Riobard

I would suggest quantifying the ratio of generally non-lucrative likes to actual purchases to date, in such a way that is consistently measurable irrespective of mode of production. That said, perhaps a target of profit, in spite of that aspect being abstract. And determining the MO. Do you want 15 minutes of fame or 15-fold current profit margin? With baseline data you can assess the impact of cinematography after the fact, for either variable.

How to think this through? There is the conscientious objector persecution argument, that legitimizes asylum-seeking. However, that impedes running the gauntlet upon departure and any suggestion or fabrication of evidence of implicit or explicit anti-war or anti-Russian sentiment is imperiling. Such a candidate would likely not be producing documentation that asylum has been granted, thereby Russian officials graciously stepping aside. If not a candidate for mandatory conscription it might be easier to cross out of Russia but the basis of claim for asylum-based entry might consequently be less robust, would not be an added factor that compounds other reasons that meet the convention. Paradoxically, the concrete evidence of persecution that underpins a basis of claim is usually manipulatively interpreted by Russian authorities as an undermining of patriotism. I believe that there is typically a scan of evidence and that documentation is best compartmentalized. Phone wiped clean of any declarations of antipathy or desired respite, bearing in mind that any one official might not be doing backflips about staying. That said, Ukrainians and Russians alike share some similarities in legitimacy. I am given to understand that either group is plagued by the necessity of biometric documentation, at least for admission to Canada.

I know somebody, actually barely acquainted, that had the means to leave, for now, just enough for transport out, primarily prompted by the mandate of armed forces conscription in the context of this year’s invasion, the straw that broke the camel’s back already burdened by attitudes of homonegativity and general grass not at all green reality. Thriving elsewhere without resources is a major challenge. I am not up to speed on impediments to leaving the country if one has not completed military service while not exceeding the upper limit of age for the draft.

Just to be clear, my Bogotá Monkeypox case prevalence estimate of approximately 1 in 100 intimacy candidates is based on official reports of current rolling case incidence, adjusted for Bogotá proportionality of national figures as well as consensus regarding proportionality of susceptible MSM within overall general populations, and a conservative estimate of on-average 10 days of individual case contagion. It does not account for possible undercount because the ratio of true incidence to diagnosed incidence is not known. Therefore, my estimate is actually conservative overall. If case undercount is a genuine phenomenon, then the point prevalence increases upward from 1/100 to the extent that the current officially reported case incidence is inaccurate. For example, 3 undiagnosed cases, for every diagnosed case that underpins surveillance figures, alters the overall Bogotá MSM setting point prevalence estimate to 1 in 25-ish. Ironically, the opinion that undercount is a feature that supports the relatively innocuous consequences of this virus, as believed by some, just inflates estimates of point prevalence. If those estimates represent ‘fear porn’ to some attempting to interpret risk, then the assertion that there is a tip:iceberg ratio is where the finger-pointing regarding alarmism more appropriately lands. What is important is knowing probability of cases and associated transmission potential in specific contexts. Thereafter every individual must assess their particular infection risk tolerance. The clinical consequences are fairly well known. I would not presume to either minimize or exaggerate those consequences. It is mystifying that a reader would obnoxiously object to epidemiological data reporting because the magnitude of prevalence appears to him to contradict his subjective view of the magnitude of morbidity impact. The trend of decline in incidence may eventually emerge in Colombia that seemingly arrived late to the party. If the disease peters out, say, because 75% of MSM infections are dispersed by 25% of those MSM and the latter achieves higher rates of recovery and/or vaccination immunity that in turn reduce ongoing transmission all that will have been a reassuring good thing that happened because a bad thing preceded it. The anticipation of absence of incidence recidivism in specific locations actually supports the idea of capitulating to a transient adjustment in travel plans. That is hardly at the level of being perpetually startled by one’s shadow.

No need to hyperventilate. Take your Facebook U credentials to Twitter rants. LOL My figures are correct based on MSM population share denominators and duration of case transmissibility. You seem to be manufacturing testing and reported:true incidence data to make a point regarding your subjective take on the gravity of the situation and to project hysteria on another’s simple rendering of objective facts that would undermine a vacation if simple bad luck were to occur, a trip that is postponable, at a fairly definable degree of probability in the context of commercial sex trade in particular, that sex tourism mode additionally located in the sleazy person-congested indoor settings we have grown to love. There is nothing you can teach me about Infectious Diseases that I don’t already grasp. I have actually written nothing on this forum about Monkeypox morbidity and mortality. I have myself pointed out the substantial drop from peak case incidence in Spain. Yes it is correct that, for example, in Spain MVA-BN uptake at merely about 5% the target susceptible MSM subpopulation has been followed by a steep case incidence decline evidently heading to its first nadir. To what extent shifts in occurrence are attributable to vaccination, pathogen self-limiting factors, etc, are unclear. There is nothing overreactive about aiming to strategize one’s timing of trips to hopefully coincide with lowered disease risk according to infection prevalence trends that are usefully available according to public health surveillance over time. That is simply an additional slice of Swiss cheese added to the stack that includes other tried and true behavioural risk mitigation measures at our disposal, aiming to prevent a seeping through of a mishap that ruins a trip. I caught dengue in Brazil. It destroyed a pricey vacation. The transmission chances are very low. I return repeatedly. If 1 in 100 mosquitoes bites in Rio de Janeiro were to be accompanied by a fair probability of gifting dengue in spite of common sense attempts to reduce exposure, if it could actually be reasonably quantified, it would give pause.

Erratum above: should be ignore the hatch between the first two vertical bars.

I read the preprint a few days ago. Tellingly, the MPXV-specific antibody titres for the younger group after two MVA-BN doses (red asterisk) never nearly reach those of the pre-MVA-BN but historically Smallpox-vaccinated (yellow asterisk). So if antibody level is the main protective immunity factor the logic is that older Vaccinia-experienced would do no more poorly if not receiving MVA-BN in the current outbreak. However, many older guys got symptomatic infection prior to MVA-BN rollout and that would logically lead to the conclusion that recently vaccinated younger guys could get breakthrough infection. What remains to be seen is the comparative infection breakthrough potential between the two groups. Also, if antibody titres are the key, and if the lower quantities for younger actually satisfy the threshold for protection, then these results lead me to believe there is not much point in 2nd dose uptake for me if such is offered in Canada. (Ignore the black hatch sitting between the first two horizontal bars; it’s a smudge I realized I accidentally made when editing the photo.)

Yeah T Yeah, Titanji is often interviewed but she tends to skip over the points about DRC case surveillance that are formally referenced in most MVA-BN product guidance. There is macaque response, yes/no dichotomous serological conversion in human studies with a % rate, magnitude of antibodies generated in human studies, and finally but not MVA-BN related the DRC surveillance I mentioned, which is the basis of the metric ‘up to 85%’, an inference from Smallpox vaxx history. Many moving research parts that get conflated with one another.

No adverse reaction to one standard MVA-BN dose, on top of the possible benefit of having had Smallpox vaccination some 6 decades back. Reservations relate to commonly accepted uncertainty about MVA-BN protectiveness. Also, without vaccine supply in Colombia an exponential incidence surge could temporarily shut down where I intended to be naughty by the time I arrive, possibly as case incidence is peaking.

Well said. My deeply researched and experience-based (past in Bogotá) playbook was to have been strictly tourism outside of Bogotá. Exclusively venue-curated play, ie, St Moritz baths and Gigolo club upstairs when in Bogotá 3 nights. My decision rests on postponing due to those two congregate setting risks and leaving only airfare on the table versus a possible abstinent couple of weeks. I don’t hire from ads.

Tarnation, I have a trip planned this month with a sexual play focus within the Bogotá component, where majority Monkeypox incidence for the nation is located, but have been holding off on accommodations for the entire trip, in case this … and also minimal vaccine supply there. I estimate the daily Bogotá MSM incidence at 1/1,000, contagion point-prevalence at about 1/100 MSM.

The 85% referenced is not from animal models. It is drawn from dated MPXV outbreak attack rates in Democratic Republic of Congo comparing VARV (Smallpox) vaccinated to those younger and unvaccinated. The assumption being that the later MVA-BN derivative from earlier iterations of vaccine is likely as effective.

Importantly, how is the 20K recent MVA-BN batch (and 30K to follow later) to be disseminated? Directed to the target of some 1 million MSM? Apparently not. The initial rollout will focus on health care and lab workers first and foremost. Understandably, since the ratio of population to a supply of 2 doses x 10K is 20,000:1 I don’t think the plan is fractional dosing to expand inventory. Thus, the virus will continue to rip through the more susceptible subpopulation. If the incidence curve eventually drops anyway it may relate to transmission dispersion and reproduction dynamics wherein the most sexually active MSM acquire infection immunity. Concomitantly, compared to other global regions, there is much less media messaging directed to MSM. Paradoxically, the vaccination distribution plan is not explicitly indicating that MSM will be left in the lurch. This de-emphasis on the highest risk group undermines the imperative of education about vulnerability and behavioural risk mitigation in the absence of vaccine access. If STI denialism is actually more prevalent among MSM Brasileiros the risk of MPXV spread is amplified by avoidance of the epidemiological facts.

He is deeply apologetic about waving or flourishing his weapon in excitement.

Interesting discussion. There appears to be a counterintuitive anomaly in Antonelli et al’’s above-reported data. Puzzling results with no explanation, if not a manuscript typo, usually cause me to call into question the reliability of research findings. Anybody else?

Again, the ArriveCAN receipt not having been checked on landing in Halifax or St. John’s does not mean completing the app should not be obligatory. I don’t see the point in grousing about a requirement simply because it was not subject to the vigilance that authorities may not consistently apply. On all my arrivals to Canada this year I could not proceed to Immigration/Customs without a post-disembarking check of my ArriveCAN receipt. (I was also subject to random testing on 3 arrivals; that is not to say that I think that was warranted on top of pre-boarding testing abroad.) The rules, I agree, are certainly not without flaws, but ArriveCAN primarily vets for vaccination (or medical exemption, etc) status, a requirement condition for both Canada and USA entry (still USA?). The mob bottleneck between landing and Immigration is reduced by showing the receipt as opposed to fumbling for other vaccination proof documents. The latter method was employed on arrival in Brazil in January where the actual vaccination proof had to be produced by hand, not embedded ahead of time in a system similar to ArriveCAN although an online health attestation was necessary for entry there. Hence, a slower queue on arrival in São Paulo. For example, 15 seconds average added vaxx checking time for merely 120 person-arrivals adds 30 minutes annoying queueing for everyone; it can really add up. In Montreal, one line for all flight arrivals. Eeesh. Had the cruise ship passengers been spot-checked at NS or NL port I suspect that the speedier method would have been appreciated. This is all simply to say that as long as checking is required, and more often than not carried out, some applications facilitate and accelerate the process. Holding the view that COVID vaccination should not be mandatory is a separate question. My main beef and accompanying empathy is related to the imposition on many older travellers to become smartphone/PC experts or have to rely on others to complete documents on their behalf. The anxiety associated with correctly implementing technology for smooth travel must be daunting. The argument that pre-travel testing requirements be either imposed or abandoned consistently across transport modes is persuasive. Sometimes the notion of ‘whataboutism’ holds water. The supposition of current 2% coronavirus infection point-prevalence is corroborated by fairly rapidly escalating cumulative uptick in nucleocapsid antibody seroprevalence this year (5-fold the official diagnosis-based tracking) as assessed by Canadian Blood Services surveillance of donors. Higher for younger and for materially disadvantaged, so yeah, don’t persecute the affluent old fogies on luxe cruises. I, myself, remain N protein-negative on the Roche assay and possess no natural immunity benefit to the extent there might be any at this juncture.

Following would be related to the Canadian public health officials’ view, not necessarily my own, and not a commentary on seriousness of COVID: It would be incumbent on the cruise ship to verify vaccination and test status at boarding. Ship crew are proxies for Canadian border officials that obviously cannot be abroad to check these requirements. That the company did not do so formally would reflect a break in the contract that underlies the privilege of docking at a Canadian port. It the fellow had been sick enough for ship sick bay the crew would be required to report a presumed (or confirmed, assuming sick bay had tests) symptomatic infection to Canada prior to docking, or required to report a subsequent outbreak if one occurred. Canada would have the discretionary prerogative to block excursions, but at that point if it had been determined by Canada that pre-boarding test checking had not been carried out for all embarking that would likely have put the Canadian excursion(s) in jeopardy for all. Therefore, the ship essentially played chicken with passengers’ itinerary and could have also incurred a huge penalty if the info were to come to light following an excursion that occurred after mandatory reporting had not been honoured. The marine distinction between ferries and passenger ships is likely due to the variations in time frames between pre-board testing and Canadian docking. As I understand it, the pre-board testing applies to both short-haul sails, say, New England to a Canadian Maritime province port and long-term sails such as 5-weeks from Asia to Vancouver. The idea being that a missed infection on boarding could rip through a ship more effectively and extensively compared to a same-day flight, ferry, etc. AFAIK the testing required, say, in Hong Kong, weeks prior as opposed to a port in, say, Alaska weeks later but that is closest to the previously mandated time frame for flights arriving in Canada. Therefore the time range between testing and docking could be very broad within the microscosm of a ship where transmission variables are already known to be different. Finally, if you were required to fulfill the ArriveCAN app completion prior to docking the fact that it was not checked by officials prior to Canadian port excursions does not mean the rule has changed. It remains obligatory and the app completion receipt may be checked. It appears this cruise fell through the cracks but, again, it was the liner’s responsibility to mitigate the chance of onboard infection from the get-go … from the perspective of the mandate intention however valid or not.

Yes, apart from transport mode considerations, I recently booked Olaya Herrera to Bogotá return on Satena for an upcoming Medellín trip in which I wish to add a Bogotá excursion. I did not need a VPN. Fare range was COP300-600K. I booked the highest fare (Plus) of the four options as it really isn’t much by Canadian standards. It turns out that it has the highest flex for changes but all seats on the small craft as well as checked luggage privileges are created equal, not that I will have more than carryon.

Direct Cali-Medellín? I don’t think Satena does it. Another carrier?

# Monkeypox Nobody knows for sure yet. The UK is recommending condom use for several weeks following apparent recovery, presumed recovery based on dermatological symptoms clearing. Due to the possibility of contagious virus lingering in semen and uncertainty about its potential for transmission during sex. The CDC is not yet on board with this recommendation. Also, recent research from Belgium and France is demonstrating MPXV viral detection in men’s routinely collected samples in STI clinics, sampling of men with otherwise no recent history of MPXV and no signs of it at collection. Many of these men did not go on to develop symptoms in spite of testing positive. It is not known if they can transmit infection, in spite of being asymptomatic, through saliva, semen, etc. The ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic is not known. However, 5% of the Paris sample of screened men were positive for MPXV yet not anywhere near that proportion of the overall MSM population had symptomatic infection during the study period. Another word to the wise: If you are going to travel it is advisable to be abstinent from what would be rationally considered to be high-risk sex for some weeks prior to departure lest you acquire infection at home and get sick abroad following incubation period, a costly prospect. https://archive.ph/2eEuh

[delete]

I believe the OP is referring more to the problem being an OF competitor using the OP’s OF site, seemingly identifying faceless models in that account but perhaps knows them by virtue of LRD association and he (competitor) allegedly makes trouble by alerting them they are identifiable. If the OP then has to pursue damage control, there may be a workaround. I have an OF user/purchaser account. I never use it but it assigned me a membership code. I picked a handle and access via email and password. I believe that the OP can suggest his models create a personal purchaser account like mine. The OP can selectively provide free access to his site (total discount); the models can then see all the content posted including their own images. However, I think they need to have a verifiable payment system registered even if they never purchase content, and that suggests requiring a valid credit card. At that point some industrious models splinter off to their own account but that might not be so frequent among those that prefer to obscure identity.

To reiterate what someone else posted above, they must have an undetectable amount of virus on top of taking the medication. That is, the accumulation of studies has found that in 130,000 acts of condomless penetrative sex nobody acquired HIV from a poz partner that consistently had undetectable viral load. It is not absolute zero viral load but it is an amount of virus that the tests that count viral particles cannot measure because they are too low, generally viewed as less than 200 copies per one millilitre of blood sample for purposes of the research conducted. The average body contains 5+ litres of blood. Therefore, the overall unknown number of viral particles present in a poz person can theoretically be quite high but nevertheless that amount is statistically incapable of transmission. Actually, most tests are now currently accurate at less than 50 copies per ml, even 20 copies per ml.

Regarding on-demand HIV PrEP and refills, at least in Canada. Pharmacies will not issue a new supply if 90 days has elapsed from the previous dispensing. For example, if you fill a 30-day supply on Sept 1st and use it sparingly over 3 months but run out and wish a new supply you must provide proof of a recent negative test if you wish to receive a new bottle following Nov 30th. It is possible to work around it. For example, if you are willing to pay for 3 months at once, receiving 90 tablets that might last you a year, you would need to arrange testing that makes sense for your own peace of mind because the pharmacy would only require the negative test when you try to obtain a new supply a year later. PrEP is not at all a good treatment option for anybody HIV-infected whether they are aware of having HIV or not. Pharmacies here are able to access your test results on their computer systems, at least in Quebec. I don’t bother to check for possible renal toxicity because I consume PrEP on-demand and so infrequently. I am often tossing out unused expired tenofovir/emtricitabine tablets. Kidney problems would likely be flagged in my annual medical exam unrelated to PrEP.

Try not to get too excited and snap the physician’s finger off or create a vacuum sucking in his jewelry during the prostate DRE.