Angelia

Dobro moj burazer je bio na 132 kg, visok je ali mislim da je ispod 190 cm. Nije zdravo. Na 90 ce da bude ok.

Ti naravno znas pricu iza te slike?

Mislis koliko je imao pre dijete?

Moj burazer presao na drugu dijetu. Dosadila mu keto - kaze osecao se masno, ali je na keto skinuo 26 kg, na ovoj novoj dijeti nastavio da gubi evo vec preko 4 kg. Posto se priblizava svom cilju, kaze malo ce da uspori dijetu da se polako prilagodjava - ima jos 12kg da izgubi.

Ne znam, samo kazem da su logicni neki pogresni jer imas kontradiktornih studija, znacemo kad budemo videli rezultat .... tj kad budemo znali dovoljno o virusu.

Ja upravo postavila studiju koja predpostavlja da ne treba 60-70%. Znaci ima razlicitih informacija, ne slazu se svi strucnjaci, ne zna se dovoljno o virusu. Pa cemo videti. Da, koliko sam skontala duzina imuniteta zavisi od imuno reakcije na virus, pa cak da i neki drugi corona virusi mogu da stvore delimicni imunitet (to sam negde videla kao objasnjenje zasto neki ljudi nisu oboleli iako su u kontaktu sa zarazenima). Dobro je pogledati razlicite informacije i studije, nikako se udaviti u njima, posto logicno - neki od tih zakljucaka su - pogresni. Bold

Zato sto se mnogi ne slazu da traje 2-3 meseca.

Mozda i nece, ali valjda treba da se nadamo. Link za studiju oko imuniteta krda: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3.full.pdf

Jedini razlog za lockdown, moze da bude sprecavanje preopterecenja bolnica. To naravno ako prvenstveno imas mere koje su adekvatne i koje mogu da urade isti posao...svi maske, ne velika okupljanja, smanjeni kapaciteti u zatvorenom prostoru, preporuka za one koji su u rizicnim grupama da izbegavaju kontakte itd. onda najverovatnije nemas razloga za lockdown. Negde sam procitala ima neko istrazivanje od pre par dana gde kazu da je moguce da do imuniteta krda dodjemo i bez onih famoznih 60% imunih. Potrazicu kasnije gde to nadjoh. Nesto kao ta cifra od 60-70% imunih je za vakcinaciju, a prirodno moze da se postigne daleko ranije cak su pominjali i 10% imunih. Iako mislim da je to sve zasnova na "mozda". Sto nije specijalno uverljivo.

Da, prebacili da podatke hendluje jedna federalna sluzba, umesto prethodno druge federalne sluzbe. Iako naravno oni ne mogu da naredjuju bolnicama, jer istovremeno ti podaci idu drzavnoj sluzbu u lokalu..... Mnogo bolje ja bi rekla, kako god okrenes mi dodjosmo do svedskog modela.

Prvo, samo da podsetim da sam ranije napomenula da se wordometer ne poklapa sa zvanicnim podacima u US, trenutno ima oko 190k vise obolelih i oko 3k umrlih nego CDC. Drugo, naravno da je sve ispolitizovano, samo sto je pitanje na koju stranu. Recimo neki Dems guverneri su u aprilu slali obolele iz bolnica u stracke domove - a znamo da je preko 50% umrlih u US iz starackih domova. Trece, danas sam procitala da mozda podaci sa floride nisu tacni, ne zbog politike nego zbog privatnih labaratorija koje su imale greske u izvestajima. Oko toga cemo verovatno cuti u narednih par dana. Cetvrto, razlicite drzave, zavisno gde politicki naginju, su imale razlicite kriterijume ko se klasifikuje kao "umro od corone". Znaci, u pravu si - sve ispolitizavano, samo ne znamo kako, a cisto sumnjam da cemo saznati, mozda za par decenija. Ovo 2. je jedina sigurno tacna cinjenica, koja je direktno vodila do veceg broja smrtnih ishoda u tim plavim drzavama. Znamo posto su prvo uveli pravni nacin da zastite staracke domove od tuzbi, a i nisu nesto krili, samo su kasnije rekli kako je "Tramp kriv za to". Kako i zasto nisu bas objasnili.

Zena je sada bivsi zaposleni NY Times, posto je dala otkaz, a pre toga pisala za WSJ, i inace potpisnik A Letter on Justice and Open Debate (na prethodnoj strani) u ime zastite slobode govora. Nece kasnije biti da su samo neki na forumu primetili gde to ide unapred....Inace zena je politicki generalno centar. Mozda ce nekoga konacno naterati na razmisljanje sta je u stvari extremno levicarenje.... BARI WEISS' FULL NYT RESIGNATION LETTER: Dear A.G., It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming. I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others. But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I'm 'writing about the Jews again.' Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly 'inclusive' one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I'm no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper's entire staff and the public. And I certainly can't square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery. Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm. What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person's ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated. It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed 'fell short of our standards.' We attached an editor's note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it 'failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa's makeup and its history.' But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed's fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its 'diversity'; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany. Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the 'new McCarthyism' that has taken root at the paper of record. All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they'll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you'll be hung out to dry. For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. 'An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It's an American ideal,' you said a few years ago. I couldn't agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don't still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: 'to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.' Ochs's idea is one of the best I've encountered. And I've always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. Sincerely, Bari

Ima suvise "could" u tom textu. Ne bih to preozbiljno shvatala dok neko ne dosta "is" u textu.

Naravno, Rudi jeste ostario, ali nije izgubio pamcenje: The three founders of the movement and hashtag are activists Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, who have expanded the project into a national network of over 30 local chapter between 2014 and 2016. BLM is a network run by umbrella organization Thousand Currents, which radical activist Susan Rosenberg serves as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors. Black Lives Matter and Thousand Currents is yet to reply to DailyMail.com's request for comment. Rosenberg was an active part of far-left revolutionary terror organization May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), which sought to over throw the US government through armed action and a people's militia. The group was a part of the Black Power Movement and the New Communist Movement. She was arrested in 1984 in possession of weapons and explosives and sentenced to 58 years of imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. Giuliani was US Attorney of the Southern District of New York at the time. She spent 16 years in jail, during which she emerged as an author and AIDS activist, and President Bill Clinton pardoned her on his final day in office on January 20, 2001. 'Susan Rosenberg, who handles their finances is a convicted terrorist who was involved with the Black Panthers who used to slaughter police officers,' Giuliani said on the show. 'This convicted terrorist was sentenced to 58 years. Clinton’s corrupt last hour pardon set her free. Now we are paying the price,' Giuliani, 76, tweeted Friday. Interesatno, nema levih medija ni da pomenu: Rosenberg was believed to have also played a role in Shakur’s escape from prison. Garza wrote an article for the Feminist Wire in 2014 explaining that “when I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what it’s political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context.” Garza has repeatedly tweeted approvingly about Shakur. Shakur is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List with a $1 million reward. A member of the revolutionary extremist group called the Black Liberation Army, Shakur is wanted for escaping from prison in New Jersey in 1979 while serving a life sentence for murdering a police officer during a traffic stop. In 1973, Shakur and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two New Jersey State Police troopers. Shakur was wanted at the time for her role in a number of serious crimes, including bank robbery, so they opened fire on the officers, injuring one trooper and killing Werner Foerster execution-style at point-blank range. She was caught and sentenced but then escaped, making her way to Cuba in 1984. I da ne zaboravimo, osnivaci BLM; A 2017 report from Black Lives Matter describes its founders — Garza, Cullors, and Opal Tometi — as “three radical Black organizers.” Cullors said that she and Garza are “trained Marxists” during a 2015 interview with the Real News Network, noting: “We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories, and I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.” Cullors told CNN's Jake Tapper in June that "Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now."

Meni bi trebale naocare U svakom slucaju zvuci impresivno, i za citanje.

Pa ne videh ih nigde na snimku, posto mi je to bila prva pomisao. I ne zvuci kao citanje. Jasno je meni zasto, uz to kao sto rekoh vecina US je religiozna, tako da to zvuci onako kako treba da zvuci. Moras i da razumes zasto ateistu malo zulja toliko velicanje religije Ostatak poruke jeste dobar. Inace totalitarni rezimi napadaju religije jer prosto ne mogu da dozvole da imas "dva gospodara".

Ako gleda dnevnik dosad se sigurno propio.

Karijes se ne prenosi, zato je nesrecno poredjenje. Najbolja varijanta je grip, koji i danas svake godine ubija, iako je grip vise sezonski, a kako vidimo korona nije. Ako hocemo da koristimo poredjenje, mislim.

BCG vaccine protection from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) A series of epidemiological explorations has suggested a negative association between national bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination policy and the prevalence and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, these comparisons are difficult to validate due to broad differences between countries such as socioeconomic status, demographic structure, rural vs. urban settings, time of arrival of the pandemic, number of diagnostic tests and criteria for testing, and national control strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19. We review evidence for a potential biological basis of BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19, and refine the epidemiological analysis to mitigate effects of potentially confounding factors (e.g., stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, development, rurality, population density, and age structure). A strong correlation between the BCG index, an estimation of the degree of universal BCG vaccination deployment in a country, and COVID-19 mortality in different socially similar European countries was observed (r2 = 0.88; P = 8 × 10−7), indicating that every 10% increase in the BCG index was associated with a 10.4% reduction in COVID-19 mortality. Results fail to confirm the null hypothesis of no association between BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality, and suggest that BCG could have a protective effect. Nevertheless, the analyses are restricted to coarse-scale signals and should be considered with caution. BCG vaccination clinical trials are required to corroborate the patterns detected here, and to establish causality between BCG vaccination and protection from severe COVID-19. Public health implications of a plausible BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19 are discussed.

Ne treba ici u paranoju, ali karijes jeste nesrecno poredjenje. Iako se potpuno slazem s njim da treba da naucimo da zivimo sa ovim virusom, dosta vise panicenja.

A kako su casne sestre, njih 130 dobile koronu ako ne izlaze? Divine intervention....

Nisam imala vremena da odslusam ceo govor, recimo ima neke stvari Bog, devine i to sto mi se ne svidja. Ali mu se mora priznati da je dobar govornik. Nije mi jasno kako moze da govori tako dugo a da ne cita? Cak i Reganov legendarni govor je napisao pomocnik, koji je on procitao. Da li ima neke slusalice da ga podsecaju ili on ovo govori iz glave (dal naucio napamet ili govori iz glave)? U svakom slucaju impresivno, i znam da ce oni koji ga ne voli to da napadnu. Ali to je prosto cinjenica.

Pre nego me stavis na IL, samo da ti pojasnim, tebi deluje da ja reagujem na tvoje pominjanje Trampa, a u stvari ne kontas da ti trpas Trampa u svakakve rasprave - tako da je logicno da veliki % mojih postova ima Trampa u odgovoru na tvoje pominjanje Trampa, iako moji odgovori nemaju veze sa Trampom. Zasto si uvukla Trampa u ovoj raspravi? Zasto je Tramp bio u prici o odluci Sc na izuzetke Obamacare? Zasto je Tramp bio u prici u lokalnom odgovoru na Covid 19? Zasto je bio u prici oko riots? Zasto si me optuzila da podrzavam Trampa kad krsi ustav, kad za to nije bilo 1% dokaza, niti sam ja rekla ikad da podrzavam krsenje ustava? U svakom drugom postu (manje/vise) ti iskoristis Trampa, i onda se cudis kako ja reagujem na ime, kad ga ti upotrebljavas stalno. prosto - ja nemam opciju da odgovorim, a da ti nekako nisi ugurala Trampa u pricu

Mozda nisam najbolje objasnila zasto prigovaram @Baby spremna sam da to bolje obrazlozim ako zatreba, ali po meni, ovo je cist napad na moderaciju, totalno nezasluzeno. Da ne pominjem da se radi o novim moderatorima, ali izjednacavanje njih, i ljudi koji imaju autoritet, a koje neko smatra "bilmezima", jednostavno znaci da su i moderatori "bilmezi". Staviti na pocetku "e ovo se odnosi na vas" kad se ocigledno odnosi, je samo zavijanje u shiny paper. Ili sto neki kazu ovde na forumu zavijanje u celofan. Cak i da je neki moderator pogresio, obrisao post jer je mislio da je uvredljiv ili neprimeren, nema potrebe da se tvrdi da ga je "vlast zveknula u glavu"

Ovo su sve tvoji zakljuchci koji proizilaze iz nedostatka samokritike. Nije ti jasno da ja komentarisem tvoje stavove po pitanju moderacije, a ne Trampa, samo si njih izjednacila sa tvojim misljenjem o Trampu i Vucicu, koje je ocigledno negativno. Tvoj izbor koga stavljas na ignore, ja to jos nijednom nisam uradila na forumu pa to necu ni ubuduce praktikovati, posto verujem u slobodu govora, i da je korisno znati sta neko misli cak i kad se ne slaze sa tvojim misljenjem. izbaci trampa iz tvog posta, i ja cu ti isto odgovoriti. Napravila si generalizaciju svakog na "vlasti" ili sa mogucnoscu odluke, kao moderacija, da im moc udara u glavu, ali si izuzela one koje smatras da taj efekat nemaju, znaci samo one koje smatras za negativne primere je vlast "zveknula u glavu". Losa insinuacija.