Riobard

Unfortunately, the standard of releasing to the public domain the detailed briefing of study results, such as what Pfizer and Moderna did leading up to FDA review, is not apparently done in Brazil. We need to see Brazil’s Butantan Institute and the CoronaVac research sponsor, China -based Sinovac, transparently revealing the exact infection numerators and subsample denominators to yield efficacy metrics. It is more and more apparent that they are mining the data and stratifying disease severity in such a way as to spin the data in the best possible light. When researchers try to quickly analyze results with an agenda, mistakes are made in the manipulation. There have already been glaring errors and this has naturally resulted in distrust by the public that is already quite pronounced. Butantan had initially focused on the vaccine trial results suggesting a prevention of severe COVID cases. When pressed to equivalize the analysis with the conventional inclusion of all bona fide cases of infection, they seem to be scrambling to reach and exceed the 50% efficacy standard to no less than 50.1%, thinking that the crisis of community infection rates will help put the application ‘in the bag’, hoping that the reality of poor vaccine performance overall doing little to stem the tide of transmission will be overlooked. Sinovac is also pushing to jab the deltoids of Turks and Indonesians with CoronaVac based on their large sample Brazilian study results along with efficacy data that appear promising in those two countries but that have very small sample sizes reducing statistical analytical power.

“Damn, shoulda gone with the dove grey and heels ...” FullSizeRender.mov

For comparison, other recent vaccine arms in research showed much lower breakthrough CoV infection over similar study duration compared to the 2.0% rate for CoronaVac: Pfizer/BioNTech .044% Moderna .036% AstraZeneca .52% Additionally, even if the CoronaVac data submitted by Butantan to Anvisa are to be believed, the 50.4% efficacy, coincidentally the metric just placed at the threshold for consideration for approval [hmmmm], would nevertheless have a 95% confidence interval whose lower bracket would be well below 50%.

The ex pence of this Vogue piece is a few days premature, though expense was spared in hemming those ‘pretty in pink’ drapes.

PS: Or you might be aware of being recently infected but are an outlier showing positive test results for a few weeks after being non-contagious.

Personally, I would not chance it the same day. I would take the time to have it done a day or two ahead of departure at the Guarulhos T3 or the Mooca Shopping location. Probably by train. That’s me. If connecting at GRU, given the chances of a delay getting there ... for example, I have been stressed in the past due to my incoming flight being late ... that would put you under pressure at the test location ... it makes sense to have the testing done locally in the last place you are visiting. This brings us back to the idea of when to get tested in your home country ahead of travelling. If you reside in a region with high CoV prevalence you may want to get tested a week or two prior to your formal departure test, as residual but inactive viral particles might trigger a positive PCR result though you were asymptomatic following infection outside of awareness. That would give you time to organize documentation of recovery and non-infectious status, eg neutralizing antibodies. Similarly, when leaving Brazil you would have on hand the same documentation, having known of your past infection, in the event your inbound test is also positive. That’s me; bred to be thorough. I assume that, by now, boarding gate employees are able to interpret a positive test accompanied by verification of non-transmissibility.

No, not required ... maybe for some countries, but there has been no recent change. Perhaps the word Anvisa is confusing. It is the name of the authority for public health decisions. One of its functions is similar to the Food & Drug Administration in USA.

Oh, the plot thickens and it’s a fucking mess in Brazil. The data for CoronaVac were reviewed and submitted to Anvisa, with a corrected efficacy of 50%, that is, 2:1 infection ratio placebo:vaccine. However, I calculated the infection incidence against the backdrop of epidemiological data of new cases over the exact same dates. The infection rate over the 4 months of the study for the vaccinated group is 2.0%, no better than the general population proportion that were reported to be new cases over the same time period ... 1.9% !!!

The Heroine’s Tidbit FullSizeRender.mov

It does not have an end date or defined review date. Same as for entering Canada. Some mitigation measures do have a time frame, after which they are optionally extended. Those tend to be more burdensome within the country and imply that easing the measures will hinge on what the public is willing to do responsibly to impact transmission. They are also state-specific. Agreeing to not import infection, to verify same, and to follow pandemic guidelines is not such a big ‘ask’. Better to leave the requirement open-ended. Consider how challenging it is for visitors to get up to speed every time there is a new regulation introduced, amended, rescinded, re-imposed, what have you.

Brazil’s lower global rank in CoV vaccine hesitancy, higher rates of vaccination intention, may have spilled over into the buff garotos. Any excuse for an additional tatt.

OK, I actually found the government ordinance. The online Health Declaration and Agreement to Health Measures form that you complete for Anvisa, Brazil’s Regulatory Health Authority, can be submitted by you for your boarding in printed format (ie, you print the personalized document that is produced for you online after you have filled out all of the sections), OR it can be shown in digital format (ie, the same document) on your smartphone. This Declaration resets 15 days following completion, that is, you will not be able to pull it up on your device. Therefore, the rule of thumb seems to be that you would complete it close to your departure date, but give yourself enough lead time to make sure you can enter data such as passport number, etc. The negative CoV test must be submitted as a ‘document’. The advisory does not specify format. I suspect it can be a digital version on your smartphone. Others recently through the process are able to weigh in should they choose. It would be silly to reject the report in digital format since it is much easier to forge a printed version.

You do the health declaration ahead of time. What I want to know is if you receive a digital format for the boarding agent or do you need to produce a printed version? In fact, similarly please clarify whether you can produce a PCR result that your clinic emailed to you, in digital format, or do you need to provide a hard copy? https://formulario.anvisa.gov.br/?lang=en

Both 117 and 202 if you have fear of missing out, but IMHO better selection of our type at 117.

Neither will likely launch in hot Latin American counties due to cold chain requirements. Since both are messenger ribonucleic acid formats with similar study efficacy (translating to real world effectiveness) I don’t see much difference. Contrary to what is being considered in some places, I personally would not want a mix-and-match of the 2 doses, unless backed to the wall over a delay of inventory for the follow-up booster dose. I would want both injections of the Pfizer or of the Moderna rather than a substitution of one for the other. For comparison, the more relevant question is one vaccine model against another vaccine model. Not so much the candidates within the approximately half a dozen models or types being investigated. If you are not in a priority group for vaccination, for example, I am a senior but not likely to be offered government-issued vaccination until this Fall or later, there will likely be more products on the table than the Pfizer or Moderna.

Hahaha ... then, toots, I suggest you refrain from mouthing off that another forum member you don’t really know naïvely romanticizes the transactional aspects of sex trade in Brazil. I am smiling. Embraça.

I think it is more nuanced. If Fervecão simply linked the ad, a product that young JH paid for and should be able to control, with eventual ad termination his prerogative, with watermarked images included in his purchase contract and that are legally prohibited from reproduction according to copyright protection, then the linked ad and its contained images would disappear when the ad contract ends. Similarly, any consumer reviews embedded in his ad would disappear, basically erasing the tracks of his commercial sex work. Accordingly, the fellow has agency over his business model. However, when the online tabloid misappropriates the protected images and essentially re-writes his ad, they undermine his personal choice. If the tabloid follows copyright rules it can simply report that it is apparent that photos of him are evidently contained in an escort ad. They do not get to untie their own hands while putting the guy in a bind in order to enhance their cheap content. The X-rated material, his personality, or stigma around sex trade are beside the point.

State of emergency extended to end of February, so I expect the curfews etc as well.

The feds have also applied for authorization for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Seems open and shut. Its interpretation has a lot of precedents.

Concordo ... risco ocupacional, etc. No entanto, quando as fotos da ‘garotolandia’ são adicionadas ao texto escrito do artigo, a agenda de propriedade das imagens é violada. Julgamento editorial deficiente. Amadores não adoráveis. Bar the queen making up guidelines for the sake of sensationalism. If they want to report a gogo dancer has turned to whoredom, let them colour within the lines. ——- When he prompted me to pull up his panties that he had shimmied down to his combat boots at Lagoa earlier in the year I was convinced he had instantly fallen for me and was not in the least monetarily opportunistic.

If he cannot get his mobile phone contacts straight when coordinating a misguided coup attempt with his sycophants cowering under their desks during a mob invasion how is he going to master our site rules.

Ferveçao can be assholes. Pretty much a gossip rag whose mission is to scrutinize escort ads for images of known strippers that use aliases on the ad sites. These photos are from May 2019. They have a watermark; Ferveçao infringes copyright privilege in Brazil when posting them. It is needless because the typical tuned-in admirer can identify and make the connection without it being splashed all over the internet. The average gogo likely does not have the resources to take them to task and is more likely to remove his ad than celebrate the exposure.