wwww

Cilic se izgleda malcice stabilizuje

evo sad u dnevniku zdf-a isao mali prilog o tituli u Madridu, plus su pomenuli Struffa i njegovu pobedu u Rimu. generalno, tenis nije cesto u vestima udarnih tv stanica (deo o sportu), ali je izvestavano o desavanjima u Madridu, tj. pobedama Zvereva od Keija pa do titule. postoji i jos jedan faktor: Zverev nije bas "cistokrvni" Nemac, nije uporediv s Bekerom i Graf.

pa valjda vam dele pare prema "spisku" na eUpravi, a tamo moras da ubacis podatke o LK, prebivalistu, pretpostavljam i broj racuna. ne moze sad bas svako kao padobranac da upadne i dobije pare (doduse, za odredjene "clanove" ce uvek postojati mogucnost visestrukog nagradjivanja, ali to nije nista novo)

takodje sam na naucnoj temi ostavila i diskusiju o indijskom soju koji se pojavio u Britaniji. Vrlo je zanimljivo procitati celu argumentaciju (i citanje dijagrama), jer se onda bolje shvata o cemu se radi (nije sve binarno, 1 ili 0, vec treba razumeti kontekste):

ne citate naucnu temu pa ste propustili vrlo plasticno obrazlozenje zasto se neke mere moraju drzati i za vakcinisane jos neki period: znaci, ako sad jedan vakcinisni, u ono malo slucajeva u kojima oni mogu da prenesu virus, zapravo prenese virus i pokrene jednu mrezu/lavinu zarazavanja onda nam se produzava agonija. Tj. i stradace vise ljudi (medju nevakcinisanima) i mnoge stvari ce biti (i dalje) suspendovane (jer moramo da drzimo virus pod kontrolom). Zbog toga ima smisla da vakcinisani i dalje nose maske i ne krenu s masovnim upljuvavanjem (tj. da se i dalje izbegavaju veliki skupovi ljudi na malom rastojanju, pogotovu u zatvorenom). Ovo je takodje bitno jer treba ispostovati i one ljude koji jos nisu dosli na red za vakcinaciju (pa makar to bili i mladi i deca). Malo solidarnosti s okolinom je uvek bilo dobro.

But the decline can also be faster: With increasing vaccination and seasonality, you could possibly be under 50 in 2-3 weeks --- if people's behavior doesn't change. However, the decline can also be slower. The following example shows how much the estimates depend on the assumptions about contacts and infection: If there is only 1 infection more for every 20 infections, then that makes the difference between R = 0.9 (which we currently have about) and R = 0.95. To get under 50 you need from now on: with R = 0.9 around 5 weeks, with R = 0.95 around 10 weeks. And if you instead avoid 2 more infections each 20, then you reach R = 0.8, and in 2-3 weeks the incidence is 50. With vaccination progress, testing and seasonality, this should in principle be feasible. - (With low incidences one would also be well prepared if a new VOC like the one from India causes problems.) In principle, a full vaccination reduces transmission by 90-95% - if the vaccinated behave exactly the same way. The more contacts a vaccinated person has, the more this effect is reduced. There are first observational studies showing that infection is effectively reduced by 70-90% in vaccinated people.

To compare influenza versus COVID-19, here is a nice overview graphic of the infection fatality rate (IFR) for both diseases: The death rate from infection (IFR) is estimated in studies. These studies use data that do not factor in the frequency of testing. In short, the infection death rate (IFR) is independent of testing, but the case fatality rate (-CFR) is dependent on testing. The new variant B.1.1.7 seems to have a slightly higher IFR. Vaccination of course significantly lowers the IFR! I created this with a linear y-axis. From a scientific point of view, it is now quite useless because the influenza line is in the relatively low IFR range (compared to COVID) and you can therefore hardly read any values. But that's exactly the point again.

As @mugecevik told @AnnaSophieGross in our story, "Right now the most important thing is that the vaccines are working against this variant". And it really is as simple as that until we learn more. As I’ve been saying, keep *watching*, but don’t keep *worrying*. Here’s our full story: https://ft.com/content/8e134734-c3f0-4694-9bdb-9d03e67dadec And here’s @PHE_uk ’s report today https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-variants-identified-in-uk Final comments: I’ve deliberately included the "numbers are rising!" charts alongside the caveats about why that is not necessarily reason to worry. I think it’s important to show the raw data, even if there are many reasons to take it with a pinch of salt. I also want people to realise 2 things can both be true: numbers rising, and the situation not necessarily being scary. It’s not either or. If someone shows you a scary chart of rising numbers, ask whether it really is scary given what else we know (and hey, perhaps it will be).

What risk factors lead to a severe # COVID19 course in people under the age of 80? Several health insurance companies have compiled a ranking together with the RKI. People suffering from leukemia are at a particularly high risk. Around every third person infected in this group is affected by a severe course of COVID19. Patients with metastatic tumor diseases and dementia are also at risk. With data from over 30 million people with statutory health insurance, it is one of the largest studies on COVID19 and previous illnesses in Germany. The list of previous illnesses can help general practitioners to identify particularly vulnerable patient groups even more specifically and to protect them as early as possible with a vaccination. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2021/Ausgaben/19_21.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Would you prefer #Astrazeneca and already be protected from Corona or no vaccination for the time being? The answer depends not only on age, but on the individual risk of infection. In some federal states such as Bavaria and Berlin, younger people can be vaccinated with Astrazeneca at their own risk. Now Federal Minister of Health Spahn wants to lift the prioritization for the vaccine nationwide. It is important: Even if the vaccination sequence is canceled, the recommendation of the Stiko (komisija za vakcine) still applies. The recommends Astrazeneca vaccinations only for people over 60 years of age, as thrombosis has occurred in very rare cases in younger people. An analysis by the EMA has shown that if the incidence is higher, the benefits of an Astrazeneca vaccination outweigh the risks in all age groups. However, if the incidence is lower, the benefit outweighs only those over 60 years of age. The personal risk of infection depends not only on the incidence, but also on whether you have many contacts or not - privately or professionally. Important to know: the EMA analysis is only a snapshot. And: It doesn't take gender into account. The rare thrombosis cases mainly affect women. You are likely to be at a higher risk than men. So should I get Astrazeneca vaccinated or not? In the end, this is an individual decision that everyone has to make for themselves - based on the scientific facts.

sta god...

on se nije isprepadao kao Sabalenka