Sausages are basically meat turds.princeofcarthage wrote:Yes. Bestseller infact! Romanians love poop marinated chicken tikka!
So yea, one can imagine this has been an inspiration to many.
Sausages are basically meat turds.princeofcarthage wrote:Yes. Bestseller infact! Romanians love poop marinated chicken tikka!
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3RefluxSemantic wrote:???princeofcarthage wrote:So much for critical and analytical thing. This was an obvious bait. All you had to say was *you can be asymptomatic spreader or something similar*. Tell me what is the point of discussion when you are not going to think?Show hidden quotes
you are aware that you don't need to have symptoms to be a spreader right? You could be perfectly fine and still spreading.RefluxSemantic wrote:???princeofcarthage wrote:So much for critical and analytical thing. This was an obvious bait. All you had to say was *you can be asymptomatic spreader or something similar*. Tell me what is the point of discussion when you are not going to think?Show hidden quotes
But how will I visit your restaurant now that it is closed.princeofcarthage wrote:@Jam , I would like to invite you to my restaurant. A full sponsored 3 day tripl!
It is not.Jam wrote:But how will I visit your restaurant now that it is closed.princeofcarthage wrote:@Jam , I would like to invite you to my restaurant. A full sponsored 3 day tripl!
Thats what I am saying??princeofcarthage wrote:you are aware that you don't need to have symptoms to be a spreader right? You could be perfectly fine and still spreading.RefluxSemantic wrote:???Show hidden quotes
Experts believe most spread occurs when you are a or pre-symptomaticRefluxSemantic wrote:Experts believe you might be contagious before covid symptoms startprinceofcarthage wrote:Body usually gives a warning before you fall sick. If randomly one day you wake up and you are ill with cough or cold then it is mostly due to sudden weather change or lack of rest. Other times it will follow with a couple days of slight discomfort, dry throat, and few more things which you can read up.Show hidden quotes
I linked that in a source on this page. I was just being careful with my wording to avoid silly semantics from certain forum members.n0el wrote:Experts believe most spread occurs when you are a or pre-symptomaticRefluxSemantic wrote:Experts believe you might be contagious before covid symptoms startShow hidden quotes
So why are we going to bars to enjoy "nice" things?princeofcarthage wrote:you are aware that you don't need to have symptoms to be a spreader right? You could be perfectly fine and still spreading.RefluxSemantic wrote:???Show hidden quotes
More or lessRefluxSemantic wrote:Thats what I am saying??princeofcarthage wrote:you are aware that you don't need to have symptoms to be a spreader right? You could be perfectly fine and still spreading.Show hidden quotes
We are not? We could have been without lockdowns or better lockdowns is my point.n0el wrote:So why are we going to bars to enjoy "nice" things?princeofcarthage wrote:you are aware that you don't need to have symptoms to be a spreader right? You could be perfectly fine and still spreading.Show hidden quotes
Maybe Socialist Joe Biden will use the DPA to take over all the factories to produce mRNA vaccines.RefluxSemantic wrote:Still really disappointed with the AZ vaccine. I was wondering if there's any reason to be concerned about the mix of vaccines. If you get AZ now, chances are pretty high you will need to get one of the other vaccines in a few months since it doesnt seem to protect against the South African variant. I can imagine that the immunity that the AZ vaccine does give you might interfere with other vaccines. Eg the resulting antibodies from the AZ vaccine might deal with the J&J vaccine, which I suppose would mean that the intended immune system response from the J&J vaccine might not trigger? Just speaking my mind here so if there is someone with more expertise, please enlighten me.
Maybe I should add an example of my reasoning so that people can understand or possibly point out mistakes. Imagine a vaccine 1 contains some 'inactivated' virus with proteins A and B. Vaccine 2 contains proteins A and B'. The B' protein ends up being the one that triggers the crucial immune system response that can deal with all the virus mutations. Now if you get vaccinated with vaccine 1 first, you might get antibodies against A and B. But in the long run (due to mutations) this doesnt give the right immunity so you need to get vaccine 2. But would the antibodies against protein A maybe interfere with the immunization? And maybe the antibodies against B have some partial effect against B', weakening the immune system response? Is this line of thinking somewhat reasonable?
FYI all vaccine manufactories are scaling up production now. If we had invested in that and started production in september or october we would have had way more vaccine. That would have cost us a lot of money, but the difference in price between a for profit vaccine and a non-profit vaccine is so large that it would have completely covered the risk.Dolan wrote:Yeah, just hire a few thousand of unemployed carpenters, plumbers and restaurant waiters, because those are really good at manufacturing medicines.
Pharma companies basically don't deliver vaccines faster because they're dumb and don't want to make money.
So if you put "the people" in charge, things will auto-magically solve themselves optimally, because throughout history "the people" have always been the biggest force of progress, scientific discovery and general human accomplishment.
Guess where the UK had lockdowns and then question if they do nothing.princeofcarthage wrote:Definitely. But if the effects of lockdowns outweigh its benefits then they were ineffective. For ex. China imposed lockdowns and the country mostly seems out of covid now. South Korea, or Taiwan. You can conclude that their model of lockdown/measures were effective. Now take UK, 4 lockdowns and still struggling. Italy, Spain, USA. Now compare them with say India or Sweden who had no lockdowns* or US and Brazil for that matter. From that we can conclude that lockdowns were mostly ineffective. The only consolation is that somehow the feeling that it may have saved lives for which again there is no concrete proof.RefluxSemantic wrote:Do you think the current lockdowns reduced the amount of infections?princeofcarthage wrote:Your preposterous claim that current lockdowns were somehow effective?
* I say India had no lockdown cuz we imposed when we had total 500 cases and was lifted when he had 100000 cases/day and climbing.
If the vaccines had failed to deliver, all that scaling up would be useless. For Ex. AZ can say produce a billion doses per month, but the vaccine failed so no buyers. *Was just an example and stats are not accurate.RefluxSemantic wrote:FYI all vaccine manufactories are scaling up production now. If we had invested in that and started production in september or october we would have had way more vaccine. That would have cost us a lot of money, but the difference in price between a for profit vaccine and a non-profit vaccine is so large that it would have completely covered the risk.Dolan wrote:Yeah, just hire a few thousand of unemployed carpenters, plumbers and restaurant waiters, because those are really good at manufacturing medicines.
Pharma companies basically don't deliver vaccines faster because they're dumb and don't want to make money.
So if you put "the people" in charge, things will auto-magically solve themselves optimally, because throughout history "the people" have always been the biggest force of progress, scientific discovery and general human accomplishment.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. All lockdown did was delay the inevitable as is clear from the graph. UK just exploded later than most countries. Doesn't imply anything.Riotcoke wrote:Guess where the UK had lockdowns and then question if they do nothing.princeofcarthage wrote:Definitely. But if the effects of lockdowns outweigh its benefits then they were ineffective. For ex. China imposed lockdowns and the country mostly seems out of covid now. South Korea, or Taiwan. You can conclude that their model of lockdown/measures were effective. Now take UK, 4 lockdowns and still struggling. Italy, Spain, USA. Now compare them with say India or Sweden who had no lockdowns* or US and Brazil for that matter. From that we can conclude that lockdowns were mostly ineffective. The only consolation is that somehow the feeling that it may have saved lives for which again there is no concrete proof.Show hidden quotes
* I say India had no lockdown cuz we imposed when we had total 500 cases and was lifted when he had 100000 cases/day and climbing.
I suppose that by the collective "we" you mean the state. The state doesn't own medicine manufacturing facilities, afaik. And for a good reason, the state is not a business and during normal times, it doesn't manufacture medicines, it's not a for-profit endeavour.RefluxSemantic wrote:FYI all vaccine manufactories are scaling up production now. If we had invested in that and started production in september or october we would have had way more vaccine. That would have cost us a lot of money, but the difference in price between a for profit vaccine and a non-profit vaccine is so large that it would have completely covered the risk.
And yet it cut cases down massively, the problem is not having a prolonged lockdown than what the UK has done and just had lockdowns and then instantly had shit like eat out to help out for 1/2 priceprinceofcarthage wrote:Thank you for reinforcing my point. All lockdown did was delay the inevitable as is clear from the graph. UK just exploded later than most countries. Doesn't imply anything.Riotcoke wrote:Guess where the UK had lockdowns and then question if they do nothing.Show hidden quotes
This is still the funniest response any country has had to the pandemic, easilyRiotcoke wrote:eat out to help out
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?