Scrutable

AMS wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:33 am

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:07 pm

A popular drink here is tinto de verano, which is half and half cheap red wine and fizzy clear lemonade (as in R. Whites etc, but usually sugar-free).

That sounds properly minging.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:19 pm

In some cheaper Spanish eateries, when you order the three-course set lunch (around €10-11 here in high-priced Mallorca), on the table there may be a litre bottle of wine, a carafe of water, and a bottle of lemonade. The last of those is not there for any children in the party, it's for you to mix your red wine with. It's fun to point this out to French tourists and watch their looks of horror.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro criticized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in a bizarre rant, On Thursday.

He suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine could result in people turning into crocodiles, women growing beards, and men speaking with effeminate voices, according to AFP.

Bolsonaro said: "In the Pfizer contract, it's very clear. 'We're not responsible for any side effects.' If you turn into a crocodile, that's your problem."

He continued: "If you become superhuman, if a woman starts to grow a beard or if a man starts to speak with an effeminate voice, they [Pfizer] won't have anything to do with it," he said.

Despite launching Brazil's national vaccination rollout on Wednesday, Bolsonaro has insisted that he will not be vaccinated.

He told AFP: "Some people say I'm giving a bad example. But to the imbeciles, to the idiots that say this, I tell them I've already caught the virus, I have the antibodies, so why get vaccinated?"

Bolsonaro has played down the pandemic for many months. In May, he referred to the coronavirus as a "little flu."

In July, he tested positive for the virus and came down with a fever. It took him three weeks to recover. A month later, Bolsonaro told journalists: "I knew I was going to catch it someday, as I think unfortunately nearly everyone here is going to catch it eventually. What are you afraid of? Face up to it!"

Last week, he said that Brazil was at the "tail end of the pandemic."

Brazil is currently experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases. On Wednesday, the country set daily records for COVID-19 infections with over 70,000 new cases reported.

A day later, the country recorded more than 1,000 deaths in a 24-hour period.

Brazil has the world's second-highest coronavirus death toll, only surpassed by the US.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:34 pm

gonna try the Oxford one together with the Russian one because f.ck it

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:13 pm

Some of it is apparently on its way to the UK via the Eurotunnel.

Good job there won't be any barriers or impediments to UK-Continent road freight over the next few months.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:46 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:13 pm

Some of it is apparently on its way to the UK via the Eurotunnel.

Good job there won't be any barriers or impediments to UK-Continent road freight over the next few months.

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:29 pm

Can anyone knowledgeable shed some light on the following?

Presumably the RNA sequence in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could be tweaked quite quickly if this turned out to be necessary to maintain effectiveness against new variants of the virus - but how much testing would be needed before a new version of these vaccines could be released? It wouldn't be back to square one would it?

And what about the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine? Again presumably the RNA sequence could be tweaked - but what if people exposed to the previous version of this vaccine developed immunity to the adenovirus vector? Presumably they'd need a new viral vector so it really would be back to square one in terms of safey testing.

So if we do have to get into a cycle of annual vaccination (as we do for influenza) would the Pfizer and Moderna technology be much better suited to this?

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 2:47 pm

EU Medicines Agency recommends a conditional marketing authorisation in the EU for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:30 pm

this is what the EU is paying for a dose of each vaccine

Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78
Johnson & Johnson: $8.50
Sanofi/GSK: €7.56
Pfizer/BioNTech: €12
CureVac: €10
Moderna: $18

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:30 pm

For the first time in history a regulator has given a proper authorisation to a covid-19 vaccine. And we made use of the guinea pigs in the countries misruled by blonde psychopaths who were able to unwittingly give us good data on anaphylaxis, to ensure that there will be greater safety around the moment of administration to protect those who may develop an anaphylactic reaction.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:26 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:30 pm

For the first time in history a regulator has given a proper authorisation to a covid-19 vaccine. And we made use of the guinea pigs in the countries misruled by blonde psychopaths who were able to unwittingly give us good data on anaphylaxis, to ensure that there will be greater safety around the moment of administration to protect those who may develop an anaphylactic reaction.

That vaccine appears to have already been authorised in several other countries already, and the Moderna one has received authorisation from the FDA, so I assume you're implying these other authorisations are improper. What's wrong with them?

monkey wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:52 pm

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:26 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:30 pm

For the first time in history a regulator has given a proper authorisation to a covid-19 vaccine. And we made use of the guinea pigs in the countries misruled by blonde psychopaths who were able to unwittingly give us good data on anaphylaxis, to ensure that there will be greater safety around the moment of administration to protect those who may develop an anaphylactic reaction.

That vaccine appears to have already been authorised in several other countries already, and the Moderna one has received authorisation from the FDA, so I assume you're implying these other authorisations are improper. What's wrong with them?

Those were emergency approvals, which aren't as stringent as the usual ones. I think that's a fair enough distinction, not improper, but not normal either.

But I've just had a look at the wiki page for the Pfizer vaccine, and they classify the EU one as expediated and only the Swiss approval as following the usual method - clicky

the Chinese company had asked the Brazilian institute running tests to wait up to 15 days before publishing their full results

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:40 am

Not sure if you are able to read this https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 163243c320

"Employers want the power to require workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine and stand them down from work without pay if they refuse, warning that bosses and employees will be left vulnerable if co-workers decline to be vaccinated."

I am not convinced that the Government will agree to this. However, I fully expect my University, given their risk averse attitude, is likely to set up a scheme where those who refuse to be vaccinated are required to work from home.

How much herd immunity is enough?

[...]

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

Asked about Dr. Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he may be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed unsure about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally for the country to achieve herd immunity.

Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”

Doing so might be discouraging to Americans, he said, because he is not sure there will be enough voluntary acceptance of vaccines to reach that goal. Although sentiments about vaccines in polls have bounced up and down this year, several current ones suggest that about 20 percent of Americans say they are unwilling to accept any vaccine.

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:40 am

Not sure if you are able to read this https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 163243c320

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:40 am

"Employers want the power to require workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine and stand them down from work without pay if they refuse, warning that bosses and employees will be left vulnerable if co-workers decline to be vaccinated."

I am not convinced that the Government will agree to this. However, I fully expect my University, given their risk averse attitude, is likely to set up a scheme where those who refuse to be vaccinated are required to work from home.