rootsbreadandmakka [he/him]

  • 90 Posts
  • 749 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 22nd, 2023

help-circle
















  • I’m hopeful, but there are a couple things that have me questioning this

    First of all, they say outright

    The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of intranasal vaccination, which was not designed to assess protection efficacy.

    So they’re not actually testing protection from covid really? And as such they say

    The limitation of this study in assessing protection effectiveness was the lack of a placebo group to monitor the infection rate with the exact timing as the intranasally vaccinated group

    So although the protection rate has me hopeful, it seems they can’t actually say that this has any more protection over no mucosal vaccine

    The zero-COVID policy was lifted when this study began. Many participants were infected before the vaccination could induce sufficient immune barrier to counter infection, and these infected participants had to drop out of the study.

    Nearly 75% of participants infected after first dose

    Remarkably, among 31 participants who received the second dose (December 28–30, 2022), only 2 participants reported infection on day 1 and day 3 after vaccination. After that, all 29 participants reported no infection for the following 3 months.

    So a lot of participants in the study actually got infected and didn’t finish the study. Is it possible that those who finished the study were just more cautious about covid in other aspects of their life? Like I can go 3 months with no infection just wearing a mask, and it doesn’t seem like this study tracked non-vaccine covid precautions in participants, nor is there a placebo to which to compare the group that finished the study. Although this study has me hopeful, this doesn’t seem like the deus ex machina that I want it to be. Maybe someone can let me know if I’m reading it wrong though. It’s also 5am and I’m falling asleep so maybe I missed something

    Edit: they also explicitly say

    People who got an infection were excluded from the study.




  • Rizz comes and goes in cycles. Sometimes you have it, and you’re on top of the world, nothing can touch you, you feel you’ll live forever. And sometimes you just don’t have it, and you sit and stew alone in darkness wondering where your rizz went and if it’ll ever return. It’s just the way of the world. Would we really feel those soaring highs if it wasn’t for those crushing lows? Maybe the world is trying to teach you something right now. It’s time to look inward, learn, grow. So when your rizz comes back, you will be able to ride that wave to the fullest.





  • As far as I know, there hasn’t been any conclusions about where covid-19 evolved.

    Afaik the direct ancestor hasn’t been found, but every coronavirus from which Covid-19 evolved comes from Southeast Asia. SARS splits off a bit before evolution into Covid-19 so the one can’t be descended from the other.

    That’s my understanding at least. Vietnam, Cambodia, anywhere in that region I’m willing to accept, but beyond that I think you need lab leak to make the theory work. Fort Detrick I’m not opposed to but there are mountains of evidence pointing to natural origins and calling into question not just lab leak from China, but lab leak in general, so I’m more inclined towards natural origins.

    Looking into this more rn it seems another reason China was identified as the origin point is because initially that was where we found COVID’s closest known relative - in Yunnan specifically. However it seems that even closer relatives have now been found in Laos. Still not a direct ancestor, but you might be right that Covid didn’t originate in China itself.