they arent anti vaxxed, they are vaxxed just not boosted.anti vax types
they arent anti vaxxed, they are vaxxed just not boosted.anti vax types
unsupported speculation of the insulting "young people these days" kind, contradicted by your own anecdoteyounger unboosted people just aren't going for official testing.
unsupported speculation of the insulting "young people these days" kind, contradicted by your own anecdote
in Germany and the UK, you're obliged to report positive self-tests
if you have a job ("young & healthy"), I think it's unlikely you'd keep it secret
Agreed. The booster was first recommended and first available for senior citizens and those with underlying medical conditions that make them more vulnerable. It seems possible that a lot of younger people heard that initial message and said "OK, then I don't need a booster." Nevertheless, the reported difference between boosted and not boosted is small compared with the unvaccinated.Presumably, the case rate paradoxon is because people more likely to be exposed are quicker to get boosted.
People more at risk being more likely to get boosted is called self-selection bias, and it needs to be addressed in well-designed studies.
as opposed to YOUR unsupported speculation?unsupported speculation
i did not say anything like that.of the insulting "young people these days" kind
sorry for being balanced.contradicted by your own anecdote
the article is about New York Cityin Germany and the UK
really? somewhere in this thread is an article about unsalaried people going to work sick because they don't get sick pay.if you have a job ("young & healthy"), I think it's unlikely you'd keep it secret
Article:Two-thirds of service workers surveyed in the months leading up to the Omicron surge said they did not stay home when they were feeling sick and went to work ill. The numbers highlight the precarious situation for workers without sick leave, Harknett said. They also show the pressure of chronic short staffing, threats from bosses and the possibility of losing pay that also causes people to keep going to work, she said.
Article:Am I required to report a positive result to local health authorities?
No, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the federal agency recommends that people isolate and inform their health-care providers.
But a newly released national survey of nearly 11,000 people finds that 31% of those who tested positive at home for the virus that causes COVID-19 did not follow up with a more accurate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test at their doctor’s office or a testing facility, and thus are likely not captured in official data.
Their use is particularly frequent with people 18 to 24 years old, city dwellers, Democrats, and the well-educated, the Northeastern study found.
Researchers surmise that younger people just don’t go to the doctor as much and are more inclined to favor home tests. Higher usage among young adults also could be traced to the possibility that the coronavirus has been spreading more among younger people, or that they’re more likely to be exposed to it.
“In general younger people are engaging in more interactive behaviors, and they are at lower risk of dying if they get sick, but they are at higher risk of getting sick,” Lazer says.
Article:New York City now has the data to exemplify this: While 77 percent of all city residents have received either the single-dose Johnson & Johnson shot or two doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, only about 36 percent had received a booster shot as of Friday.
It may also be that folks with a second booster feel safer against severe symptoms and so tolerate greater risk of infection as they go about their lives?Presumably, the case rate paradoxon is because people more likely to be exposed are quicker to get boosted.
winter and fewer restrictionsCan anyone explain what is going on with Australia?
"We" managed very well in the early stages. Helped by firm political and bipartisan support. Small population, island geography. Easy to lock the doors. And strong cultural support of "we look after us" rather than "my rights are supreme". BUT strong restrictions could not be maintained even with both cultural and political support.Wow! Those are daily deaths. Seems Australia are late comers to this "party".
Can anyone explain what is going on with Australia?
It’s finally happened: Australia’s mandatory isolation periods for those infected with COVID-19 have, as of today, been scrapped.
While those who have tested positive for the virus can’t visit high-risk settings like hospitals and aged and disability care facilities for seven days post infection, there are no legal rules on staying away from public spaces, taking public transport or wearing a mask.
It’s autumn again, which means COVID cases are on the rise.
But for the first time in the pandemic’s history, the variants that make up the mounting wave look drastically different, depending on where you are in the world.
In England, Omicron spawn BA.5.2 is the most prevalent variant, with a long list of competitors relatives vying for dominance. In the U.S., once globally dominant BA.5 is still leading the way. But it’s steadily decreasing as BA.4.6—dubbed “Aeterna” by some on the Twitterverse—rises, with BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 on its heels. And in Singapore, cases of XBB, or “Gryphon”—a combination of two Omicron variants that can evade immunity and antibody treatments—are surging.
Article:Twitter’s Covid-19 misinformation page was updated with a note saying that as of Nov. 23, the platform would no longer enforce its policies against spreading misleading information on the virus and vaccines
“Nowhere near enough was being done to stamp out medical misinformation on social media previously; but this step, along with re-platforming voices who wish to sow confusion and increase mistrust in medicine, will do more harm,” said Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association, in a statement. He also urged patients to seek out accurate medical information, including from their own physician.
Jenna Sherman, a program manager at health information research nonprofit Meedan, said she worries other social media platforms follow suit and reduce their Covid-19 misinformation enforcement as well.
Article:Several local governments in China encouraged people with mild cases of COVID-19 to go to work this week, another sign of the difficulty the country faces as its rollback of virus-containment measures sets off a wave of infections — and a growing number of deaths.
The moves appear to be in response to worker shortages that have affected medical care and food deliveries.
They also reflect the the difficulty officials face in trying to revive an economy that was throttled by pandemic restrictions, and now that they have been lifted, is being slowed by workers falling ill.
China had long hailed its restrictive “zero-COVID” approach of lockdowns, quarantines and compulsory testing as keeping case numbers and deaths relatively low. Yet the policy placed China’s society and the national economy under enormous stress and prompted rare anti-government protests, apparently convincing the ruling Communist Party to heed outside advice and alter its strategy.
Now, unofficial reports suggest a widespread wave of new coronavirus cases, and relatives of victims and people who work in the funeral business have said deaths tied to COVID-19 are increasing.
China, despite fully vaccinating 90.3% of its population, has only given a booster dose to 60.5%. China needs to prioritize giving boosters, especially to those over 60, to avoid large numbers of deaths, Kang said.
Case and death counts in every country are thought to underestimate the true toll of the virus, but there are particular concerns in China. Chinese health authorities count only those who died directly from COVID-19, excluding deaths blamed on underlying conditions such as diabetes and heart disease that raise risks of serious illness.
Article:At a press briefing on Wednesday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the U.N. agency needs more information on COVID-19 severity in China, particularly regarding hospital and intensive care unit admissions, “in order to make a comprehensive risk assessment of the situation on the ground.”
“Vaccination is the exit strategy from omicron,” WHO emergencies chief Dr. Michael Ryan said.
Ryan said the explosive surge of cases in China was not exclusively due to the lifting of many of the country’s restrictive policies and that it was impossible to stop transmission of omicron, the most highly infectious variant yet seen of COVID-19.
He said vaccination rates among people over age 60 in China lagged behind many other countries and that the efficacy of the Chinese-made vaccines was about 50%.
Ryan also suggested China’s definition of COVID deaths was too narrow, saying the country was limiting it to people who have suffered respiratory failure.
“People who die of COVID die from many different (organ) systems’ failures, given the severity of infection,” Ryan said. “So limiting a diagnosis of death from COVID to someone with a COVID positive test and respiratory failure will very much underestimate the true death toll associated with COVID.”
I don't doubt people are told not to report it (those who try to), simply because it's misinformation, and reporting it would ruin the reputation of any serious news outlet.she replied, "but heck, the media DOES know about it, they are told not to report on it !!"
That is certainly possible, but on the off chance that any publisher/editor making such decisions is following this thread, I'd suggest that an even better policy would be to investigate such erroneous claims thoroughly including gaining a good understanding of the position of those pointing out that they are wrong, and then report fully on what you have learned. Ignoring misinformation is not a good strategy, simply labeling it as such and moving on with minimal understanding is not all that great either. Clearly understanding and explaining the situation may not work either -- it is hard to unfool people determined to be fooled -- but would be worth a try.I don't doubt people are told not to report it (those who try to), simply because it's misinformation, and reporting it would ruin the reputation of any serious news outlet.
your suggestion still gives misinformation a platformThat is certainly possible, but on the off chance that any publisher/editor making such decisions is following this thread, I'd suggest that an even better policy would be to investigate such erroneous claims thoroughly including gaining a good understanding of the position of those pointing out that they are wrong, and then report fully on what you have learned. Ignoring misinformation is not a good strategy, simply labeling it as such and moving on with minimal understanding is not all that great either. Clearly understanding and explaining the situation may not work either -- it is hard to unfool people determined to be fooled -- but would be worth a try.
an editor doesn't get paid for teaching people who want to report Covid misinformationMinimal understanding conveyed, as opposed to acquired. I can't gauge how much understanding they have acquired but not passed on.
so does Metabunk. and Snopes. and every other fact checker website.your suggestion still gives misinformation a platform
You're basically confused, if you can't tell "give a platform" from "topple a platform".so does Metabunk. and Snopes. and every other fact checker website
or you are confused about what JMart said.You're basically confused, if you can't tell "give a platform" from "topple a platform".
Dang, never had so much trouble being understood -- or perhaps having so much trouble understanding. Editors do indeed get paid to produce the news. I'd say part of that is to make sure that they, and/or their reporters, understand the facts of the news and pass that understanding along to their readers/viewers. Sometimes that happens, which is great, but often it does not on stories about COVID science, UAP, bigfoot sightings, etc. In some of these cases, misinformation is passed on, as with coverage of the Navy UAP vids by the NYT and others, touting how inexplicable they were before making much of an effort to see if they could explain them. In other cases they label misinfo as misinfo based on an authority telling them so, but when they don't explain explain it clearly at least hints that they do not understand the story well enough to tell it.an editor doesn't get paid for teaching people who want to report Covid misinformation
editors get paid for producing news
Article:To make the discovery, Marc Eloit, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and his colleagues in France and Laos, took saliva, faeces and urine samples from 645 bats in caves in northern Laos. In three horseshoe (Rhinolophus) bat species, they found viruses that are each more than 95% identical to SARS-CoV-2, which they named BANAL-52, BANAL-103 and BANAL-236.
Last year, researchers described another close relative of SARS-CoV-2, called RaTG13, which was found in bats in Yunnan5. It is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 overall and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago. BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2, says Eloit — and all three newly discovered viruses have individual sections that are more similar to sections of SARS-CoV-2 than seen in any other viruses.
Viruses swap chunks of RNA with one another through a process called recombination, and one section in BANAL-103 and BANAL-52 could have shared an ancestor with sections of SARS-CoV-2 less than a decade ago, says Spyros Lytras, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Glasgow. “These viruses recombine so much that different bits of the genome have different evolutionary histories,” he says.
The Laos study offers insight into the origins of the pandemic, but there are still missing links, say researchers. For example, the Laos viruses don’t contain the so-called furin cleavage site on the spike protein that further aids the entry of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses into human cells.
but don't they need a cleavage site to jump species? (p.s it's nice to add a date with old news)The Laotian discovery shows there really are more of these around.
Article:Sept 2021 In evolutionary time, several decades separate these bat viruses—dubbed BANAL, because researchers found them in bat anal swabs—from SARS-CoV-2, so the new viruses could not have sparked the pandemic. But the study further expands the family tree of SARS-CoV-2 and raises new questions about how it may have arisen. And the BANAL viruses could well pose a threat to humans themselves, Wang cautions. “This virus could be SARS-CoV-3,” he says.
do they?but don't they need a cleavage site to jump species?
Article:The most closely related spike genes from bat CoVs BANAL-20-52 and RaTG13 (95% and 93% spike nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2, respectively), RshSTT182 and RshSTT200, the Guangdong and Guangxi pangolin CoVs, and even the Zhoushan ZXC21 and ZC45 SARS-CoVs do not have an apparent S1/S2 FCS (fig. 1). These observations suggest that among sarbecoviruses, an S1/S2 FCS recently emerged in SARS-CoV-2.
Republican Christopher Wray was appointed by Trump as Comey's successor, after he had worked for the DOJ during George W. Bush's first term.FBI director Wray says (with "low confidence") the origins of COVID19 "...are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan."
it's a misquoteHow can you assert 'most likely' with 'low confidence'? They seem at odds with each other.
Article:"The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan," he said.
Wray's comments came after a report in the Wall Street Journal, not independently confirmed by ABC News, that a new Department of Energy assessment has found the virus was most likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, but it did so with "low confidence," compared with the FBI's "most likely" finding with "moderate confidence."
program ideone; var a,b,c:integer; pca, pcb, pcab: integer; begin pca:=0;pcb:=0;pcab:=0; for a:=6 to 16 do for b:= 7 to 17 do for c:= 8 to 18 do begin if c>a then Inc(pca); if c>b then Inc(pcb); if (c>a) and (c>b) then Inc(pcab); end; writeln(pca/1331.0,pcb/1331.0,pcab/1331.0); end.
Article:Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had "low confidence" the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.
Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion.
In 2021, the intelligence community declassified a report that showed four agencies in the intelligence community had assessed with low confidence that the virus likely jumped from animals to humans naturally in the wild, while one assessed with moderate confidence that the pandemic was the result of a laboratory accident.
Then we get to "most likely a potential lab incident". That wording inspires no confidence in me, but I guess the report will give a talking point to those on the right that think that a problem can be solved merely by ascribing blame."The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan," he said.
yes, but in that case they'd have found the zoonotic origin by now (because they'd know where to look)A virus in (or escaping from) a lab need not be modified in any way from the same virus in nature.
Agreed apart from the future tense "will give". From the outset there have been two distinct questions about COVID viz:but I guess the report will give a talking point to those on the right that think that a problem can be solved merely by ascribing blame.
From the outset there have been two distinct questions about COVID viz:
(1) How did it start? and
(2) How best to prevent or minmise its spreading impact?
Can you explain in more detail, I am not following here.yes, but in that case they'd have found the zoonotic origin by now (because they'd know where to look)
Agreed, with the note that since either would be possible, it would be wise to minimize the risks from either, whatever was to origin of this particular outbreak.actually the really big question is "how do [or CAN] we prevent this, or worse, happening again in the future?". wet markets or lab accidents can potentially, kinda maybe, be prevented in the future.