Events
Publications
Latest imagesKorona novosti i spoznaje
Page 2 of 40
Page 2 of 40 • 
1, 2, 3 ... 21 ... 40
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Hektorović 15/2/2022, 18:49
How the CDC Abandoned Science
The main federal agency guiding America’s pandemic policy is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which sets widely adopted policies on masking, vaccination, distancing, and other mitigation efforts to slow the spread of COVID and ensure the virus is less morbid when it leads to infection. The CDC is, in part, a scientific agency—they use facts and principles of science to guide policy—but they are also fundamentally a political agency: The director is appointed by the president of the United States, and the CDC’s guidance often balances public health and welfare with other priorities of the executive branch.
Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. The CDC’s use of this technique has severely damaged their reputation and helped lead to a growing divide in trust in science by political party. Science now risks entering a death spiral in which it will increasingly fragment into subsidiary verticals of political parties. As a society, we cannot afford to allow this to occur. Impartial, honest appraisal is needed now more than ever, but it is unclear how we can achieve it.
In November 2020, a CDC study sought to prove that mask mandates slowed the spread of the coronavirus. The study found that counties in Kansas which implemented mask mandates saw COVID case rates start to fall (light blue below), while counties that did not saw rates continue to climb (dark blue):
CDC.GOV
The data scientist Youyang Gu immediately noted that locales with more rapid rise would be more likely to implement a mandate, and thus one would expect cases to fall more in such locations independent of masking, as people’s behavior naturally changes when risk escalates. Gu zoomed out on the same data and considered a longer horizon, and the results were enlightening: It appeared as if all counties did the same whether they masked or not:
Youyang Gu
The CDC had merely shown a tiny favorable section, depicted in the red circle above, but the subsequent pandemic waves dwarf their results. In short, the CDC’s study was not capable of proving anything and was highly misleading, but it served the policy goal of encouraging cloth mask mandates.
When it comes to promoting mask mandates in school, in October 2021 the CDC famously offered a comparison of masked and unmasked schools in Arizona’s Pima and Maricopa counties in their own journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The analysis claimed that schools with no mask requirement were 3.5 times more likely to experience a COVID outbreak when compared with schools that mandated masking. But the analysis did not adjust for rates of vaccination among either teachers or students. The paper also looked at two counties in Arizona with different political preferences, and thus did not separate mask mandates from other patterns of behavior that fall within partisan lines. Democratic voters, for example, are much more likely to embrace mask mandates and are more likely to otherwise curtail their behavior as they report greater overall concern about COVID. Elementary schoolchildren generally do better with COVID than high school kids, but the CDC’s analysis lumped all ages together, and might have been biased by the fact that mask mandates were more common at ages when outbreak detection occurs less often.
These were only a few of the CDC paper’s problems. When the reporter David Zweig investigated it for The Atlantic, he found that the exposure times varied: The mask mandate schools were open for fewer hours per day, with less time for outbreaks to occur. Zweig also found that the number of schools included did not add up. He hypothesized that some schools conducting remote learning might have been wrongly included, but when he asked the paper’s authors to provide him a list of the schools, they didn’t. In short, the more one examined this study, the more it fell apart.
Masking is not the only matter in which the CDC’s stated policy goal has coincided with very poor-quality science that was, coincidentally, published in their own journal. Consider the case of vaccination for kids between the ages of 5 and 11. COVID vaccination in this age group has stalled, which runs counter to the CDC’s goal of maximum vaccination. Interestingly, vaccinating kids between 5 and 11 is disputed globally; Sweden recently elected not to vaccinate healthy kids in this age group, and some public health experts believe that it would be preferable for kids to gain immunity from natural exposure instead. Stalling U.S. uptake therefore reflects a legitimate and open scientific debate, regardless of whether the CDC’s policy goal would like to consider it closed.
Enter the CDC’s new study. Widely covered in news outlets, the January 2022 study claims that kids below the age of 18 who get diagnosed with COVID are 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. “These findings underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups,” the authors write, “including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents.” But a closer examination of the study again reveals problems.
First, it does not adjust for body mass index. Higher BMI is a risk factor for COVID, prompting hospitalization and diabetes, and yet the CDC analysis does not adjust for weight at all. Second, the absolute risks the study finds are incredibly low. Even if the authors’ finding is true, it demonstrates an increase in diabetes of up to 6 in 10,000 COVID survivors. Third, the CDC’s analysis uses billing record diagnoses as a surrogate for COVID cases, but many kids had and recovered from COVID without seeking medical care. Without a true denominator that conveys the actual number of COVID cases, the entire analysis might be artifact. As the former dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier toldThe New York Times, “The CDC erred in taking a preliminary and potentially erroneous association and tweeting it to specifically create alarm in parents.” Some might view it as a mistake, but after observing these matters for almost two years, I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids. (Already, a better study out of the United Kingdom finds no causal link between COVID and diabetes in kids.)
Some might view it as a mistake, but I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids.
Manufacturing alarm at the very moment an age or other demographic cohort is targeted for vaccination has become a pattern for the CDC. On May 10, 2021, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for the 12- to 15-year-old cohort to receive the Pfizer vaccine. On June 11, the CDC published a study in MMWRclaiming to demonstrate rising hospitalization among this age group; widespread media coverage of the study quickly followed. But the absolute rates for this age group were, in reality, amazingly low: Less than 1.5 per 100,000, which was lower than they had been in the previous December. Meanwhile, a safety signal was being investigated—myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle—which was more common after the second dose, and reported to be as frequent as 1 in 3,000-6,000, according to the Israeli Ministry of Health. Other countries became reluctant to push two doses within the standard 21- to 28-day timeline for these ages. By July, the U.K. had decided against pushing vaccines for this cohort, a decision that was walked back only slowly.
CDC.GOV
The CDC was undeterred, and in recent weeks the agency’s director has started to push for more doses at these ages. Against the advice of an FDA advisory committee, Rochelle Walensky has moved forward with recommending boosters for 12- to 15-year-olds. This view differs from WHO guidance and that of other countries, including Canada, which is not authorizing boosters for healthy adolescents aged 12-17. But when it comes to vaccination, the CDC has a single policy: All Americans should get three doses, regardless of age or medical conditions. This is not science as such, but science as political propaganda.
If that sounds like an exaggeration, consider a final example: the CDC’s near-total dismissal of natural immunity. Many other countries consider recovery from prior infection as a vaccination equivalent or better, an assumption that makes both medical and intuitive sense, but the CDC has steadfastly maintained that everyone needs the same number of vaccinations whether they have recovered from a COVID infection or not. This view is countered by data showing that vaccinating people who have recovered from COVID results in more severe adverse events than vaccinating people who have not had COVID.
In order to bolster the claim that people who have recovered from COVID benefit from vaccination as much as those who never had it, the CDC published a fatally flawed Kentucky-based analysis. The August 2021 study compared people who had contracted COVID twice against those who had it just once, and concluded that those who had it once were more likely to have had vaccination. But the study could have easily missed people who had two documented cases of COVID but might have had severe underlying medical conditions—such as immunosuppression—that predisposed them to multiple bouts of infection in a short period. In addition, people who had COVID once and then got vaccinated might not have sought further testing, believing themselves invulnerable to the virus. The study did not adequately address these biases. Months later, the CDC published a stronger, cohort study showing clearly that natural immunity was more robust than vaccine-induced immunity in preventing future COVID hospitalizations, and moreover, that people who survived infection were massively protected whether vaccinated or not.
But to listen to Walensky tell it, none of these complications even exist. On Dec. 10, 2021, she told ABC News that the CDC had seen no adverse events among vaccine recipients, and denied seeing any cases of myocarditis among vaccinated kids between 5 and 11. On that same day, however, data from her own agency showed the CDC was aware of at least eight cases of myocarditis within that age group, making her statement demonstrably false.
So why does the supposedly impartial CDC push weak or flawed studies to support the administration’s pandemic policy goals? The cynical answer is that the agency is not in fact impartial (and thus not sufficiently scientific), but captured by the country’s national political system. That answer has become harder to avoid. This is a precarious situation, as it undermines trust in federal agencies and naturally leads to a trust vacuum, in which Americans feel forced to cast about in a confused search for alternative sources of information.
Once that trust is broken, it’s not easily regained. One way out would be to reduce the CDC’s role in deciding policy, even during a pandemic. Expecting the executive agency tasked with conducting the science itself to also help formulate national policy—which must balance both scientific and political concerns and preferences—has proven a failure, because the temptation to produce flawed or misleading analysis is simply too great. In order to firewall policymaking from science, perhaps scientific agency directors shouldn’t be political appointees at all.
Ultimately, science is not a political sport. It is a method to ascertain truth in a chaotic, uncertain universe. Science itself is transcendent, and will outlast our current challenges no matter what we choose to believe. But the more it becomes subordinate to politics—the more it becomes a slogan rather than a method of discovery and understanding—the more impoverished we all become. The next decade will be critical as we face an increasingly existential question: Is science autonomous and sacred, or a branch of politics? I hope we choose wisely, but I fear the die is already cast.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
Mass youth hospitalizations, COVID-induced diabetes, and other myths from the brave new world of science as political propaganda
The main federal agency guiding America’s pandemic policy is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which sets widely adopted policies on masking, vaccination, distancing, and other mitigation efforts to slow the spread of COVID and ensure the virus is less morbid when it leads to infection. The CDC is, in part, a scientific agency—they use facts and principles of science to guide policy—but they are also fundamentally a political agency: The director is appointed by the president of the United States, and the CDC’s guidance often balances public health and welfare with other priorities of the executive branch.
Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives; as such, these papers appear more as propaganda than as science. The CDC’s use of this technique has severely damaged their reputation and helped lead to a growing divide in trust in science by political party. Science now risks entering a death spiral in which it will increasingly fragment into subsidiary verticals of political parties. As a society, we cannot afford to allow this to occur. Impartial, honest appraisal is needed now more than ever, but it is unclear how we can achieve it.
In November 2020, a CDC study sought to prove that mask mandates slowed the spread of the coronavirus. The study found that counties in Kansas which implemented mask mandates saw COVID case rates start to fall (light blue below), while counties that did not saw rates continue to climb (dark blue):
CDC.GOV
The data scientist Youyang Gu immediately noted that locales with more rapid rise would be more likely to implement a mandate, and thus one would expect cases to fall more in such locations independent of masking, as people’s behavior naturally changes when risk escalates. Gu zoomed out on the same data and considered a longer horizon, and the results were enlightening: It appeared as if all counties did the same whether they masked or not:
Youyang Gu
The CDC had merely shown a tiny favorable section, depicted in the red circle above, but the subsequent pandemic waves dwarf their results. In short, the CDC’s study was not capable of proving anything and was highly misleading, but it served the policy goal of encouraging cloth mask mandates.
When it comes to promoting mask mandates in school, in October 2021 the CDC famously offered a comparison of masked and unmasked schools in Arizona’s Pima and Maricopa counties in their own journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The analysis claimed that schools with no mask requirement were 3.5 times more likely to experience a COVID outbreak when compared with schools that mandated masking. But the analysis did not adjust for rates of vaccination among either teachers or students. The paper also looked at two counties in Arizona with different political preferences, and thus did not separate mask mandates from other patterns of behavior that fall within partisan lines. Democratic voters, for example, are much more likely to embrace mask mandates and are more likely to otherwise curtail their behavior as they report greater overall concern about COVID. Elementary schoolchildren generally do better with COVID than high school kids, but the CDC’s analysis lumped all ages together, and might have been biased by the fact that mask mandates were more common at ages when outbreak detection occurs less often.
These were only a few of the CDC paper’s problems. When the reporter David Zweig investigated it for The Atlantic, he found that the exposure times varied: The mask mandate schools were open for fewer hours per day, with less time for outbreaks to occur. Zweig also found that the number of schools included did not add up. He hypothesized that some schools conducting remote learning might have been wrongly included, but when he asked the paper’s authors to provide him a list of the schools, they didn’t. In short, the more one examined this study, the more it fell apart.
Masking is not the only matter in which the CDC’s stated policy goal has coincided with very poor-quality science that was, coincidentally, published in their own journal. Consider the case of vaccination for kids between the ages of 5 and 11. COVID vaccination in this age group has stalled, which runs counter to the CDC’s goal of maximum vaccination. Interestingly, vaccinating kids between 5 and 11 is disputed globally; Sweden recently elected not to vaccinate healthy kids in this age group, and some public health experts believe that it would be preferable for kids to gain immunity from natural exposure instead. Stalling U.S. uptake therefore reflects a legitimate and open scientific debate, regardless of whether the CDC’s policy goal would like to consider it closed.
Enter the CDC’s new study. Widely covered in news outlets, the January 2022 study claims that kids below the age of 18 who get diagnosed with COVID are 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. “These findings underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups,” the authors write, “including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents.” But a closer examination of the study again reveals problems.
First, it does not adjust for body mass index. Higher BMI is a risk factor for COVID, prompting hospitalization and diabetes, and yet the CDC analysis does not adjust for weight at all. Second, the absolute risks the study finds are incredibly low. Even if the authors’ finding is true, it demonstrates an increase in diabetes of up to 6 in 10,000 COVID survivors. Third, the CDC’s analysis uses billing record diagnoses as a surrogate for COVID cases, but many kids had and recovered from COVID without seeking medical care. Without a true denominator that conveys the actual number of COVID cases, the entire analysis might be artifact. As the former dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier toldThe New York Times, “The CDC erred in taking a preliminary and potentially erroneous association and tweeting it to specifically create alarm in parents.” Some might view it as a mistake, but after observing these matters for almost two years, I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids. (Already, a better study out of the United Kingdom finds no causal link between COVID and diabetes in kids.)
Some might view it as a mistake, but I believe it was the entire point of the study: Alarm might boost flagging vaccine uptake in kids.
Manufacturing alarm at the very moment an age or other demographic cohort is targeted for vaccination has become a pattern for the CDC. On May 10, 2021, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for the 12- to 15-year-old cohort to receive the Pfizer vaccine. On June 11, the CDC published a study in MMWRclaiming to demonstrate rising hospitalization among this age group; widespread media coverage of the study quickly followed. But the absolute rates for this age group were, in reality, amazingly low: Less than 1.5 per 100,000, which was lower than they had been in the previous December. Meanwhile, a safety signal was being investigated—myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle—which was more common after the second dose, and reported to be as frequent as 1 in 3,000-6,000, according to the Israeli Ministry of Health. Other countries became reluctant to push two doses within the standard 21- to 28-day timeline for these ages. By July, the U.K. had decided against pushing vaccines for this cohort, a decision that was walked back only slowly.
CDC.GOV
The CDC was undeterred, and in recent weeks the agency’s director has started to push for more doses at these ages. Against the advice of an FDA advisory committee, Rochelle Walensky has moved forward with recommending boosters for 12- to 15-year-olds. This view differs from WHO guidance and that of other countries, including Canada, which is not authorizing boosters for healthy adolescents aged 12-17. But when it comes to vaccination, the CDC has a single policy: All Americans should get three doses, regardless of age or medical conditions. This is not science as such, but science as political propaganda.
If that sounds like an exaggeration, consider a final example: the CDC’s near-total dismissal of natural immunity. Many other countries consider recovery from prior infection as a vaccination equivalent or better, an assumption that makes both medical and intuitive sense, but the CDC has steadfastly maintained that everyone needs the same number of vaccinations whether they have recovered from a COVID infection or not. This view is countered by data showing that vaccinating people who have recovered from COVID results in more severe adverse events than vaccinating people who have not had COVID.
In order to bolster the claim that people who have recovered from COVID benefit from vaccination as much as those who never had it, the CDC published a fatally flawed Kentucky-based analysis. The August 2021 study compared people who had contracted COVID twice against those who had it just once, and concluded that those who had it once were more likely to have had vaccination. But the study could have easily missed people who had two documented cases of COVID but might have had severe underlying medical conditions—such as immunosuppression—that predisposed them to multiple bouts of infection in a short period. In addition, people who had COVID once and then got vaccinated might not have sought further testing, believing themselves invulnerable to the virus. The study did not adequately address these biases. Months later, the CDC published a stronger, cohort study showing clearly that natural immunity was more robust than vaccine-induced immunity in preventing future COVID hospitalizations, and moreover, that people who survived infection were massively protected whether vaccinated or not.
But to listen to Walensky tell it, none of these complications even exist. On Dec. 10, 2021, she told ABC News that the CDC had seen no adverse events among vaccine recipients, and denied seeing any cases of myocarditis among vaccinated kids between 5 and 11. On that same day, however, data from her own agency showed the CDC was aware of at least eight cases of myocarditis within that age group, making her statement demonstrably false.
So why does the supposedly impartial CDC push weak or flawed studies to support the administration’s pandemic policy goals? The cynical answer is that the agency is not in fact impartial (and thus not sufficiently scientific), but captured by the country’s national political system. That answer has become harder to avoid. This is a precarious situation, as it undermines trust in federal agencies and naturally leads to a trust vacuum, in which Americans feel forced to cast about in a confused search for alternative sources of information.
Once that trust is broken, it’s not easily regained. One way out would be to reduce the CDC’s role in deciding policy, even during a pandemic. Expecting the executive agency tasked with conducting the science itself to also help formulate national policy—which must balance both scientific and political concerns and preferences—has proven a failure, because the temptation to produce flawed or misleading analysis is simply too great. In order to firewall policymaking from science, perhaps scientific agency directors shouldn’t be political appointees at all.
Ultimately, science is not a political sport. It is a method to ascertain truth in a chaotic, uncertain universe. Science itself is transcendent, and will outlast our current challenges no matter what we choose to believe. But the more it becomes subordinate to politics—the more it becomes a slogan rather than a method of discovery and understanding—the more impoverished we all become. The next decade will be critical as we face an increasingly existential question: Is science autonomous and sacred, or a branch of politics? I hope we choose wisely, but I fear the die is already cast.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
Hektorović- Posts : 26373
2018-04-10
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Hektorović 15/2/2022, 18:49
Vinay Prasad is a hematologist-oncologist, associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco
Hektorović- Posts : 26373
2018-04-10
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by newuser 15/2/2022, 18:51
Ja mogu samo reci: Danke Deutschland, napokon.michaellcmacha wrote:04.03. njemci ukidaju svaG ograničenja, a 20.03. ukidaju sve korona mjere...trajno... ;)
newuser- Posts : 1995
2015-09-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Guest 15/2/2022, 18:55
dijagram wrote:Kako nema dobrog izbora.Venus wrote:dijagram wrote:
Ne brine te sto ce onda cijepljeni pasti u depru.
Mislim, kako i ne bi.
Ne brine me uopće, zašto bi. Ja ti nisam antivaxer, prihvaćam realnost kakva je s neke "više" razine kreirana za ovce.
Ja sam za slobodu izbora, a kako nema dobrog izbora u ovom slučaju se od dva zla bira ono koje netko može podnijet i s čime se može sam sa sobom gledat u ogledalo.
Na forumu smo jos uvijek, yoda, ja niels...
Da izbor...
Ti si jako zauzet iako zrikaš okolo očima da se osjetiš da su ti udovi živi, Yoda je u revoluciji i djeluje feministički, a Niels se namjerio na Vlatku Pokos..šta više reći.
Guest- Guest
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Guest 15/2/2022, 18:58
marcellus wrote:Pa kad ukinu sve mjere necijepljeni će i dalje punit respiratore i ležat po mjesec dana u krevetu a cijepljeni će i dalje imat u najgorem slučaju laganu hunjavicu, a u boljem neće skužit da imaju išta
Od tebe bi se u najmanju ruku očekivalo da ne lupaš gluposti i da si upućen kako cjepivo nije full zaštita. I sami proizvođači su to napisali kako bi se unaprijed zaštitili od eventualnih tužbi onih koji su cijepljeni, a umrli su od covida, s covidom.
Guest- Guest
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by AssadNaPodmornici 15/2/2022, 19:20
Marc se tješi kao ono.
Prvo ne umire niti približan broj ljudi koliko država objavljuje. Još ja ne znam nikoga da je umro od omicrona, dapače ne znam nikoga da je bio bolestan duže od 2-3 dana.
Ipak vjerujem da vrlo mali dio ljudi umire, i da se radi o starijima i teškim bolesnicima koje može ubiti prehlada, omicron, gripa bilo što. a i broj njih je nekoliko puta manji od ovoga što država prezentira.
a država skriva podatke koliko je umrlo cijepljenih a koliko necijepljenih. zadnja tablica sa zastarijelim podacima kaže da je umrlo čak i malo više cijepljenih :D
s obzirom da u ukupnoj odrasloj populaciji imamo pola cijepljenih tako nešto, a šanse za umrijeti su ti sve jedno 50%50%, ispada da cijepivo ne štiti kurca.
a o nuspojavama da ne pričam . već znam ljude koji su zbog cijepiva životno ugroženi. najčešće treća doza bude fatalna.
pa se sada ekipa koja se pitaj boga čime otrovala , tješi da su imuni, a mi ćemo umirati.
dragi, ja sam prebolio, evo većina nas ne-cijepljenih je preoboljela na forumu, i nitko se osim navodno jasmina, nitko od ostalih se nije drugi put zarazio. a svi smo preboljeli. ja sam se čak radi potvrde pokušao par puta zaraziti pa nisam uspio.
sve države svijeta pomalo ukidaju sve mjere, pa tko se otrova otrova se.
Prvo ne umire niti približan broj ljudi koliko država objavljuje. Još ja ne znam nikoga da je umro od omicrona, dapače ne znam nikoga da je bio bolestan duže od 2-3 dana.
Ipak vjerujem da vrlo mali dio ljudi umire, i da se radi o starijima i teškim bolesnicima koje može ubiti prehlada, omicron, gripa bilo što. a i broj njih je nekoliko puta manji od ovoga što država prezentira.
a država skriva podatke koliko je umrlo cijepljenih a koliko necijepljenih. zadnja tablica sa zastarijelim podacima kaže da je umrlo čak i malo više cijepljenih :D
s obzirom da u ukupnoj odrasloj populaciji imamo pola cijepljenih tako nešto, a šanse za umrijeti su ti sve jedno 50%50%, ispada da cijepivo ne štiti kurca.
a o nuspojavama da ne pričam . već znam ljude koji su zbog cijepiva životno ugroženi. najčešće treća doza bude fatalna.
pa se sada ekipa koja se pitaj boga čime otrovala , tješi da su imuni, a mi ćemo umirati.
dragi, ja sam prebolio, evo većina nas ne-cijepljenih je preoboljela na forumu, i nitko se osim navodno jasmina, nitko od ostalih se nije drugi put zarazio. a svi smo preboljeli. ja sam se čak radi potvrde pokušao par puta zaraziti pa nisam uspio.
sve države svijeta pomalo ukidaju sve mjere, pa tko se otrova otrova se.
_________________
May Allah destroy Australia
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 22332
2018-06-14
IL Risorto likes this post
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Guest 15/2/2022, 19:20
marcellus wrote:Pa kad ukinu sve mjere necijepljeni će i dalje punit respiratore i ležat po mjesec dana u krevetu a cijepljeni će i dalje imat u najgorem slučaju laganu hunjavicu, a u boljem neće skužit da imaju išta
grafen je super.
Guest- Guest
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by dijagram 15/2/2022, 19:52
Venus wrote:dijagram wrote:Kako nema dobrog izbora.Venus wrote:
Ne brine me uopće, zašto bi. Ja ti nisam antivaxer, prihvaćam realnost kakva je s neke "više" razine kreirana za ovce.
Ja sam za slobodu izbora, a kako nema dobrog izbora u ovom slučaju se od dva zla bira ono koje netko može podnijet i s čime se može sam sa sobom gledat u ogledalo.
Na forumu smo jos uvijek, yoda, ja niels...
Da izbor...
Ti si jako zauzet iako zrikaš okolo očima da se osjetiš da su ti udovi živi, Yoda je u revoluciji i djeluje feministički, a Niels se namjerio na Vlatku Pokos..šta više reći.
dijagram-
Posts : 18937
2015-08-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by mutava baštarda 15/2/2022, 19:53
Pfizer je pobjegao iz Indije nakon što su regulatori prvi put zatražili neovisni sigurnosni pregled, prenosi Reuters.
Pfizer je tražio iznimku pozivajući se na odobrenja koja je dobila drugdje na temelju ispitivanja provedenih u zemljama poput Sjedinjenih Država i Njemačke.
Indija na respiratorima.
_________________
Iduća dva tjedna su ključna
mutava baštarda- Posts : 21037
2015-09-14
Hektorović likes this post
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by dijagram 15/2/2022, 19:58
Dobro, ne vrijedi za svakog covjeka ali uglavnom hoce.kaya wrote:Zašto? Pa ja jedva čekam da ukinu sve mjere, a bogme i svi oko mene. A cijepljeni su..dijagram wrote:Ne brine te sto ce onda cijepljeni pasti u depru.Venus wrote:
Nadam se da će zaista tako i bit.
Mislim, kako i ne bi.
Sve vise ce si razmisljati koji su si vrag ubrizgali, i zasto. i zasto to sada vise nije vazno,
zasto virus nije tako opasan, zasto se pocinje zivjeti s njim bez teskih mjera, bez straha.
Pogledaj samo clanove stozera, oni znaju da sve to uskoro prelazi u neku drugu fazu,
vec su sludjeni, deformirani, pogubljeni, jednostavno izobliceni.
Beros, Capak, Markotic, Simetin itd...strava.
To je za psihijatriju spremno.
dijagram-
Posts : 18937
2015-08-09
michaellcmacha likes this post
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by michaellcmacha 15/2/2022, 20:05
s jedne strane samog sebe tješi i ohrabruje da ga ne daj Bože strefi rafal trombova, koji svako malo satare nekog busterisanog, s druge strane iz nekog iracionalnog razloga računa da ako bi više necijepljenih skiknulo da bi se to odrazilo na manjak skiknutih cijepljenih iako jedni nemaju veze s drugima i to je već duže vrijeme onima zdravog razuma bjelodano jasno...Venus wrote:marcellus wrote:Pa kad ukinu sve mjere necijepljeni će i dalje punit respiratore i ležat po mjesec dana u krevetu a cijepljeni će i dalje imat u najgorem slučaju laganu hunjavicu, a u boljem neće skužit da imaju išta
Od tebe bi se u najmanju ruku očekivalo da ne lupaš gluposti i da si upućen kako cjepivo nije full zaštita. I sami proizvođači su to napisali kako bi se unaprijed zaštitili od eventualnih tužbi onih koji su cijepljeni, a umrli su od covida, s covidom.
_________________
https://i.servimg.com/u/f25/20/30/76/79/flag-k10.jpg
"Snažni su duhom, njihova je vojska ustrajna jer brani svoju DOMOVINU"
michaellcmacha- Posts : 21325
2015-08-08
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by dijagram 15/2/2022, 20:10
Nekad bi to bilo upravo obrnuto.mutava baštarda wrote:Pfizer je pobjegao iz Indije nakon što su regulatori prvi put zatražili neovisni sigurnosni pregled, prenosi Reuters.
Pfizer je tražio iznimku pozivajući se na odobrenja koja je dobila drugdje na temelju ispitivanja provedenih u zemljama poput Sjedinjenih Država i Njemačke.
Indija na respiratorima.
Ludog li vremena.
dijagram-
Posts : 18937
2015-08-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by Guest 15/2/2022, 20:19
michaellcmacha wrote:s jedne strane samog sebe tješi i ohrabruje da ga ne daj Bože strefi rafal trombova, koji svako malo satare nekog busterisanog, s druge strane iz nekog iracionalnog razloga računa da ako bi više necijepljenih skiknulo da bi se to odrazilo na manjak skiknutih cijepljenih iako jedni nemaju veze s drugima i to je već duže vrijeme onima zdravog razuma bjelodano jasno...Venus wrote:marcellus wrote:Pa kad ukinu sve mjere necijepljeni će i dalje punit respiratore i ležat po mjesec dana u krevetu a cijepljeni će i dalje imat u najgorem slučaju laganu hunjavicu, a u boljem neće skužit da imaju išta
Od tebe bi se u najmanju ruku očekivalo da ne lupaš gluposti i da si upućen kako cjepivo nije full zaštita. I sami proizvođači su to napisali kako bi se unaprijed zaštitili od eventualnih tužbi onih koji su cijepljeni, a umrli su od covida, s covidom.
Meni se ipak cini da vlastita razmisljanja projiciras na samog Marcellusa. Da covjek doista misli da cjepivo stvara i mnozi trombove, nekako sumnjam da bi vlastitu djecu tome podvrgavao. A i ne bi se triput tome izlagao.
No dobro. Ovdje je projekcija nesto kao "dobar dan".
Guest- Guest
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by IL Risorto 15/2/2022, 20:21
Nakon 2 godine,evo napokon je i mene dokačila ta famozna korona.
U subotu navečer uhvatila me lagana groznica,u nedjelju i jučer više kao neka malaksalost i umor i to je bilo sve,danas već bolje,skoro da mi se nije dalo ići na testiranje,vjerojatno i ne bih da nije za tu potvrdu.
Toliko o toj strašnoj koroni,pa bogte,100x gore znala me sredit gripa ili neka viroza.
PS
I da,sad mi je drago što se nisam cjepio protiv ove virozice.
U subotu navečer uhvatila me lagana groznica,u nedjelju i jučer više kao neka malaksalost i umor i to je bilo sve,danas već bolje,skoro da mi se nije dalo ići na testiranje,vjerojatno i ne bih da nije za tu potvrdu.
Toliko o toj strašnoj koroni,pa bogte,100x gore znala me sredit gripa ili neka viroza.
PS
I da,sad mi je drago što se nisam cjepio protiv ove virozice.
Last edited by IL Risorto on 15/2/2022, 20:24; edited 1 time in total
IL Risorto- Posts : 11215
2015-07-23
michaellcmacha, Noor and Hektorović like this post
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by newuser 15/2/2022, 20:25
A nek sve zavrsi vise. Cijepljeni neka se nadaju da nisu nista lose po organizam unijeli, ja se isto nadam da nisu i nadam se da nece nista biti od Losinih predvidjanja.AssadNaPodmornici wrote:Marc se tješi kao ono.
Prvo ne umire niti približan broj ljudi koliko država objavljuje. Još ja ne znam nikoga da je umro od omicrona, dapače ne znam nikoga da je bio bolestan duže od 2-3 dana.
Ipak vjerujem da vrlo mali dio ljudi umire, i da se radi o starijima i teškim bolesnicima koje može ubiti prehlada, omicron, gripa bilo što. a i broj njih je nekoliko puta manji od ovoga što država prezentira.
a država skriva podatke koliko je umrlo cijepljenih a koliko necijepljenih. zadnja tablica sa zastarijelim podacima kaže da je umrlo čak i malo više cijepljenih :D
s obzirom da u ukupnoj odrasloj populaciji imamo pola cijepljenih tako nešto, a šanse za umrijeti su ti sve jedno 50%50%, ispada da cijepivo ne štiti kurca.
a o nuspojavama da ne pričam . već znam ljude koji su zbog cijepiva životno ugroženi. najčešće treća doza bude fatalna.
pa se sada ekipa koja se pitaj boga čime otrovala , tješi da su imuni, a mi ćemo umirati.
dragi, ja sam prebolio, evo većina nas ne-cijepljenih je preoboljela na forumu, i nitko se osim navodno jasmina, nitko od ostalih se nije drugi put zarazio. a svi smo preboljeli. ja sam se čak radi potvrde pokušao par puta zaraziti pa nisam uspio.
sve države svijeta pomalo ukidaju sve mjere, pa tko se otrova otrova se.
A da ovo sve smrdi od pocetka smrdi i to dobro, tko to ne vidi jbg doci ce vrijeme kad ce progledati ali moglo bi biti kasno.
Sto se tice zaraze, jednom sam prebolio tzv. Deltu priprije skoro 1 godine. Nakon toga sam bio u kontaktu sa zarazenima bar 100 i vise puta, nisam se zarazio drugi put. Dakle preboljevanjem se stiče najjači imunitet.
newuser- Posts : 1995
2015-09-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by mutava baštarda 15/2/2022, 20:26
A vidi ove Veberove kako motira kralja špadi...dijagram wrote:Nekad bi to bilo upravo obrnuto.mutava baštarda wrote:[size=41]Pfizer je pobjegao iz Indije nakon što su regulatori prvi put zatražili neovisni sigurnosni pregled, prenosi Reuters.[/size]
Pfizer je tražio iznimku pozivajući se na odobrenja koja je dobila drugdje na temelju ispitivanja provedenih u zemljama poput Sjedinjenih Država i Njemačke.
Indija na respiratorima.
Ludog li vremena.
_________________
Iduća dva tjedna su ključna
mutava baštarda- Posts : 21037
2015-09-14
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by dijagram 15/2/2022, 20:29
U kurac, ponadali smo se da ces biti rijesen.IL Risorto wrote:Nakon 2 godine,evo napokon je i mene dokačila ta famozna korona.
U subotu navečer uhvatila me lagana groznica,u nedjelju i jučer više kao neka malaksalost i umor i to je bilo sve,danas već bolje,skoro da mi se nije dalo ići na testiranje,vjerojatno i ne bih da nije za tu potvrdu.
Toliko o toj strašnoj koroni,pa bogte,100x gore znala me sredit gripa ili neka viroza.
PS
I da,sad mi je drago što se nisam cjepio protiv ove virozice.
Nista ne ide kako treba:)
dijagram-
Posts : 18937
2015-08-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by dijagram 15/2/2022, 20:30
Posljedica korone, to znaju i vrapcimutava baštarda wrote:A vidi ove Veberove kako motira kralja špadi...dijagram wrote:Nekad bi to bilo upravo obrnuto.mutava baštarda wrote:[size=41]Pfizer je pobjegao iz Indije nakon što su regulatori prvi put zatražili neovisni sigurnosni pregled, prenosi Reuters.[/size]
Pfizer je tražio iznimku pozivajući se na odobrenja koja je dobila drugdje na temelju ispitivanja provedenih u zemljama poput Sjedinjenih Država i Njemačke.
Indija na respiratorima.
Ludog li vremena.
dijagram-
Posts : 18937
2015-08-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by newuser 15/2/2022, 20:31
Ni korona nije ko što je biladijagram wrote:U kurac, ponadali smo se da ces biti rijesen.IL Risorto wrote:Nakon 2 godine,evo napokon je i mene dokačila ta famozna korona.
U subotu navečer uhvatila me lagana groznica,u nedjelju i jučer više kao neka malaksalost i umor i to je bilo sve,danas već bolje,skoro da mi se nije dalo ići na testiranje,vjerojatno i ne bih da nije za tu potvrdu.
Toliko o toj strašnoj koroni,pa bogte,100x gore znala me sredit gripa ili neka viroza.
PS
I da,sad mi je drago što se nisam cjepio protiv ove virozice.
Nista ne ide kako treba:)
newuser- Posts : 1995
2015-09-09
Re: Korona novosti i spoznaje
by IL Risorto 15/2/2022, 20:32
Haha, je li zbilja ?dijagram wrote:U kurac, ponadali smo se da ces biti rijesen.IL Risorto wrote:Nakon 2 godine,evo napokon je i mene dokačila ta famozna korona.
U subotu navečer uhvatila me lagana groznica,u nedjelju i jučer više kao neka malaksalost i umor i to je bilo sve,danas već bolje,skoro da mi se nije dalo ići na testiranje,vjerojatno i ne bih da nije za tu potvrdu.
Toliko o toj strašnoj koroni,pa bogte,100x gore znala me sredit gripa ili neka viroza.
PS
I da,sad mi je drago što se nisam cjepio protiv ove virozice.
Nista ne ide kako treba:)
IL Risorto- Posts : 11215
2015-07-23
Page 2 of 40 • 1, 2, 3 ... 21 ... 40
Similar topics» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
» Korona novosti i spoznaje
Page 2 of 40
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum