Riobard

My sense is that if you need 343 pages with countless references the answer remains: don’t know. Which is good for the married men ... can keep their wives off-balance.

I think my use of Grindr Xtra has averaged to about $100 per hour and I have never had an actual meetup.

It puzzles me at this point why nomenclature such as the vaccine and the shot(s) is still utilized. It’s as if one goes to the fast-food restaurant and has the hamburger ... when in a rush and a pinch it is a good option to go to a fast-food restaurant and have a hamburger.

We are all in it together. ;>) BTW, how do you add emoticons in post text? I always get a warning it is not permissible.

A huge amount of moving parts and we will likely see a lot of comparative metrics. Say we keep it to risk of blood clots among those inoculated and the proportion of clot-poz vaxx recipients dying. And vet out dumb analogies such as crushed by a vending machine. Risk of acquiring CoV by age, risk of dying from COVID stratified across age (in Canada .064% or 1-in-1,570 by reported CoV incidence age 20-49; or .002% when estimating true case incidence). Risk of blood clots associated with CoV itself, itself also a quantifiable probability, degree to which clots occur and contribute to mortality variance among the infected, adjusting mortality rate according to case incidence ascertainment bias (undercount) as I did for Canada, etc etc. Risk of blood clots associated with other elective products such as birth control pill or smoking, risk of dying of blood clots associated with vaccine if post-vaxx surveillance and pre-emptive intervention were to be added, controlling for comorbidity in assessing risk of COVID death among those <50 and in assessing risk of clots among vaxx’d <50, etc, etc. Haven’t had my morning coffee yet, but in the spirit of adding illustrations ... the death table, not the clot metrics, is from CDC.

I take back what I wrote several weeks ago about Montreal. Our case incidence is trending up again, now at a level that would have to settle down quite a bit to reach last summer’s nadir levels (yellow arrow) that allowed partial re-reopening. However, the goal of one vaxx dose for everybody that wants one seems achievable by July 1st. The tide may turn.

Oops. It’s only compatible with iOS and Mac; comes automatically with iPhone, iPad, etc.

I hope that one realizes that when one hole has had enough and needs a break there are other hole options. @BlkSuperman, do you have the iMovie app? I have it on my iPhone. One can easily merge the individual clips into one seamless video. Sorry if this suggestion seems bossy ... we beggars should not try to be choosers. Let me know if you want to be walked through it, that is, if you are off your back long enough.

The average person cannot grasp the probability math.

Delete ... sorry I must be back my old terrible habit of hitting Quote when I meant to click Edit ... edit used to be at the bottom of the field. AFAIK, the impulsive false step is irreversible once clicked. That is why some of my posts look like full quotes, I guess. Let’s consider it rehearsal for driving you all insane to the point where there will be no getting around reducing the two Latin American sections to one. ;<)

Delete

Correction on earlier wording ... it is Gamaleya Institute’s Sputnik V.

OK I read the Yucalandia piece. It is poorly structured and written, confusing and unclear at times, apart from evaluating its scientific accuracy and merit. And I am neither a virologist/immunologist nor reading the vast written material related to the theme of this article. I have the capacity to grasp some of this, but I don’t understand where he is getting some of his figures. He is also tossing in the cons of various products that we already know about, while skirting over the pros of the ones to which he is negatively predisposed. I think the message he(?) wants to get across is that vaccines built upon the entire virus, as opposed to exclusively the spike protein or subsections of the spike protein, are superior in terms of protection against inevitable mutations. The question itself is relevant and I had wondered myself a few months ago what would be the implications of mutations for the spike protein subunit model, containing no actual viral genetic material, for the vaccine I received experimentally. However, where the argument loses me is that the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein is key for this disease. With genetic drift (ie, spike-specific variants), that key element is going to be a moving target whether for products that zero in on the spike protein and its components or for products based on whole virus. Mine is a simplistic critique based on second-guessing the author’s intent and somewhat all-over-the-map message. With case-control effectiveness trials now emerging, comparing retrospectively those newly infected in terms of having been vaccinated in the real world or not, in contrast to the reverse (efficacy: vaccination followed prospectively by infection incidence tracking), it is progressively more and more difficult to keep up with all the data.

I only mentioned pinned topics to guide you to see where my new unpinned topic landed in sequence, but not in the place I wanted. I think you are saying that the one forum intended to be open without membership is now restricted and perhaps the content would be lost if you removed it ... not being able to transfer the threads posted to date in a way to integrate the two into one LatAm option.

I am currently less pessemistic about CoronaVac in Brazil. Will elaborate today or soon. I struggle to assess efficacy meaning and accuracy unless the study results are formulated using the detailed report model framework that researchers are using to apply for USA FDA EUA. So I would have to drill down, and consume mucho vodka, to try to figure out Gamalaya Institute’s vaccine product Sputnik (Sputnik 2 may be its name if I recall). Note that various Brazilian states and municipalities are going rogue while Anvisa (their FDA equivalent) is holding firm on its standards. Since their last approval of 4-5(?) candidates for Phase 3 trials provided up until last summer, not one candidate has been authorized for study. The only one approved for efficacy research since last August was just greenlit: Quebec and Durham NC’s Medicago protein subunit type with GlaxoSmithKline’s adjuvant. There are also many other wheeling and dealings among politicians, science institutes, and third-party national and/or foreign companies behind the scenes in Brazil. I am not about to try to call an outdoor steeplechase race, in an electrical storm, with a few Zola Budds but no Usain Bolt among the competitors. (Sorry Zola, if it weren’t for that pesky South Africa variant ...)

I’ll have a look, but it’s labour-intensive. The way it shows up I cannot figure out who wrote it. Is S. Fry the author?

Semantics ... Florida Rob means SP is the only city where he went to regular sauna venues, in case reader is confused about the intrinsic contradiction. LOL Meio Mundo is New Meio Mundo and the address is around the corner from the previous address. Same building but different location technically.

I don’t grasp why there are two places to start topics on Latin American Men & Destinations. It seems that posters randomly select either the first one in order of display(ie, the one at the top with currently 67 posts), or the longer section below it, to start new topics and readers must look in two places for what is new. Are they not both member-only? Apologies if a rationale was provided earlier and I missed it. [I am trying again to put my question where I intended ... it worked. But why a sub-forum that is not thematically distinct from the overall section category?]

Furthermore, I just started this topic in the heading at the top that designated ‘member only’, but it landed down here below the pinned topics! What gives? [I got it into the intended location on the second try. But you can see the dilemma. In which of the two sections is a new topic supposed to be entered?]

I don’t grasp why there are two places to start topics on Latin American Men & Destinations. It seems that posters randomly select either the first one in order of display (ie, the one at the top with currently 67 posts), or the longer section below it, to start new topics and readers must look in two places for what is new. Are they not both member-only? Apologies if a rationale was provided earlier and I missed it.

Deleted, because I added a paragraph but had inadvertently first clicked quote by mistake. See the quote in the next post for the intended content.