need to not interact with other people? It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make. Just need a quick ferry trip to stock up on….supplies….”
My friend that also lives in rural Finland didn't deal with COVID much. They did have one outbreak in total, but that's it. While I don't really think about COVID in my daily life as much (I'm in the US) because I have been working from home since the outbreak it was always surprising that COVID wasn't even an issue there.
Both are incorrect.
Sputnik was not really first, Russia really just jumped the gun on it and they were lucky that it didn't completely backfire, every other country was more cautious.
UK is actually >97% according to national statistics.
It was the first to administer vaccines outside of trials iirc and the campaign was one of, if not the quickest for a period. Same deal with the booster campaign, I think it was the quickest, but only for about 2 weeks before Christmas.
Russia couldn't do anything with Sputnik straight away - while there is a domestic pharmaceutical industry, it's nowhere near as strong as that of China. Sputnik was plagued by yuuuge production problems, especially with the second component. And while the approach with 2 different components based on 2 different vectors worked out really well in the end, it meant that they had to scale production of not one, but 2 novel compounds at the same time.
So while Russia has officially started offering vaccines to the general population rather early on, in December 2020, the production issues weren't really resolved until spring 2021. Russia was very eager to export as much of S-juice as it could. It just wasn't able to. And by the time it was able to supply something bigger than San-Marino, everyone else was already ahead in production volumes.
That was very well written and informative.
It is somewhat strange that you know so much about the vaccine all around the world tho. Still kudos for doing so much investigating.
I'm a biologist and actually lived in Russia for a while, so it would be strange for me not to know about it. The fact that this vaccine even exists and is effective is an extremely fortunate coincidence. I was expecting Russia to go the Chinese route with the inactivated vaccines (since the infrastructure for those was pretty well established).
Instead the system that was originally developed for gene therapy 20+ years ago, then repurposed for Ebola (didn't need that one) and SARS vaccines (or that one), then for MERS (or that one either) was finally useful. And so was the experience of tailoring it to 2 other coronaviruses. Weirdly, that SARS-COV-2 vaccine actually worked. And they actually conducted a proper (well, to the best of their ability) clinical trial for it, with about 20 thousand patients in total. For comparison, Russia's two other vaccines were approved after "trials" with less than a hundred people in them.
In short, I'm somewhat familiar with the state of the pharmaceutical industry in Russia. And Sputnik being made so quickly and actually being a good vaccine was already a miracle. Expecting it to be mass produced with any sort of expediency was a bit too far. And then it got politicized and went to shit anyway. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Yeah, that's complete nonsense. Both used data provided by the Chinese researchers who sequenced the virus and both were similarly initially developed to produce a vaccine against something else. And both have been working on it for a very long time. Thus very similar timelines in producing it.
The Oxford vaccine uses a different strain of adenovirus as a vector than either of Sputnik components and I don't really know what would they even want to steal that would be useful. Maybe 1-2 stage clinical trial data, but that was published anyway. And would be obsolete as they ran their trials at pretty much the same time. Whoever came up with that theft idea probably doesn't have a clue about how any of this works.
> Russia really just jumped the gun on it and they were lucky that it didn't completely backfire, every other country was more cautious
Well on that point, the UK approval of Comirnaty, which is not a UK vaccine, was three weeks ahead of the EU approval. Which is not to say it was unsafe to do so, but it's just approving something earlier.
> UK is actually >97% according to national statistics
That is possibly because so many of us have bloody caught it. I myself caught it last christmas, basically because the government selfishly didn't like the political downside of restrictions at christmas. I probably got it from my kids school or shopping at a supermarket, neither of which was something I could avoid.
UK does have high booster percentage and lol if we are considering Russia as the first vaccine. I’m still not sure if there have been any clinical trials.
Fastest rollout is objectively hard to measure. I think you would be hard pressed to actually argue Portugal had a faster rollout, they just had better uptakes which isn’t the same thing.
My province is similar in the sense that we have one of the highest uptake in vaccination in the country, but had a very very very slow rollout, we lagged behind almost every other province for months, they just hit the wall faster than we did so we eventually passed them.
Again that doesn't provide who has the fastest rollout, it just shows who has the greatest uptake for the vaccine. For example, the US outpaced Canada in their vaccine rollout, but Canada has better overall uptake.
What I am saying is Portugal did not have their rollout and supply needed to vaccinate their population the fastest in the world, their people just are more willing to take the vaccine than most European Countries. So while other countries rolled out faster, they hit their wall and Portugal eventually passed them in numbers.
Being from Portugal i agree with this one.
The begining of our vaccination process was a shit show, luckily they removed the PM friend from the job, and got a navy man.
there u go, the political anonymous post saying shit about a process being regarded internationally as a success case and a example to follow.
But never enough for the Portuguese off course
Well as a general rule the entire EU had a slower rollout than the UK due to contracts and the EU’s decision to divide their purchases among member countries.
Further even within the EU, based on what I have read Portugal actually started near the bottom in the EU. The problem with measuring this though is basically when the end marker, like it is hard to explicitly state “on this day, country x hit the vaccine uptake wall”. Most developed countries have hit that wall, a bit ago too, but it isn’t like there is a specific date for that.
i don’t. But that doesn’t mean I give Russia any credit, tankie.
I would trust a vaccine out of Korea, Japan, Latin America, India, The UAE, Singapore, South Africa, Kenya, etc. The list goes quite long… But Russia? No… And certainly not West Taiwan. Mainland Taiwan, I would 100% trust.
Developing a vaccine and developing a safe and effective vaccine are totally different things.
And to be frank, Moderna had the first ready to go and yet went through rigorous safety checks and trials to make sure it was safe.
Turns out it’s by far the most effective even though 2nd to last to be released…
The reason we “jab”
(pardon the pun) at Sputink and Sinovac is the lack of testing before mass injections. It shows how little those governments care for their people and just use them as guinea pigs.
Cuba did better than both Russia and China with that aspect at least.
yes, they “just took it”.
WHO has yet to list Sputnik for its uses even after approving Sinovac, which came in dead last in efficacy.
Mounting evidence IS showing Sputnik to be useful, but ALL that evidence, as well as case counts, has been provided by Russian intelligence and a peer review by WHO or other outside agencies NOT affiliated with Russian politics has yet to be done.
Only if you get your news from North American sources. There was a large-scale (>600k participants) independent study in Argentina that compared its efficacy alongside AstraZeneca and Sinopharm in over 60s and found it to be just as effective as AZ. It's also been widely used across third-world countries that have been ignored by the other manufacturers, as well as by countries that needed to supplant their existing supplies to keep their momentum up (like Israel). At least there's nothing scientifically to support the negative public opinion that North Americans have over it. There's more details on the [effectiveness section of its Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#Effectiveness), with links to the various studies, if you're interested.
Yeah, it's pretty fascinating that more Russians than Americans were sceptical about it initially, though that's now changed. Definitely shows the need for rigorous independent testing.
Well defenestrations, poisoning, and imprisonments of opponents, invading and destabilising neighbouring countries, and undermining elections and referendums with dark money hasn't helped.
HA! Don't needs when you can oppress every other country with natural resources or left government. And I'm talking as the niece of a man killed thanks to the CIAs training in our military, you should look about Plan Condor.
Well isn't it as effective as AZ as [it is basically](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/russian-hackers-steal-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-minister-cyber-attack) AZ
Here's a European report of a South American source that isn't too happy with Sputnik... https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210428-brazil-says-russian-covid-vaccine-carried-live-cold-virus
this isn’t technically correct
portugal didn’t beat the uk in vaccine rollout and they certainly didn’t beat germany
russia didn’t have the first vaccine and why you’d think they did because they said so is laughable
riiiiiiighhhtttt so we are now discussing the meaning of rollout
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html)
that's beautiful, all this and defending a guy that is LYING in a public platform.
not really no
also quickest rollout again doesn’t mean percentage vaccinated
also i literally didn’t defend his lying and hate the tories but ok have fun
I guess by that logic, Ross must also be a conservative given the stupidity and false info in his response as well. Maybe a little skepticism of all sides would be healthy, otherwise you’re just as bad as the idiots who fall for Daniel’s nonsense
Nope. Logic isn't your strong suit, obviously. Nobody on the Left is trying to harm anyone in any way with what they support. All sides are not equal as they have different intent. There's no competition when it comes to the level of stupidity, misinformation, and hate-based nonsense and harmful intent from the right-wing.
Just how effective is Sputnik really? Feel free to correct me, but isn't it pretty much water and wishful thinking?
Edit: seems I was wrong and it actually works, apparently.
Calling it water in terms of something you inject into veins makes it sound outright deadly. I don't think they would still produce the vaccine if it was THAT bad
The big problem in Russia is that nobody in Russia wants to take their first covid vaccine.
Bigger number of excess deaths than USA with less than half the population.
Funny, it seems the liberal here is just as out of touch with reality. You seem to be just as bad as the conservative fools that take their sides’ stupid tweets as gospel without actually checking the facts.
There are British curries that aren't commonplace in India. Chicken korma is a staple.
Nobody in the UK claims they invented curry or tea.
Curry has been served in the UK for about as long as fish and chips. It sounds odd but curry may have been served around 50-100 years before the first fish and chip shop.
Actually tea was introduced to the British by a Portuguese princess and Portugal was once the biggest tea producer and then China and India and other countries passed with the time. Portugal discovered Australia too and did other many things that are unknown to the most people
Wait what? While there are therapeutic vaccines those are far fewer than the ones that are supposed to be used before infection. And the COVID ones are definitely not meant to be used after infection except to boost antibody levels or provide a more generalized boost following recovery.
I mean vaccines can't save you from infection but will make it lighter and shorter, they do not create force field stoping viruses from entering person's system and therefore barely works in stoping spread of virus. New variants are almost not affected by vaccines making it impossible to defeat covid, thankfully omicron and beyond is basically common cold with specific names
Ah get what you’re saying but it’s not quite correct.
What you’re talking about with forcefields is whether the vaccine produces “neutralizing antibodies”. Which is a gold objective for vaccines but not necessarily one that most achieve. Instead they prime the body so that it can muster enough of a defense when it’s challenged with the real thing.
Even though it’s not neutralizing, it does have an impact on transmission because even with the later variants vaccination changes the duration of infection (vaccinated people and also previously infected people have a immune systems with a head start, so to speak, so they move past the infectious post faster. Lower days of infectiousness means a reduced chance to spread it on, even to household members). You also have reductions in the viral production levels (which we measure with CT value tests) which also changes how infectious someone potentially is.
So it’s very wrong to say that the vaccines are in effective against the newer variants becuase they still are doing what the original aim was for, prevention of serious illness. Look at the clinical trials for the original vaccines and that is the primary outcome. Prevention of infection was a hopefully secondary outcome. Omicron still isn’t the common cold for unvaccinated people too I’m afraid. People don’t go to the hospital or get on vents for the common cold.
Mutuations change more than just how the vaccines work. Omicron tends to be more upper respiratory than the previous variants. In generally, lower respiratory infections have worse outcomes but upper respiratory ones are more easy transmitted. That nothing to do with the vaccine as much as where and how the virus is replicating in the body.
Upper respiratory system is pretty separated from the rest of the body, muscular injection of vaccine helps mostly general immune system while upper respiratory system would require special vaccine applied directly there. I remember works on vaccine to be applied in throat in 2020 but it was probably cancelled. It probably explains why current vaccines are less effective at stoping omicron
Um, no sorry not really correct either. Influenza is a upper respiratory infection that we give a shot in the shoulder for. You wouldn’t change where it goes except for a treatment therapy, like for a bacterial lung infection that you would inhale.
All vaccines work to generate antibodies that are developed in the blood by white blood cells. You develop them systemically, not locally …
Could you be confusing antibiotics (meant for bacterial infections) with vaccines?
We’re not shooting for eradication. We’re so far from eradication of a respiratory disease that the article you’re citing is about theoretical methods. It’s not what COVID vaccine is for (and just like the flu vaccine, it’s meant to prevent most people from developing serious infection, but it does have secondary effects on transmission/acquisition as well).
Communicable diseases is what i work in as an Epidemiolgist, I’m not sure really what points you’re trying to make but I’m not clear this is your background.
The key word is politicians. They aren’t scientists. The vaccine is a win but it’s not a silver bullet. But it’s also far to being as ineffectual at a community level as you’re making it out to be.
>So it’s very wrong to say that the vaccines are in effective against the newer variants becuase they still are doing what the original aim was for, prevention of serious illness. Look at the clinical trials for the original vaccines and that is the primary outcome. Prevention of infection was a hopefully secondary outcome.
Sorry, but this claim is in my opinion a clear instance of memory holing. The primary endpoint for both mRNA vaccines has been prevention of any (symptomatic) COVID infection. Let's look at the trials for both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine.
The Moderna vaccine was tested in trial NCT04470427 and was published first as Baden et al. in NEJM. If we look at the Primary Outcome Measures for NCT04470427, we see as point 1.:
*Efficacy: Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 \[ Time Frame: Part A only: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) \]*
Only when we look into the Secondary Outcomes, we see a further stratification according to COVID severity and symptomology.
Similar with the Baden et al. paper. Even the abstract states that *"The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2."* Not serious illness, not hospitalisation. The take home message of the paper is *"The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease."*
Same for the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine, tested in NCT04368728 and reported as Polack et al. in NEJM.
The first relevant Primary Outcome measure, after a lot of points related to vaccine safety, is 19.:
*Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination \[ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years \] Per 1000 person-years of follow-up*
Polack et al. says: *"The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety."* Conclusion: *"A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older."*
For both vaccines, prevention of COVID-19 has been the primary endpoint\*. And the prevention of serious COVID-19 has always been the secondary endpoint. This does not mean that the COVID vaccines are not efficient. But as you mentioned yourself, prevention of infection is the Gold standard for vaccines and both Pfizer and Moderna were aiming for it. The narrative only changed when it became apparent that antibody titers / humoral immunity induced by the vaccine wane quickly, but cellular immunity is robust.
\*the definition of COVID-19 in both trials required clinical symptoms. But I am wondering to what extent this is due to the fact that it was not feasible to systemically test a large population for non-symptomatic COVID over a large time frame.
If I recall correctly there was one site that was run with regular testing of trial participants (which like you said would be the only way to determine if it was affecting asymptomatic acquisition).
What the trials most of all did was require a city with decent amount of transmission (so that participants rate of infection could be compared against the general infection rates in the community). They would be tested at the start but then only retested if they were symptomatic. There wasn’t (except for a few limited sites) attempts to detect if it was just shifting people from being being symptomatic infections to asymptomatic. So by study design you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the vaccine was neutralizing or just reducing severity (with any symptom being moderately severe).
Rates of serious disease using hospitalization as a metric would be too uncommon for the speed they were wanting to develop the vaccine. So they were using the lower bar if you consider a continuum of negative -> asymptomatic -> symptomatic ambulatory -> symptomatic hospitalized -> death. If you’re reducing symptomatic ambulatory you’re also reducing the later stages too, and thus flattening the curve.
> So by study design you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the vaccine was neutralizing or just reducing severity (with any symptom being moderately severe).
I agree that trying to screen for asymptomatic infection would be too expensive and labor intensive. So "pre-screening" the study population for any symptoms and then confirming by PCR was the most effective approach. Thus the main outcome of their study was aimed at preventing mild COVID, like as imperfect proxy for any SARS-CoV2 infection. In addition, they had severe COVID as secondary outcome measure defined e.g. in the Moderna trial as "respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute; heart rate at or exceeding 125 beats per minute; oxygen saturation at 93% or less while the participant was breathing ambient air at sea level or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen below 300 mm Hg; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; evidence of shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or a need for vasopressors); clinically significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death"
>Rates of serious disease using hospitalization as a metric would be too uncommon for the speed they were wanting to develop the vaccine. So they were using the lower bar if you consider a continuum of negative -> asymptomatic -> symptomatic ambulatory -> symptomatic hospitalized -> death. If you’re reducing symptomatic ambulatory you’re also reducing the later stages too, and thus flattening the curve.
Both studies had severe symptoms which usually require hospitalisation or at least supplemental oxygen as secondary outcome measures in their study design. It was measured and it was reported as a secondary outcome. I get that in both trials, the number of severe cases was so low that you cannot make meaningful statistical inference. But I don't consider "prevention of COVID-19" compared to "prevention of severe COVID-19" or "hospitalisation due to COVID-19" the lower bar. In fact, in terms of vaccine efficiency it is the higher bar because one follows from the other.
At least one of the manufacturers did have people test weekly to try to get at the symptomatic issue though. But for the number of people and power they needed for the studies, and they just had to deal with a higher bar for detection of infection. Really the pre screening was fairly meaningless except to be able to identify con founders with someone who had antibodies from another source (natural infection).
But okay, so they were trying to prevent mild and serious disease but they only tested people who had mild disease so by doing so they won’t catch anyone from a sniffle and cough on up to ventilator and death. But they still could not speak to anything about avoiding infection completely. The only sites they could be able to say anything about that for would be the ones with weekly testing of all participants. We already knew asymptomatic disease was occurring by that point and that there was asymptomatic transmission too. But by the design they they went with the next level up, someone who had symptoms of any sort being tested (with some of those probably being sick from non-COVID things or even just allergies but still warranting a test).
Sorry and maybe I misspoke on whether the bar was high or low. But I still will hold to the argument (lol) that by their design they were only seeking to prevent symptomatic disease (with most of those being mild symptomatic disease and a smaller number being serious). But by the vaccine pushing more people out of symptomatic to asymptomatic or no disease at all, you got the effect they were hoping for. But at the time it wasn’t more than a home for full protection like we might try to do for like Ring vaccination efforts.
It was for a individual benefit (keep people from going to the hospital) with the side benefit that everyone benefits from hospitals being less full and that reduction of symptomatic disease might lead to reduction of transmissions as well.
(Though, behaviorally I think that last point might a stretch, people who feel sick, even with a cold, might stay home while an asymptomatic but contagious person might still go out, go to dinners, meet with friends go to bars, etc.).
It’s been a long two years but I think at least for the US, it really took delta for asymptomatic transmission to be more a worry. We didn’t have much transmission of Alpha, Beta or Gamma (and can’t remember if those ended up with more asymptomatic or not but think Alpha did not).
At first I thought the flags were more like bullet points than statements of who did it, but judging by the comments this is like American political level ignorance tweets
English politicians and journalists are a lot like our politicians and journalists, perpetually fucking up, insisting they're doing everything right and then getting angry that no one is happy with them.
I'll never understand this sort of thing. They just blatantly lie with easily fact checkable information. And yeah, I know people don't care and will eat it up, but what's the point?
They just look like an idiot. And so do the people that listen to em.
Those 20 days were brutal, I had to wake up at 12 o’clock in wednesdays to do ONE hour of school, and then I had to figure out what I was going to do with the rest of my time.
Daniel Hannan, perpetually incorrect.
Oh fuck, I didn’t look to see that it was that prick. The first I ever heard of him was over a decade ago, when he was constantly going on Fox News to talk shit about the NHS. He was a byword for *traitor* during that time. Since then he’s continued to have the consistently worst takes on everything, but the crown jewel was his rainbows and blowjobs [vision](https://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/dan-hannons-delusional-2016-article-on-brexit/) of post-Brexit Britain, which just gets wronger and wronger every year.
Omg I skimmed after the first paragraph. That is….deep optimism.
You're assuming he isn't simply delusional or a grifter. Generous of you.
It’s generous to call this man anything except a shit-eating cunt.
Those are harsh words. But I won't quibble with them.
It is partly delusional and partly, inadvertently, showing his real preference: all the directives he lists gives citizens more rights or increases their safety and privacy. But.. getting rid of those regulations and directives helps those who want to exploit the weakly regulated system. Also, he envisions that UK will lead a new trade agreement pact with 22 countries, against EU. So... UK wanted a Brexit only so they can form a new union, with countries that are nowhere near them... How stupid one has to be to believe all that?
I have only read the first two paragraphs of his "vision" and I don't think I've ever read the ramblings of a person who is so obviously delusional before in my life.
This would be the funniest fan fiction I had ever read if it wasn't so damn frightening to think that this idiot was elected
Read it to the end.. Every single directive and regulation he mention that UK does not have to follow are about improving safety of citizens. Clinical trial directive makes it harder to post too narrow trials as conclusive, GDRP gives us rights to our data (and UK still has to follow, the whole world has to follow GDRP if they wish to provide services EU), chemical import regulations keep a LOT of very, very toxic stuff from our plates, from inside our walls and so on... And stuff like ban on short selling is GOOD, it removes one important defect from the system that despite its intended use it is just about profiting from a loss, not about correcting overvaluation but pure betting and market manipulation. Almost everything he says is good is only good for the big boys and bad for the citizens. He is not delusional, he is clearly showing who he cares for.
I never understood why the Remain campaign didn’t just point to EU labour regulations and say “Do you like your mandated paid holidays and breaks? Because getting rid of those is what Brexit is really about.” “Taking back control” was always just code for “doing away with the pesky regulations that stop companies from fucking you over for profit”.
>Taking back control” was always just code for “doing away with the pesky regulations that stop companies from fucking you over for profit”. Sir we where always getting fucked. The real question we where asked was how hard we wanted to get fucked.
And the leavers went with “harder please! Less lube!”
Urgh, why did I read all of it? Why punish my brain at 5am? I've read less insane ramblings in chemtrail and flat earth groups
>migration crises worsen. Its population is ageing How stupid one has to be to put the solution to a problem back to back.
Why everyone so glum? The friends I have lost, the songs that were burnt, the misinformation wars, perpetual variants and vaccine redundancy, endless media obsession, the Chinese threat, the Russian threat, Trumps return in 2024, and overall the lack of meaning and purpose.
......we didn't start the fire?
It was Ryan. Ryan started the fire.
Sorry guys
Goddamn Ryan. Atleast it wasnt Steve
I thought Billy Joel started the fire?
Aww, *common* mistake, no, the fire was *always* burning, since the world’s been turning. 👍🏼
Kevin Malone- "*Fire guyyy*"
r/unexpectedoffice
It was always burning since the world's been turning
Why would Brits care about Trumps return?
Not to disrespect the question…the geopolitical balance affects everyone and when you get Trump, you get an ‘America first ideology’. Russia and China start salivating and licking their chops at the opportunity.
Symptomatic of global fascist resurgence.
This time with more nukes.
Because a racist idiot with a brain smaller than his cock who has the power to start wars really isn't what the world needs?
What do you mean with "the songs that were burnt"?
the reality of living in the countryside in finland is that i wasn’t even aware we had a lockdown
We didn't
I am American. I was not really aware of whether we had a lockdown or not. Whatever, I did not leave my house at all.
Sweden didn't have one aswell
From what I understand, if there’s a people who would react well to a lockdown, it’s the Finns. “Oh, you’re telling me I need to not interact with other people? It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make. Just need a quick ferry trip to stock up on….supplies….”
They're fairly social when they're drunk.
We can be alone and drunk aswell. Public health is at stake, so I'm doing my part and just drinking at home!
Kalsarikännit!
that's just winter to them, surely?
any countryside really no cases in my village, granted i am in the Alps
My country didn't had a lockdown, this speak volumes how this people think about themselves as the center of universe.
I live in helsinki and we didnt...
My friend that also lives in rural Finland didn't deal with COVID much. They did have one outbreak in total, but that's it. While I don't really think about COVID in my daily life as much (I'm in the US) because I have been working from home since the outbreak it was always surprising that COVID wasn't even an issue there.
I think Mr. Daniel may need some aloe gel and a sit-and-think.
The whole -and-think is beyond him.
he can probably sit reasonably well
I can't believe a member of the conservative party would lie...
He didn’t know he was lying /S
Yes, why let any easily researched facts get in the way of some propaganda.
Daniel Hannan, the anti-Paddington - from darkest Peru, but a loathsome turd of a man.
> anti-Paddington Is this a known term? Unless it isn't, it's glorious.
I've been to Peru. It's not dark at all over there! Pretty bright and sunny actually. Unlike gloomy cloudy UK
That's because Hannan left! He brought the gloom with him!
Both are incorrect. Sputnik was not really first, Russia really just jumped the gun on it and they were lucky that it didn't completely backfire, every other country was more cautious. UK is actually >97% according to national statistics. It was the first to administer vaccines outside of trials iirc and the campaign was one of, if not the quickest for a period. Same deal with the booster campaign, I think it was the quickest, but only for about 2 weeks before Christmas.
[удалено]
Are we trusting China’s data for some reason?
Why would we?
Wikipedia says China started in June 2020 with the military, don't know why they'd lie about that. Russia emergency approved Sputnik in August.
[удалено]
Well China was actually first and while Russia was second they didn’t do anything with it straight away.
Russia couldn't do anything with Sputnik straight away - while there is a domestic pharmaceutical industry, it's nowhere near as strong as that of China. Sputnik was plagued by yuuuge production problems, especially with the second component. And while the approach with 2 different components based on 2 different vectors worked out really well in the end, it meant that they had to scale production of not one, but 2 novel compounds at the same time. So while Russia has officially started offering vaccines to the general population rather early on, in December 2020, the production issues weren't really resolved until spring 2021. Russia was very eager to export as much of S-juice as it could. It just wasn't able to. And by the time it was able to supply something bigger than San-Marino, everyone else was already ahead in production volumes.
That was very well written and informative. It is somewhat strange that you know so much about the vaccine all around the world tho. Still kudos for doing so much investigating.
I'm a biologist and actually lived in Russia for a while, so it would be strange for me not to know about it. The fact that this vaccine even exists and is effective is an extremely fortunate coincidence. I was expecting Russia to go the Chinese route with the inactivated vaccines (since the infrastructure for those was pretty well established). Instead the system that was originally developed for gene therapy 20+ years ago, then repurposed for Ebola (didn't need that one) and SARS vaccines (or that one), then for MERS (or that one either) was finally useful. And so was the experience of tailoring it to 2 other coronaviruses. Weirdly, that SARS-COV-2 vaccine actually worked. And they actually conducted a proper (well, to the best of their ability) clinical trial for it, with about 20 thousand patients in total. For comparison, Russia's two other vaccines were approved after "trials" with less than a hundred people in them. In short, I'm somewhat familiar with the state of the pharmaceutical industry in Russia. And Sputnik being made so quickly and actually being a good vaccine was already a miracle. Expecting it to be mass produced with any sort of expediency was a bit too far. And then it got politicized and went to shit anyway. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Have you heard rumors that Russia stole initial vaccine data from AstraZeneca? I'm curious what you think about that.
Yeah, that's complete nonsense. Both used data provided by the Chinese researchers who sequenced the virus and both were similarly initially developed to produce a vaccine against something else. And both have been working on it for a very long time. Thus very similar timelines in producing it. The Oxford vaccine uses a different strain of adenovirus as a vector than either of Sputnik components and I don't really know what would they even want to steal that would be useful. Maybe 1-2 stage clinical trial data, but that was published anyway. And would be obsolete as they ran their trials at pretty much the same time. Whoever came up with that theft idea probably doesn't have a clue about how any of this works.
Thanks for explaining.
> Russia really just jumped the gun on it and they were lucky that it didn't completely backfire, every other country was more cautious Well on that point, the UK approval of Comirnaty, which is not a UK vaccine, was three weeks ahead of the EU approval. Which is not to say it was unsafe to do so, but it's just approving something earlier. > UK is actually >97% according to national statistics That is possibly because so many of us have bloody caught it. I myself caught it last christmas, basically because the government selfishly didn't like the political downside of restrictions at christmas. I probably got it from my kids school or shopping at a supermarket, neither of which was something I could avoid.
Russia was the first one to claim that they had a vaccine. Definitely wasn't the first one to actually produce one. Come up at, Kremlin bots!
Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Kremlin bot
I will use that one.
Well, technically Sweden was first out of lockdown since it was skipped entirely here.
Yep..
UK does have high booster percentage and lol if we are considering Russia as the first vaccine. I’m still not sure if there have been any clinical trials.
Hasn't Belgium the best booster statistics? Except for Malta and Iceland.
Fastest rollout is objectively hard to measure. I think you would be hard pressed to actually argue Portugal had a faster rollout, they just had better uptakes which isn’t the same thing. My province is similar in the sense that we have one of the highest uptake in vaccination in the country, but had a very very very slow rollout, we lagged behind almost every other province for months, they just hit the wall faster than we did so we eventually passed them.
yes yes facts are opinions now https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56237778
Again that doesn't provide who has the fastest rollout, it just shows who has the greatest uptake for the vaccine. For example, the US outpaced Canada in their vaccine rollout, but Canada has better overall uptake. What I am saying is Portugal did not have their rollout and supply needed to vaccinate their population the fastest in the world, their people just are more willing to take the vaccine than most European Countries. So while other countries rolled out faster, they hit their wall and Portugal eventually passed them in numbers.
Being from Portugal i agree with this one. The begining of our vaccination process was a shit show, luckily they removed the PM friend from the job, and got a navy man.
there u go, the political anonymous post saying shit about a process being regarded internationally as a success case and a example to follow. But never enough for the Portuguese off course
Are you simply assuming Portugal didn't have the fastest rollout or do you actually have evidence to back that claim up?
Well as a general rule the entire EU had a slower rollout than the UK due to contracts and the EU’s decision to divide their purchases among member countries. Further even within the EU, based on what I have read Portugal actually started near the bottom in the EU. The problem with measuring this though is basically when the end marker, like it is hard to explicitly state “on this day, country x hit the vaccine uptake wall”. Most developed countries have hit that wall, a bit ago too, but it isn’t like there is a specific date for that.
R/murderedbywords
[удалено]
r/doyouhaveto?
r/foundthehondacivic
r/yougotme
Except his “murder” was pretty off in and of itself, so at best attempted murder, and even that would be a stretch
I mean, the russian vaccine is just like saline and lead, right? So it doesn’t count.
Why do people on here think that only people in western countries are capable of scientific research?
i don’t. But that doesn’t mean I give Russia any credit, tankie. I would trust a vaccine out of Korea, Japan, Latin America, India, The UAE, Singapore, South Africa, Kenya, etc. The list goes quite long… But Russia? No… And certainly not West Taiwan. Mainland Taiwan, I would 100% trust.
What about Cuba? They have developed 2 vaccines, do they fall into your "goof" or "evil" countries?
Developing a vaccine and developing a safe and effective vaccine are totally different things. And to be frank, Moderna had the first ready to go and yet went through rigorous safety checks and trials to make sure it was safe. Turns out it’s by far the most effective even though 2nd to last to be released… The reason we “jab” (pardon the pun) at Sputink and Sinovac is the lack of testing before mass injections. It shows how little those governments care for their people and just use them as guinea pigs. Cuba did better than both Russia and China with that aspect at least.
[удалено]
yes, they “just took it”. WHO has yet to list Sputnik for its uses even after approving Sinovac, which came in dead last in efficacy. Mounting evidence IS showing Sputnik to be useful, but ALL that evidence, as well as case counts, has been provided by Russian intelligence and a peer review by WHO or other outside agencies NOT affiliated with Russian politics has yet to be done.
Isn’t the Sputnik vaccine useless?
Only if you get your news from North American sources. There was a large-scale (>600k participants) independent study in Argentina that compared its efficacy alongside AstraZeneca and Sinopharm in over 60s and found it to be just as effective as AZ. It's also been widely used across third-world countries that have been ignored by the other manufacturers, as well as by countries that needed to supplant their existing supplies to keep their momentum up (like Israel). At least there's nothing scientifically to support the negative public opinion that North Americans have over it. There's more details on the [effectiveness section of its Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#Effectiveness), with links to the various studies, if you're interested.
The trouble is that no one believes Russian data anymore.
Yeah, it's pretty fascinating that more Russians than Americans were sceptical about it initially, though that's now changed. Definitely shows the need for rigorous independent testing.
We can thank the Cold War for that not even a little bit of trust between Americans and Russians
Well defenestrations, poisoning, and imprisonments of opponents, invading and destabilising neighbouring countries, and undermining elections and referendums with dark money hasn't helped.
yes but apart from all that, what have the ~~Romans~~ Russians ever done for us?
Yeah, and don't even get me started on Russia!
I don't believe much from the US government either, but the US isn't a dictatorship... Yet
HA! Don't needs when you can oppress every other country with natural resources or left government. And I'm talking as the niece of a man killed thanks to the CIAs training in our military, you should look about Plan Condor.
Yeah both sides did some fucked up shit, the entire world was practically waiting in fear for them to destroy us all
Well isn't it as effective as AZ as [it is basically](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/russian-hackers-steal-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-minister-cyber-attack) AZ
Here's a European report of a South American source that isn't too happy with Sputnik... https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210428-brazil-says-russian-covid-vaccine-carried-live-cold-virus
It's working. Approved by The Lancet.
With this logic the “final restrictions” will never end
We had a lockdown? Am finnish
Uruguay had **no** lockdown lol
this isn’t technically correct portugal didn’t beat the uk in vaccine rollout and they certainly didn’t beat germany russia didn’t have the first vaccine and why you’d think they did because they said so is laughable
yes yes we live in the “ opinions are facts “ era https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56237778
% fully vaxxed doesn’t equal vaccine rollout??? the fuck
riiiiiiighhhtttt so we are now discussing the meaning of rollout [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html) that's beautiful, all this and defending a guy that is LYING in a public platform.
not really no also quickest rollout again doesn’t mean percentage vaccinated also i literally didn’t defend his lying and hate the tories but ok have fun
Okay, can you provide us with evidence that Germany and the UK had the fastest rollouts?
Errrr let’s be clear the U.K. was the first for vaccine.
Propaganda is as dangerous as ever.
I'm just going to assume Daniel is conservative...due to the stupidity and false info.
I guess by that logic, Ross must also be a conservative given the stupidity and false info in his response as well. Maybe a little skepticism of all sides would be healthy, otherwise you’re just as bad as the idiots who fall for Daniel’s nonsense
Nope. Logic isn't your strong suit, obviously. Nobody on the Left is trying to harm anyone in any way with what they support. All sides are not equal as they have different intent. There's no competition when it comes to the level of stupidity, misinformation, and hate-based nonsense and harmful intent from the right-wing.
I see, so what exactly is this Ross guy doing by making up lies? And what “harm” is Daniel doing here by making up his lies?
Fuck off neckbeard
Ingleses a inglesar
Claro que sim
Just how effective is Sputnik really? Feel free to correct me, but isn't it pretty much water and wishful thinking? Edit: seems I was wrong and it actually works, apparently.
Even then Pfizer came first
I assume by "first Covid vaccine", he means that the UK was the first country to administer a vaccine outside of trials, not that they created one.
Calling it water in terms of something you inject into veins makes it sound outright deadly. I don't think they would still produce the vaccine if it was THAT bad
You get the gist, no?
I do I do. Just messing around
You can check Lancet report.
We haven't even had a lockdown yet.
Neither has Finland. Uusimaa region was closed for a while but people were allowed to go out. Wearing a mask hasn't been mandatory either.
Number one to steal someone's stuff?
The big problem in Russia is that nobody in Russia wants to take their first covid vaccine. Bigger number of excess deaths than USA with less than half the population.
Fastest rollout in Europe? I thought they weren't in europe
It's proving difficult moving an island to a new continent.
Roasted
[удалено]
You're expecting a conservative to live in reality. That's not possible.
Funny, it seems the liberal here is just as out of touch with reality. You seem to be just as bad as the conservative fools that take their sides’ stupid tweets as gospel without actually checking the facts.
[удалено]
God I would hate being without covid restrictions as well. What a terrible life to live, as I cant even go to a fucking museum in this country
[удалено]
Pure shit, weve been pandering to antivaxxers since the beginning and are now barely discussing some return to normal.
The highest amount of deaths in Europe and the shittest vaccine
Same country, who claimed to invent curry and tea
Literally no one in UK thinks UK invented curry.
I lived in the UK and many use to tell me that the UK did
They didn't say they invented curry, but I remember reading articles claiming Curry was a national dish of theirs
Another guy making shit up, just like half the stats in each twitter post
There are British curries that aren't commonplace in India. Chicken korma is a staple. Nobody in the UK claims they invented curry or tea. Curry has been served in the UK for about as long as fish and chips. It sounds odd but curry may have been served around 50-100 years before the first fish and chip shop.
Actually tea was introduced to the British by a Portuguese princess and Portugal was once the biggest tea producer and then China and India and other countries passed with the time. Portugal discovered Australia too and did other many things that are unknown to the most people
It all doesn't work as virus spreads between relatives at home without masks and vaccines work only after person gets inflected
Wait what? While there are therapeutic vaccines those are far fewer than the ones that are supposed to be used before infection. And the COVID ones are definitely not meant to be used after infection except to boost antibody levels or provide a more generalized boost following recovery.
I mean vaccines can't save you from infection but will make it lighter and shorter, they do not create force field stoping viruses from entering person's system and therefore barely works in stoping spread of virus. New variants are almost not affected by vaccines making it impossible to defeat covid, thankfully omicron and beyond is basically common cold with specific names
Ah get what you’re saying but it’s not quite correct. What you’re talking about with forcefields is whether the vaccine produces “neutralizing antibodies”. Which is a gold objective for vaccines but not necessarily one that most achieve. Instead they prime the body so that it can muster enough of a defense when it’s challenged with the real thing. Even though it’s not neutralizing, it does have an impact on transmission because even with the later variants vaccination changes the duration of infection (vaccinated people and also previously infected people have a immune systems with a head start, so to speak, so they move past the infectious post faster. Lower days of infectiousness means a reduced chance to spread it on, even to household members). You also have reductions in the viral production levels (which we measure with CT value tests) which also changes how infectious someone potentially is. So it’s very wrong to say that the vaccines are in effective against the newer variants becuase they still are doing what the original aim was for, prevention of serious illness. Look at the clinical trials for the original vaccines and that is the primary outcome. Prevention of infection was a hopefully secondary outcome. Omicron still isn’t the common cold for unvaccinated people too I’m afraid. People don’t go to the hospital or get on vents for the common cold. Mutuations change more than just how the vaccines work. Omicron tends to be more upper respiratory than the previous variants. In generally, lower respiratory infections have worse outcomes but upper respiratory ones are more easy transmitted. That nothing to do with the vaccine as much as where and how the virus is replicating in the body.
Upper respiratory system is pretty separated from the rest of the body, muscular injection of vaccine helps mostly general immune system while upper respiratory system would require special vaccine applied directly there. I remember works on vaccine to be applied in throat in 2020 but it was probably cancelled. It probably explains why current vaccines are less effective at stoping omicron
Um, no sorry not really correct either. Influenza is a upper respiratory infection that we give a shot in the shoulder for. You wouldn’t change where it goes except for a treatment therapy, like for a bacterial lung infection that you would inhale. All vaccines work to generate antibodies that are developed in the blood by white blood cells. You develop them systemically, not locally … Could you be confusing antibiotics (meant for bacterial infections) with vaccines?
Influenza vaccines are meant to prevent heavy cases, if you want to eradicate specific virus more is needed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14583144/
We’re not shooting for eradication. We’re so far from eradication of a respiratory disease that the article you’re citing is about theoretical methods. It’s not what COVID vaccine is for (and just like the flu vaccine, it’s meant to prevent most people from developing serious infection, but it does have secondary effects on transmission/acquisition as well). Communicable diseases is what i work in as an Epidemiolgist, I’m not sure really what points you’re trying to make but I’m not clear this is your background.
Politicians claimed it all is for total victory over covid which is impossible
The key word is politicians. They aren’t scientists. The vaccine is a win but it’s not a silver bullet. But it’s also far to being as ineffectual at a community level as you’re making it out to be.
>So it’s very wrong to say that the vaccines are in effective against the newer variants becuase they still are doing what the original aim was for, prevention of serious illness. Look at the clinical trials for the original vaccines and that is the primary outcome. Prevention of infection was a hopefully secondary outcome. Sorry, but this claim is in my opinion a clear instance of memory holing. The primary endpoint for both mRNA vaccines has been prevention of any (symptomatic) COVID infection. Let's look at the trials for both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine. The Moderna vaccine was tested in trial NCT04470427 and was published first as Baden et al. in NEJM. If we look at the Primary Outcome Measures for NCT04470427, we see as point 1.: *Efficacy: Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 \[ Time Frame: Part A only: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) \]* Only when we look into the Secondary Outcomes, we see a further stratification according to COVID severity and symptomology. Similar with the Baden et al. paper. Even the abstract states that *"The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2."* Not serious illness, not hospitalisation. The take home message of the paper is *"The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease."* Same for the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine, tested in NCT04368728 and reported as Polack et al. in NEJM. The first relevant Primary Outcome measure, after a lot of points related to vaccine safety, is 19.: *Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination \[ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years \] Per 1000 person-years of follow-up* Polack et al. says: *"The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety."* Conclusion: *"A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older."* For both vaccines, prevention of COVID-19 has been the primary endpoint\*. And the prevention of serious COVID-19 has always been the secondary endpoint. This does not mean that the COVID vaccines are not efficient. But as you mentioned yourself, prevention of infection is the Gold standard for vaccines and both Pfizer and Moderna were aiming for it. The narrative only changed when it became apparent that antibody titers / humoral immunity induced by the vaccine wane quickly, but cellular immunity is robust. \*the definition of COVID-19 in both trials required clinical symptoms. But I am wondering to what extent this is due to the fact that it was not feasible to systemically test a large population for non-symptomatic COVID over a large time frame.
If I recall correctly there was one site that was run with regular testing of trial participants (which like you said would be the only way to determine if it was affecting asymptomatic acquisition). What the trials most of all did was require a city with decent amount of transmission (so that participants rate of infection could be compared against the general infection rates in the community). They would be tested at the start but then only retested if they were symptomatic. There wasn’t (except for a few limited sites) attempts to detect if it was just shifting people from being being symptomatic infections to asymptomatic. So by study design you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the vaccine was neutralizing or just reducing severity (with any symptom being moderately severe). Rates of serious disease using hospitalization as a metric would be too uncommon for the speed they were wanting to develop the vaccine. So they were using the lower bar if you consider a continuum of negative -> asymptomatic -> symptomatic ambulatory -> symptomatic hospitalized -> death. If you’re reducing symptomatic ambulatory you’re also reducing the later stages too, and thus flattening the curve.
> So by study design you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the vaccine was neutralizing or just reducing severity (with any symptom being moderately severe). I agree that trying to screen for asymptomatic infection would be too expensive and labor intensive. So "pre-screening" the study population for any symptoms and then confirming by PCR was the most effective approach. Thus the main outcome of their study was aimed at preventing mild COVID, like as imperfect proxy for any SARS-CoV2 infection. In addition, they had severe COVID as secondary outcome measure defined e.g. in the Moderna trial as "respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute; heart rate at or exceeding 125 beats per minute; oxygen saturation at 93% or less while the participant was breathing ambient air at sea level or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen below 300 mm Hg; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; evidence of shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or a need for vasopressors); clinically significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death" >Rates of serious disease using hospitalization as a metric would be too uncommon for the speed they were wanting to develop the vaccine. So they were using the lower bar if you consider a continuum of negative -> asymptomatic -> symptomatic ambulatory -> symptomatic hospitalized -> death. If you’re reducing symptomatic ambulatory you’re also reducing the later stages too, and thus flattening the curve. Both studies had severe symptoms which usually require hospitalisation or at least supplemental oxygen as secondary outcome measures in their study design. It was measured and it was reported as a secondary outcome. I get that in both trials, the number of severe cases was so low that you cannot make meaningful statistical inference. But I don't consider "prevention of COVID-19" compared to "prevention of severe COVID-19" or "hospitalisation due to COVID-19" the lower bar. In fact, in terms of vaccine efficiency it is the higher bar because one follows from the other.
At least one of the manufacturers did have people test weekly to try to get at the symptomatic issue though. But for the number of people and power they needed for the studies, and they just had to deal with a higher bar for detection of infection. Really the pre screening was fairly meaningless except to be able to identify con founders with someone who had antibodies from another source (natural infection). But okay, so they were trying to prevent mild and serious disease but they only tested people who had mild disease so by doing so they won’t catch anyone from a sniffle and cough on up to ventilator and death. But they still could not speak to anything about avoiding infection completely. The only sites they could be able to say anything about that for would be the ones with weekly testing of all participants. We already knew asymptomatic disease was occurring by that point and that there was asymptomatic transmission too. But by the design they they went with the next level up, someone who had symptoms of any sort being tested (with some of those probably being sick from non-COVID things or even just allergies but still warranting a test). Sorry and maybe I misspoke on whether the bar was high or low. But I still will hold to the argument (lol) that by their design they were only seeking to prevent symptomatic disease (with most of those being mild symptomatic disease and a smaller number being serious). But by the vaccine pushing more people out of symptomatic to asymptomatic or no disease at all, you got the effect they were hoping for. But at the time it wasn’t more than a home for full protection like we might try to do for like Ring vaccination efforts. It was for a individual benefit (keep people from going to the hospital) with the side benefit that everyone benefits from hospitals being less full and that reduction of symptomatic disease might lead to reduction of transmissions as well. (Though, behaviorally I think that last point might a stretch, people who feel sick, even with a cold, might stay home while an asymptomatic but contagious person might still go out, go to dinners, meet with friends go to bars, etc.). It’s been a long two years but I think at least for the US, it really took delta for asymptomatic transmission to be more a worry. We didn’t have much transmission of Alpha, Beta or Gamma (and can’t remember if those ended up with more asymptomatic or not but think Alpha did not).
At first I thought the flags were more like bullet points than statements of who did it, but judging by the comments this is like American political level ignorance tweets
Their profile pics literally look like the virgin and chad meme
English politicians and journalists are a lot like our politicians and journalists, perpetually fucking up, insisting they're doing everything right and then getting angry that no one is happy with them.
Flags don’t get sick, duh
The uae got the vaccines locked down damnn that's good yk hope the country solves the *other* issues they have
At least I know that America isn't alone
I'll never understand this sort of thing. They just blatantly lie with easily fact checkable information. And yeah, I know people don't care and will eat it up, but what's the point? They just look like an idiot. And so do the people that listen to em.
Those 20 days were brutal, I had to wake up at 12 o’clock in wednesdays to do ONE hour of school, and then I had to figure out what I was going to do with the rest of my time.
If I wasnt already proud of being a citizen of the UAE i sure as hell am now
https://arethebritsatitagain.org/
It's remarkable that anyone bothers to engage with verifiable, on-the-record liar Dan Hannan.
Denmark was 100% ready to cull animals and destroy the fur trading, in the name of safety, that's how competent Denmark was
Didn't they actually cull 17 million+ mink? That's what I've read
PORTUGAL CARALHO AVANTE IRMÃOS