|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote:Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions. "Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time. "We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread." "In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission." The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual). Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative). https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439
Since you were already kind enough to post it:
![[image loading]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6549/1439/F4.large.jpg)
There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions.
Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission.
Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know?
People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
|
Ventilation is definitely an under-stated factor that requires more study and attention. There's a famous incident in China where a table of diners in a restaurant caught the virus despite being further away from the infected diners (whilst others closer by didn't). One theory attributes the phenomenon to the (poor) air circulation at the area where the transmission was most prevalent.
Some of my friends working in edcuation are really uncomfortable with returning to their cramped shared office spaces. Worst of all are those working in public sector where rules tend to be inflexible and 'presentism' is a bigger deal with higher-ups. Most of their work can be done remotely. Rotation shifts can mitigate the risk. Hopefully the administrators are more sensible and sensitive to their needs. Sometimes, it's not really about cost, but simply making behavioural adjustments.
|
On July 22 2021 14:43 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote:Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions. "Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time. "We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread." "In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission." The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual). Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative). https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439 Since you were already kind enough to post it: There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions. Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission. Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know? People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
What you're basically saying is that hindsight is 2020.
It's amazing that you demand policy makers know today's research in 2020.
I would give policymakers some slack for opting for the safe route
I would also think that for profit hospitals would already have swapped ffp2 masks for cheaper ones of they were to provide the same level of protection as the above post suggests.
Make it more nuanced and we can talk but if you're staying with blanket statements you know you'll get someone questioning you.
Re masks: i went through July's posts and Ive seen the one you're probably referring to criticising ffp2 masks.
I'll give you that, that's on me not remembering the one post that is not moaning about restrictions or vaccination 3weeks ago.
Not bolded in the above post:
Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative).
Taking into account that virus rich environment are defined as eg:
potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals, Superspreader events
Wearing ffp2 masks provides a benefit in most situations we currently encounter. But maybe not in a club without proper ventilation or a classroom.
|
On July 22 2021 17:33 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2021 14:43 sharkie wrote:On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote:Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions. "Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time. "We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread." "In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission." The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual). Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative). https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439 Since you were already kind enough to post it: There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions. Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission. Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know? People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread. What you're basically saying is that hindsight is 2020. It's amazing that you demand policy makers know today's research in 2020. I would give policymakers some slack for opting for the safe routeI would also think that for profit hospitals would already have swapped ffp2 masks for cheaper ones of they were to provide the same level of protection as the above post suggests. Make it more nuanced and we can talk but if you're staying with blanket statements you know you'll get someone questioning you. Re masks: i went through July's posts and Ive seen the one you're probably referring to criticising ffp2 masks. I'll give you that, that's on me not remembering the one post that is not moaning about restrictions or vaccination 3weeks ago. Not bolded in the above post: Show nested quote +Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative). Taking into account that virus rich environment are defined as eg: Show nested quote +potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals, Superspreader events Wearing ffp2 masks provides a benefit in most situations we currently encounter. But maybe not in a club without proper ventilation or a classroom.
You seriously think German secretary Spahn chose to buy them because of safety reasons?
Germany has bought 1 BILLION FFP2 masks
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article231889959/Bundesrechnungshof-Spahn-bestellte-viel-zu-viele-FFP2-Masken.html
FFP2 masks bought way above market price (market price back then)
https://www.rnd.de/politik/spahn-ministerium-kaufte-67-millionen-ffp2-masken-teurer-als-noetig-ein-NVCIUG6OB5CRHIWJTEUMC3Q2OQ.html
Bad quality FFP2 masks
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr/maskenaffaere-spahn-107.html
FFP2 masks bought at a company where Spahn's husband is employed without consulting other companies first
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-03/jens-spahn-gesundheitsministerium-ffp2-schutzmasken-ehemann-burda-gmbh?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/spiegel-wirft-spahn-masken-kauf-von-unternehmen-des-ehemanns-vor-17258129.html
Conspiracy right?
Also why are Germany and Austria the only countries in all of Europe who went that way? FFP2 in general public make no sense. In hospitals yes, not for the public
|
|
|
On July 22 2021 14:43 sharkie wrote:Since you were already kind enough to post it: There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2.
That is not correct. Not even misleading, it's just strictly not correct.
First of all, the graphs you posted don't show the impact on infections.
Quote: "Fig. 4 Volume size distributions of respiratory particles emitted during different respiratory activities with and without masks."
Note that there's no mention of protection in that whole section. That part of the research measures the direct outcome of sneezing, coughing, speaking and breathing, it doesn't measure infectivity.
Secondly, even these measures also find that FFP2 masks notably outperform surgical masks. If you consider those curves equal - or the differences insignificant - then you're not reading the numbers correctly.
I'll start with the most visible observation: the graphs are showing that - up until a certain load of particles - the efficacy of surgical masks is closer to no masks than to FFP2 masks. At a certain (higher) load the efficacy of both surgical and FFP2 masks starts to converge (but not right away).
The x-axis basically shows the "punch" of the respiratory particles, and the y-axis shows the volume distribution function (you can perhaps imagine it as how far the particles travel).
A,B,C,D are the different activities being tested (sneezing, coughing, speaking, breathing). This also shows that breathing is by far the least likely of the four activities to produce a dangerous jet of respiratory particles, even without a mask. Yet another example for why the efficacy of masks is very situationally dependent.
Thirdly, quote:
"The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate. Compared with N95 or FFP2 respirators, which have very low particle penetration rates (~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (~30 to 70%)"
It can't be much clearer than this. FFP2 or N95 masks very significantly outperform surgical masks in every way.
edit: also thanks RKC for your kind words 
|
|
|
On July 22 2021 14:03 Lmui wrote:Remains to be seen how necessary a booster is. The 3 week interval gave good immediate protection but has worse long term protective properties compared to longer intervals from what we know of all vaccines to date. With longer intervals in UK and Canada, we'll have enough data by December to see if a 3rd dose of the same, or a variant booster is needed. AZ will likely need an mrna booster, but so far, mrna is looking broadly protective. Show nested quote +Public Health England COVID-19 symptomatic effectiveness study finds two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) at 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) vs Alpha and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) vs Delta; ChAdOx1 (Astrazeneca) at 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) vs Alpha and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) vs Delta https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
Scientists in the UK are now backing a booster as data shows drop in antibodies after vaccination
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/22/uk-scientists-back-covid-boosters-as-study-finds-post-jab-falls-in-antibodies
UK scientists back Covid boosters as study finds post-jab falls in antibodies
Scientists have backed proposals for Covid boosters in the autumn after blood tests on hundreds of people revealed that protective antibodies can wane substantially within weeks of second vaccine shots being given.
Falls in antibodies after vaccination are expected and do not necessarily mean people are more vulnerable to disease, but the researchers are concerned that if the declines persist the effectiveness of the vaccines may diminish.
The UCL Virus Watch study found that antibodies generated by two doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines started to wane as early as six weeks after the second shot, in some cases falling more than 50% over 10 weeks.
|
On July 22 2021 22:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2021 13:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If you look at the average cost to produce a vial of insulin and the price that they sell it for in the United States, to sick and vulnerable people who actually need it to live, then you can see the pharma industry is about profits over health.
The vaccine situation, it's clear what will happen, it's already starting to happen in France and the UK.You will need vaccine passports to be able to go to most shops, public events, government buildings, perhaps even workplace offices etc.There will be regular boosters for the new variants that inevitably pop up and also because the vaccine loses efficiency over time against COVID.
You can see the situation where the government can cancel your access to your workplace,shops,public places etc unless you sign up for this plan of regular boosters.Possibly they could even cancel this 'Freedom Pass' for other reasons too.Like i say, i regret not investing in Pfizer shares last year as this will be a huge regular income stream for them and other makers.
BTW USA may be able to avoid what i have described with the domestic vaccine passport due to their politics but i expect them to be in Australia, NZ, Canada and most of Europe by early next year. In the US it is different because these companies are directly able to pay politicians to keep costs high, whether that is "campaign donations" (which others have but are extremely limited), kickbacks or plumb "consulting" gigs when they leave office.
You agree the system is corrupt and that is part of what keeps the price high in the United States, which is the place i was talking about.Good.
The only way vaccines are a scam in the way you say is if the costs of them are higher than the costs of Covid and that is not even close. Now if you believe Covid is made up, I guess it kind of tracks but you have to be very far gone to be there given what currently happening in Indonesia, what happened in India/Brazil and what is starting to happen in the US in unvaccibated areas.
In that post I never said vaccines were a scam, never said COVID was made up.Why do you keep putting words in my mouth and then extrapolating your argument from there?.I stated big pharma drug companies are making large amounts of money from these vaccines and the introduction of a vaccine passport with regular booster shots would be a great source of continued guaranteed revenue for them.What is even controversial about saying this?
The other thing is your logic is just so so broken. You are basically proposing that big pharma (private business) is so evil that they will rape society for every dime and that the only thing that can stop them is private business. This has never worked before all that has worked and will continue to work is regulation by independent (not profiting) bodies with the authority to do it.
I never said private business would stop it, but a government with a backbone and harsher penalties for the 'kickbacks' you've already mentioned would go a long way.BTW kids getting myocarditis from these vaccines and their families having to pay that hospital bill themselves because big pharma is immune from liability is pretty evil and fucked up.
|
|
|
Since I wouldn't feel ethical if I didn't say something:
When I look at data around delta variant and a 3rd pfizer dose, I have now decided I will be getting a 3rd dose today. This is due to available information and my wife's perspective as a microbiologist. While I am not formally giving a recommendation, I will still write this sentence to emphasize it was the decision I made.
|
I'm young and healthy, so I was one of the last people to get a double dose of Pfizer in Canada. The science on whether a third dose is necessary will be out long before I'm eligible for a 3rd dose, given that the 3rd dose is going to go to the elderly who got their shots in February/March first, and in countries with shorter dose intervals. I know that science so far shows protection wanes slightly over time, but if it's still broadly protective vs hospitalization, we might just need a booster for the vulnerable. I'll take a booster if offered with my flu shot, but it's nowhere near the priority that the first two doses were.
|
On July 24 2021 02:57 Lmui wrote:
I'm young and healthy, so I was one of the last people to get a double dose of Pfizer in Canada. The science on whether a third dose is necessary will be out long before I'm eligible for a 3rd dose, given that the 3rd dose is going to go to the elderly who got their shots in February/March first, and in countries with shorter dose intervals. I know that science so far shows protection wanes slightly over time, but if it's still broadly protective vs hospitalization, we might just need a booster for the vulnerable. I'll take a booster if offered with my flu shot, but it's nowhere near the priority that the first two doses were.
I get what you're saying and I wouldn't get my 3rd if they were scarce in the US. We are paying people to get vaccinated here and it isn't working. They can't get rid of them, so I'm taking a 3rd.
|
On July 24 2021 06:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2021 02:57 Lmui wrote:
I'm young and healthy, so I was one of the last people to get a double dose of Pfizer in Canada. The science on whether a third dose is necessary will be out long before I'm eligible for a 3rd dose, given that the 3rd dose is going to go to the elderly who got their shots in February/March first, and in countries with shorter dose intervals. I know that science so far shows protection wanes slightly over time, but if it's still broadly protective vs hospitalization, we might just need a booster for the vulnerable. I'll take a booster if offered with my flu shot, but it's nowhere near the priority that the first two doses were. I get what you're saying and I wouldn't get my 3rd if they were scarce in the US. We are paying people to get vaccinated here and it isn't working. They can't get rid of them, so I'm taking a 3rd.
That's a fair take. Hopefully it gets cheaper and integrated into a yearly flu vaccine. Easiest way to reach more people by far.
|
On July 24 2021 06:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2021 02:57 Lmui wrote:
I'm young and healthy, so I was one of the last people to get a double dose of Pfizer in Canada. The science on whether a third dose is necessary will be out long before I'm eligible for a 3rd dose, given that the 3rd dose is going to go to the elderly who got their shots in February/March first, and in countries with shorter dose intervals. I know that science so far shows protection wanes slightly over time, but if it's still broadly protective vs hospitalization, we might just need a booster for the vulnerable. I'll take a booster if offered with my flu shot, but it's nowhere near the priority that the first two doses were. I get what you're saying and I wouldn't get my 3rd if they were scarce in the US. We are paying people to get vaccinated here and it isn't working. They can't get rid of them, so I'm taking a 3rd.
Considering how many stories i read about doses wasted, anyone willing to take a third dose should do it
|
Had my 1st last month, having my 2nd in 2 weeks and I've had no issues whatsoever. My wife did feel a bit tired and whatnot but all in all, she was fine. Sister in law was a mess after her 1st.
Kinda weird knowing my immune system is pretty bad, always has been and my sister in law has always been in great health, I'd have assumed her to be fine too.
The way the world is dealing with covid is weird too, went to the Netherlands for a week (they had turned into a red zone just prior to going there) and NO MASKS whatsoever, no washing hands before entering a place etc.. and then you go to Belgium for example (not a red zone) and facial masks everywhere, people looking at you like you're a leper when you didn't wear your facial mask etc..
It's ridiculous how regulations etc.. can be so different just across the border.
At my job, regulations are very strict, I work for one of the major pharma companies in the world who are on the forefront when it comes to clinical trials and drug development and helped develop J&J and Astra Zenica, so I guess that's to be expected, even in for example the logistics department for the company (American company with their EU HQ being in Switzerland) in Belgium who's taking over a major part of the distribution (EU, Russia, Africa,..) as in the States the workload was getting too much, the regulations are incredibly strict.
Working in such an environment and then seeing NO masks in Holland for example (Center Parcs) where people from all over come to spend their time off with their family was actually disturbing to see. Really made no sense to wear a mask when everyone else wasn't wearing one either, your mask won't save you, in fact the mask is used to protect the people you interact with, not the other way around, so yeah, I didn't wear one either as it would've made NO difference whatsoever. Came out unscathed though, no idea how but had myself tested prior and after that trip and I turned out to be good (fortunately).
|
In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-23/Dutch-COVID-19-cases-rose-500-in-a-week-at-last-they-re-slowing-126QjlTSHUA/index.html
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses.
Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs.
There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers.
"You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/
|
The problem in the Netherlands is that the youth wasn't vaccinated yet. So while numbers were way down and everything was under controlled as soon as restrictions were lifted the youth started partying and mass covid infections took place despite entry into clubs needing a recent negative covid test. Things like a 600 person disco having 1/3 of the patrons infected afterwards.
In hindsight yes its obvious that opening up was a mistake but I don't think it was an unreasonable position to assume that the requirements of a negative test would help keep numbers down and not cause the massive peak that we instead got.
|
On July 25 2021 17:08 Purressure wrote:
Had my 1st last month, having my 2nd in 2 weeks and I've had no issues whatsoever. My wife did feel a bit tired and whatnot but all in all, she was fine. Sister in law was a mess after her 1st.
Kinda weird knowing my immune system is pretty bad, always has been and my sister in law has always been in great health, I'd have assumed her to be fine too.
The way the world is dealing with covid is weird too, went to the Netherlands for a week (they had turned into a red zone just prior to going there) and NO MASKS whatsoever, no washing hands before entering a place etc.. and then you go to Belgium for example (not a red zone) and facial masks everywhere, people looking at you like you're a leper when you didn't wear your facial mask etc..
It's ridiculous how regulations etc.. can be so different just across the border.
At my job, regulations are very strict, I work for one of the major pharma companies in the world who are on the forefront when it comes to clinical trials and drug development and helped develop J&J and Astra Zenica, so I guess that's to be expected, even in for example the logistics department for the company (American company with their EU HQ being in Switzerland) in Belgium who's taking over a major part of the distribution (EU, Russia, Africa,..) as in the States the workload was getting too much, the regulations are incredibly strict.
Working in such an environment and then seeing NO masks in Holland for example (Center Parcs) where people from all over come to spend their time off with their family was actually disturbing to see. Really made no sense to wear a mask when everyone else wasn't wearing one either, your mask won't save you, in fact the mask is used to protect the people you interact with, not the other way around, so yeah, I didn't wear one either as it would've made NO difference whatsoever. Came out unscathed though, no idea how but had myself tested prior and after that trip and I turned out to be good (fortunately).
Ive heard opposite: That if you have a strong immune system then you will react to the virus very quickly in the first dose and vise versa goes for the guys with "weak" immune systems. My first shot fucking floored me, I felt like I climbed a mountain and got hit by a bus. Second shot felt like it was nothing, just a mild fever for half a day and I was all better after a nap.
|
On July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote:In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher. "In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions." https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-23/Dutch-COVID-19-cases-rose-500-in-a-week-at-last-they-re-slowing-126QjlTSHUA/index.htmlAt least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again. The article continues: "The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days. "I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers.
"You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work."" There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen. _______________ In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave.
Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6549/1439/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
