Angelia

Ma znam da je rekao, ali mi se cini da to prebacuje na eletroniku, sto nije nista cudno, i ja sam to radila. Te lose svetlo, te mnogo vremena na ekranu... dok nisam otisla kod oftamologa i on mi rekao eeee nije, nego godine Tako sam dobila naocare za citanje, i vise mi ekran ne smeta. Ali moguce je i da jeste ekran.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is no longer requiring hospital systems to report daily COVID-19 deaths to the federal government. The policy change, which was announced in January, went into effect last Wednesday, just days ahead of the US death toll surpassing 900,000. Some health officials are calling the move 'incomprehensible,' alleging the hospital data has, over the last two years, 'changed the response to the pandemic for the better'. 'The hospitals have been doing this for going on two years,' a federal health official told WSWS, speaking on the condition of anonymity. 'It is the only consistent, reliable and actionable dataset at the federal level. Ninety-nine percent of hospitals report one hundred percent of the data every day.' Although hospitals will no longer need to report the previous day's COVID-19 deaths to the federal government each day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will continue to collect and report COVID data from official death certificates. The CDC also notes the death data reported by hospitals to the HHS 'is not a CDC-owned data source and does not impact our reporting'. The organization instead compiles its numbers from death certificate reports sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), with officials reiterating 'there have been no changes to CDC data sources.' The same day the HHS stopped collecting figures, the UK government announced plans to end its death toll reporting by April. Meni ovo zvuci kao da ce pandemija uskoro biti gotova, cim broj umrlih pocinje da bude manje vazan.

@Babyda jasno, ako ti ne vidis I ne osecas da se nesto desava, onda se ne desava. Ironicno, da si mene optuzila da pricam o necemu u lokalu, da bi ti sad smetalo sto se ne fokusiram na licni dozivljaj 😁 jer eto tebe vesti ne interesuju. Iskreno, ja uopste nemam problem lokalno. Imam problem kad vidim gde nesto ide. Eto preselicu se kod tebe, pa me mozda nece brinuti sto 50% amerikanaca pati. Sigurno tebe necu pitati o ekonomskim posledicama.

Idi proveri dioptriju. Iako znam da ima slucaj da je moguce da uzmes naocare bas za problem sa ekranima, mi cesto zavaravamo sebe da je ekran problem, a ne da nam je vid oslabio. Oftamolog ce reci da li je to to.

Gresis, trajno ukidanje mera ce se desiti kad politicari odluce da je cena zivota sa virusom, prihvatljiva. To smo mi imali u nekim delovima US, I da nije naisao omicron ostali bi isto. Samo dok odluce da je to sto imamo 100k sa prehladom ok, jer u bolnicama ne zavrsava mnogo od virusa, I ne umire mnogo od virusa. Osim ako ne dobijemo neki mutant virus X-man, omicron deluje da ide ka tome. Eto meni 50% porodice dobilo I da kucnem u drvo 😀 deluje da ce svi biti ok, a to je ono najbolesniji deo familije.

To zato sto ne razumes kako se ovo odrazava na tvoje stanje, ignorance is bliss. Nit florida ima svoju valutu, nit imala Federalne rezerve, ne doredjuju kuda ide dolar. Vasa poskupljenja imaju samo uticaja na ljude na floridi, ova inflacija ima na svih 50 drzava a i van toga, ima da vuce posledice godinama. I u tvojoj okolini. A to o smanjenju mrznje i price o rasama Mislis BLM prestao da pali ulice? Pa oni su palili ulice da skinu Trampa, to je citava poenta. A prica o rasama i mrznji nije uopste posustala, nego je US jos podeljenija nego sto je bila sa Trampom. Ali ajde da ti ne rusim kockice.

Pa sad nemam pojma, dosta naucnika govori da je tok talasa u JAR i UK argument. Izgleda da US ide sa slicnim scenariom - po brojkama iako ovde mora da prodje u razlicitim delovima, istocna i zapadna obala nisu imali isti tajming. Da li je to dovoljno dobar argument, samo ce vreme pokazati.

Dzaba ja objasnjavam. To sto si ti osecala od 2018 nije isto kao ono sto osecaju ljudi sada od inflacije. Sta tu nije jasno? To su dve razlicite stvari. Sta ti licno mislis da osecas vise ili manje nema nikakav uticaj na ekonomiju. Tvoj subjektivni osecaj za feeling je tu nebitan. Posledice nisu iste. Bukvalno to je kao da kazes "e pa mi smo imali vec izbore za guvernera, to je isto kao predsednicki", a da je tu zajednicka stvar jedino da si ti glasala. Znaci nemoj vise molim te, potpuno zvuci kao da ne razumes nista dalje od kako se ti osecas. i cak i kad budes osecala posledice neces razumeti uzroke.

Pa znaci to sto si ti osecala nije isto, eto to. Lokalne promene zivotnih troskova nisu isto. Jer recimo to ne utice na izvoz, kreditne uslove, wall st itd. promena lokalnih troskova zivota recimo nece uticati na tvoj 401k a inflacija hoce.

Mislim da se ne racuna na trajni imunitet, nego na smanjenje tezih oblika i smrti. Da virus predje u endemski. Sto se tice reinfekcije mislim da nemaju jos dovoljno podataka, iako ja znam par ljudi koji su za dva meseca bili 2X pozitivni, iako ne znam dal je oba puta bio omicron.

Ustvari to sad jeste cilj, kako ja citam ono sto svi govore. Zato se I spustaju mere, jer su dosli do zakljucka da zarazavanje ne moze da se zaustavi, pa stoga pustiti virus da prodje kroz populaciju sa manjom smrtnoscu, da se pandemija zavrsi.

Ova zena, je totalno zastranila, ona pocinje pricu o burzoaziji i samoupravljanju ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think at the end of the day, it is about who has control over the very core assets of production and society. If it ultimately comes down to a billionaire or the Koch brothers or the Koch family having control over the vast majority or large plurality of our oil assets in the United States, if it's a handful of very wealthy families having control over-- you know, private families having control over means of production, that is essentially the capitalist system that we live in. It is a small group that is of privatized control over what we eat and how we fuel our society. https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-capitalism-not-redeemable-system-110000599.html

Znas zasto je osiguranje poskupelo? Obama im je dao kako da profitiraju, da je ostavio sistem koji je postojao, to poskupljenje bi bilo nemoguce. To ne znaci da osiguranje ne bi bilo uopste skuplje ali ne bi otislo 500% ali ti i to ignorises. A ja sam vec probala da ti objasnim - to sto su neke stvari na Floridi poskupele 2018, nije posledica nacionalne inflacije. Vec lokalne ekonomije, tj upliva kapitala. Isto kao sto California nije skupa zbog inflacije. Znas to da kazes mrdu ali ne znas sebi. Imate visi minimum plate - od mnogih i jos ste podigli, nisi valjda ocekivala da ce zivotni troskovi pasti u tom slucaju? Neverovatno je i da ne znas sta znaci povecanje kamata na kredite

Pa znas kako - ako dobijes virus onda maske ne rade, a ako ne dobijes....da li je bitno da li rade Ali u pravu si Akiro je bolji primer, kad je on fasovao virus, sva cdc istrazivanja padaju u vodu....

Ti ovo zoves istrazivanje? 😜ali moram priznati da im je bas zgodan tajming... Evo jel mogu I ja da im dodam za istrazivanje rezultat da maske nemaju uticaj? Ono nosila, ili ne, nisam dobila virus 100% 😅ili Suncica, nosila dobila virus 2x

A koliko je bio porast realnih plata na nivou Floride u tom periodu? U %, da uporedimo. evo ovako: For the 2018 calendar year, Florida had 3.2 percent growth in Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For 2019, Florida’s growth slowed slightly from the prior year, but remained above the national average (2.8 percent in Florida versus 2.2 percent in the US). Translating the data into the state’s fiscal year, Florida grew 3.0 percent in Fiscal Year 2018‐19 and was expected to grow 2.5 percent in Fiscal Year 2019‐20 at the Conference held immediately before the pandemic. Through the first half of the 2019‐20 fiscal year, the data showed that the state was on track to match that Conference projection. Znaci - vi niste ni osetili inflaciju u tom periodu. Jer vam je porast GDP bio veci od inflacije. Osim ako nije totalno lokalni osecaj, usled drugih uzroka a ne inflacije. Kako vam je sad?

Kod nas sad kazu da se broj umrlih na dnevnoj bazi stabilizovao I opada, da je povecan broj bio zbog vremenskog otklona, I da je to prosle nedelje bio peak. Procitah negde da su bolnice na 76% kapaciteta, ali samo 16% toga su covid pacijenti. Broj obolelih opada, kako gde u US, kod nas sad negde 60% opao. Tako da ....zvuci dobro.

Nama lakse, samo zbog situacije, ali ne bih mogla da radim to sto Akiro radi. Klinac na fakultetu, jeste kad dodje mogao bi nesto da donese ali znam da pazi. A ako I donese, iako ranije mogla sam u ja, sad ovih mesec-dva manje idem okolo, ali zivim sa normalnom higijenom. Nista razlicito od pre pandemije - I eto osim tog nesrecnog stomacnog virusa koji je klinac nekako zakacio, nista za sada. Videcemo kako cemo narednih mesec dana....jer on sad definitivno ide na casove, a I ja se spremam na malo zivahniji drustveni zivot. Dosta vise...

nisam mogla da se setim izraza dok sam pisala, ali da, bas to.

Ovo je definitivno vrednosni sud a ne naivna konstatacija, gde se izjednacavaju "nesrbi" sa ostacima komunistickog rezima. Sutra ces ti biti penzioner, pa tako njihovo vreme nikad ne prolazi. A definitivno nema sta da se raspravlja sa "decom xxx", to je bezobrazluk. Klasicna nacionalisticka baljezgarija umotana u neku kritiku komunizma. I sta je "njihovo" vreme donelo? Pinkovsku kulturu, poseljacivanje (I ovde bez uvrede seljaka) I odbacivanje civilizacijskih normi, dok mladi nacionalsti sanjaju o zapadu ili zive u bubble opljackanih para, ko su njihovi roditelji? Oslobodioci bele tehnike?

Stvarno? ja cu se jako zabrinuti ako je proslo vreme boraca protiv velikosrpske hegemonije, radnih ljudi i gradjana, internacionalista, penzionera, seoskih ucitelja, novobeogradskih nesrba....ovo jbte ko da je Seselj pisao, i sta im smetaju pravoslavni Hrvati i brkate Crnogorke - fetish neki? Nije problem ima danas voska za depilaciju i licka i druga sirotinja? Seseljizam...

Nama predlazu da se vratimo na posao I ne zezamo lekare. 😁 Crtica: tetka (oko 75 tu je negde) naravno dobila antibiotike. Posto ima nekoliko bolesti za koje pije razlicite medikamente ona se zezne pa umesto drugih lekova, popila te antibiotike koji su bili, za svaki slucaj, za 5 dana, u roku od 24 sata, uzas. Kaze spavala 40 sati. Dobro ne bas neprekidno jer je uspela da napravi par maratonskih poziva, ali.... I opet cujem kako su ti antibiotici preventiva, tako im lekari govore. Al se nabacase lekova I analiza u SR

Pa videcemo, ja citala studiju, ima logike, i neke stvari koje navode sta jeste a sta nije imalo uticaja: Our main conclusion invites a discussion of some issues. Our review does not point out why lockdowns did not have the effect promised by the epidemiological models of Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020). We propose four factors that might explain the difference between our conclusion and the view embraced by some epidemiologists. First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates. So, we believe that Allen (2021) is right, when he concludes, “The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.” In economic terms, you can say that the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene is high when infection rates are high. Contrary, when infection rates are low, the demand is low and it may even be morally and economically rational not to comply with mandates like SIPOs, which are difficult to enforce. Herby (2021) reviews studies which distinguish between mandatory and voluntary behavioral changes. He finds that – on average – voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19. If people voluntarily adjust their behavior to the risk of the pandemic, closing down non-essential businesses may simply reallocate consumer visits away from “nonessential” to “essential” businesses, as shown by Goolsbee and Syverson (2021), with limited impact on the total number of contacts.47 This may also explain why epidemiological model simulations such as Ferguson et al. (2020) – which do not model behavior endogenously – fail to forecast the effect of lockdowns. Second, mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others. Third, even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by changing behavior. As Atkeson (2021) points out, the economic intuition is straightforward. If closing bars and restaurants causes the prevalence of the disease to fall toward zero, the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene also falls towards zero, and the disease will return. 48 Fourth, unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality. One objection to our conclusions may be that we do not look at the role of timing. If timing is very important, differences in timing may empirically overrule any differences in lockdowns. We note that this objection is not necessarily in contrast to our results. If timing is very important relative to strictness, this suggests that well-timed, but very mild, lockdowns should work as well as, or better than, less well-timed but strict lockdowns. This is not in contrast to our conclusion, as the studies we reviewed analyze the effect of lockdowns compared but to doing very little (see Section 3.1 for further discussion). However, there is little solid evidence supporting the timing thesis, because it is inherently difficult to analyze (see Section 2.2 for further discussion). Also, even if it can be empirically stated that a well-timed lockdown is effective in combating a pandemic, it is doubtful that this information will ever be useful from a policy perspective. But, what explains the differences between countries, if not differences in lockdown policies? Differences in population age and health, quality of the health sector, and the like are obvious factors. But several studies point at less obvious factors, such as culture, communication, and coincidences. For example, Frey et al. (2020) show that for the same policy stringency, countries with more obedient and collectivist cultural traits experienced larger declines in geographic mobility relative to their more individualistic counterpart. Data from Germany Laliotis and Minos (2020) shows that the spread of COVID-19 and the resulting deaths in predominantly Catholic regions with stronger social and family ties were much higher compared to nonCatholic ones at the local NUTS 3 level.49 itd. Vredi procitati.

Interesatna analiza: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument. https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf Ne znam da li je confirmation bias, ali autori su ozbiljni ljudi. Prof. Steve H. Hanke, Founder and Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise

Ja nikad nisam obratila paznju na text te pesme...sta kazes trave krave, prave, zdrave....