SirBillybob

I wondered the same thing. As of a month ago the bivalent booster option is no longer authorized and should have been pulled from all dispensaries. If an error was made, one particular liability is messing with the recommended minimum duration between any two SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, given that shorter intervals may reduce the desired immune response, in this case the anticipated benefit of the updated version (not yet administered) that has reverted back to a monovalent formulation. The “fix” for such an error is unclear, but guidance suggests a 3-month minimum interval between doses.

Yes, you can spread them out if you prefer. If you couple two of the three same day, the guidance leans towards making RSV vaccine the odd one out on its own a different day.

On co-admin guidance: Public Health Ontario has reviewed the clinical data and recommends where feasible (eg, outside of the urgency of RSV outbreaks in longterm care facilities) that flu and COVID vaxx be co-administered without concern. In contrast, it is recommended that RSV vaxx be staggered at least 2 weeks before or after either flu vaxx alone, COVID vaxx alone, or flu\COVID co-administration. It’s just a question of limited safety data and lack of data on whether co-admin may lower desired antibody titres for any one of the products. In my case, I am passing on one of the three due to a recent case of COVID, but it would not be inconvenient for me to defer Arexvy, if I decide to take it, following influenza vaxx. YMMV. The CDC flags similar reservations about immunity data and directs co-admin as acceptable but optional. In general, the thinking may be that many people will inadvertently skip circling back ‘à la carte’ in spite of intentions.

I will go a step further as it is essentially the end of summer and my assessment is based on 4 months of observations, a dozen or more rounds by decision so to speak. Campus. Subtract Malik’s sporadic presence, still Campus by a long shot.

Or read earlier in the thread, because well why not put all viral diseases under a coronavirus topic? lol The same RSV vaccine, GSK’s Arexvy, was approved in Canada 2 months ago. It will not be publicly funded and the word on the street is that it will cost recipients $250-300 for a dose. The inoculation temporal benefit tentatively put forward is deemed to be two seasons (15-18 months?), so avoid uptake randomly throughout the year as had been the CoV vaxx trend because you may just get one season of protection, for example, if jabbed in April. Or be mindful of north-south hemisphere incidence variables, etc. if you are longstay in the southern hemisphere Nov-Mar, the chances of catching RSV are much lower. I am considering it, but mindful of the point made by @Unicorn regarding age and the recommended threshold of 75 years, stated by an InfDis conference presenter, as I am not nearly 75, I am healthy and fit, and not around older folks or very young children this winter.

The thing about Rentmen’s current Terms of Use is that sexually explicit content is prohibited across all components of the platform outside of members’ negotiations among themselves vis-a-vis the optional Private Gallery section. If this is actually a new overall regulatory update, perhaps reflecting that Rentmen wishes more distance, notwithstanding the consideration of profit margins raised by others here, then I would not advise that an Escort renew a costly GOLD subscription without determining whether the Terms of Use have actually been substantially revised along the image content dimension compared to before times. I don’t have a Time Machine to assess Terms of Use alterations. If they have been rewritten, or if their application will formally align with the clearly worded content restrictions, there may be more prospective changes as far as content allowance within Premium and Video Gallery image categories. Otherwise, I might see the recent changes as merely a tightening up of the positioning of pornographic, erotic, explicit, prurient, what have you, content according to their fundamental position of plausible deniability in terms of advocating commercial sex work (aka compensated time), and the advertising content typically associated with promoting same. In sum, are the recent changes punctuated as opposed to a preliminary step in a sequence? Will the status quo of ‘looking the other way’ from a contradiction between stated rules and actual content be upheld? Might there be more to come beyond first-line image content adjustment that is non-volitional from the point of view of many subscribers? Be mindful that payment equals Terms of Use acceptance. I realize that a bait-and-switch would be suicide for Rentmen unless there is a way to salvage the content that members desire, and Private Galleries may always ensure content preservation in that the platform offers a direct conduit between members. The fly in the ointment is not knowing if Rentmen, based in Europe, is feeling under pressure to revise its framework. This cannot be divorced from the very recent (mid-Sept) complex and controversial European Parliament vote, perhaps more symbolic than binding at this juncture, in which sex work was deemed exploitive and not legitimately valid as a profession, this vote yet falling short of fully endorsing the Nordic abolitionist model.

There is a method for Rentmen members to be spared 40% of the membership fees for any duration purchased. It’s irrelevant to me but simple to figure out.

Aah, right, not to confuse Man Premium League with Premier League. I also just realized the platform has the courtesy of not overtly labelling non-GOLD and non-PREMIUM, and that GOLD providers are listed first chronologically.

That tracks somewhat like CAPTCHA identification. If they can see and ✅ for themselves the x-rated pics in the image grid it authenticates their user potential as non-robots open to transmitting affluenza.

The Saturday-to-Sunday “White Night” event is for The Village zone, not just Campus. It’s a pilot project, and the date is aligned with Paris’ annual Nuit Blanche 1st Saturday of October. However, that might be co-incidental because most Canadian Thanksgiving weekends are the second weekend of October and I would think in future the White Night would correspond to Thanksgiving weekend and the now defunct Black&Blue event that formerly brought in circuit tourists. Click the double A in the URL field bottom left for translation. Clore l’été avec une nuit blanche dans le Village le 7 octobre - Fugues WWW.FUGUES.COM Dans la nuit du samedi 7 octobre au dimanche 8 octobre, soit durant le week-end de l’Action de grâce au...

I think that the research wisdom is that any antibody level gives some protection; higher antibody levels give more protection; and previous infection adds more protection from re-infection than the protection infection-naïve get against first infection, assuming antibody level is classified/binned the same way, where S antibodies are induced by infection, vaccination, or both. At an individual level, remaining infection free or re-infection free theoretically rests on antibody level (controlling for other risk factors, as you already indicated is important), but breakthrough infection is possible for anybody. Your acquiring re-infection at what you think was a lower if not lowest personal antibody level does not substantiate the theory any more than a person’s non-infection over time at a negligible antibody level refutes it. I think that vaccination (re)uptake timing is arbitrary, that is, erroneously suggestive of the irrelevance of antibody levels because the relative hazards of infection risk predicated on antibody levels are extremely difficult to translate into a time-stratified model for vaccination. Moreover, it would be cost-prohibitive to repeatedly assess everybody’s antibody levels for the sole purpose of determining acceptable deviations in any direction from arbitrary vaccination timelines.

Please check with your physician what you received. Do not go on hearsay. The updated mRNA vaccines were approved Sept. 12th. That said, you likely received the now outdated bivalent booster, and providers were calling it ‘the latest’ at the time (even recently) as the updated vaccine news was gradually getting on the news radar, and product typically not yet supplied for general consumption. But they were supplied in trials. Slim slim slim chance your physician had trial subjects, though study supply would/should be deployed strictly for them. Confirm anyway, I suggest. Always be clear about what was injected. If you need the updated version a bit sooner than 2 months (see below), for example a trip abroad given the current variant, it probably won’t hurt you, but you should seek formal consultation about such a move. The delay is as much to enhance immune response as to avoid adverse reaction. In fact, some people with a booster history will receive two consecutive updated doses to maximize protection. It’s not necessarily overdoing it to go off-label for a good reason and your provider is on board. The official USA guidance is minimum 2 months delay between the last bivalent booster and the updated vaccine. This suggests that you are certainly not alone in the timing of your latest booster (likely what you assume you got). Some folks simply hit the timing for a summer booster due to their particular (ie, 6 month) lapse from the previous dose. Again, upcoming and in fact already available doses are called updated, not booster, in order to line up the current reality and associated language terms with, say, annual influenza vaccination.

Good news. I was incorrect in my forecast of approval timeline for the new Novavax candidate. The lag time has been 3 weeks. It was given Emergency Use Authorization today based on non-clinical data. I will likely consider this option eventually if approved in Canada. Novavax 2023-2024 COVID-19 Vaccine Now Authorized and Recommended for Use in the U.S. - Oct 3, 2023 IR.NOVAVAX.COM This Emergency Use Authorization and CDC recommendation makes Novavax's vaccine the only protein-based...

As you can see, the first vid’s opening frame still image is not blurred. In fact, when See More is activated, the two first vids in the collection do not have the still image blurred out. It is only when All Videos is activated that all of the opening frame still images, including the first two, are blurred out. Therefore, as a Basic Client I detect that I have seen a few robust erections (or other more x-rated images) sometimes one and sometimes two, likely by accident and not design, as the Escort (I believe whether he has either Basic or Gold status) simply coincidentally had that representation at the very opening of a vid scene. Obviously, if done by design some tweaking may be necessary given the vid dimensions on the platform. Also mindful of dimming features relative to your baseline still, and the positioning of the encircled play button relative to the image content. Or simply create a video with the desired opening play frame. Actually, a video of any length can be created from a still photo. Using iPhone video feature that screenshoots, or iMovie. Again, the position and framing strategy applies. This may amount to a potential workaround that the site may sabotage and eventually blur out according to their agenda. Or perhaps they will sort out such content with their human assessment team or AI, whatever method is being employed. In which case the one or two videos with which you aim for stealth mode would be deployed lower in the video cluster, if not an across-the-board blurring for all advertisers’ vid collection. Actually, one’s second video exclusively depicting the desired image might be most applicable strategically because the hall monitors would need to engage the See More step. Magic Movie.mov RPReplay_Final1696353013.mov

Erm, no. Let it go, or take a solitary path. You do a search and summarize if you like. This thread is rife with antipathy and the minutiae of definitional criteria of transmission terms are secondary to the topic question. I have no need or desire to cling to the coattails of Waterloo battle enactors. I have gone as far as I can to neutralize the discord by weighing in with what I perceive to be accurate data. Start a new thread if you will. I may circle back around the Day of the Dead, but that is the actual term with which I would describe the current status of this topic in the water. Such impasses are not uncommon. No shame, no blame. it’s been fun, but COVID is in my rear view mirror. I need to bone up again on prostate cancer surveillance and intervention decision trees. I have awareness of the diligent manner in which some contributors here attempt to offer insight in that domain.

Some of the literature conflates contact with exposure, or is inherently contradictory about how either is distinctive from infection. As I understand it, if exposure occurred the pathogen entered the host. Similarly, if sunlight is implicated in skin cancer then something intermediary happened between being in sunlight and dermatological malignancy, because we all get sun. It seems to me that a tripartite distinction is in order regarding being surrounded environmentally by a pathogen, that pathogen having made a true runway touchdown onto a host, and whether it crashes and burns within the host at a minimal, barely observable or a benign level, or worse. If I went to my physician and told him that I thought I had HIV-related physiologically induced symptoms as a result of a verified receptive anal intercourse exposure to a trick’s jizz, without PrEP uptake on my part, also let’s say verifiable vis-a-vis the trick’s viral non-suppression (aka NOT undetectable), all in the context of my own historical HIV-negative status, I would have had HIV bouncing off my rectal wall for a period of time, [let alone seminal particles flying around and breathed in depending on the encounter; of course I jest absurdly]. However, the chances of infection seroprevalence in testing follow-up would be approximately 1.5%, as already referenced in other threads. That would be an exposure with low likelihood of infection and one might assign a relativistic value of robustness versus wimpyness to HIV transmission compared to other pathogens. PEP would be applicable but the manifestation of my reported symptoms, whatever their source, would likely be latent and fall beyond the PEP option window, so its role is moot for purposes of the example. The clinician would likely use ‘exposure’ nomenclature, based on my behavioural description, not say I had an HIV contact or was in contact with the virus, though neither of those is semantically outrageous. The clinician would inquire about interactive contacts. If diagnosed, public health would label a person as a contact in management terms. The assessment would obviously call for the conventional procedure for such STI testing. In this example HIV exposure is not infection because not all exposures result in infection. The relationship between exposure risk and the culmination of infection hinges on both exposure episode quantity and chance, and in many cases host variables, eg, other STIs on board, or for example inoculation in the case of CoV. CoV has low contagion wimpiness and exposure rates are high because it’s much harder to avoid infected human transmission vectors than to keep cum out of your asshole, for most. It is also unlikely that a single genuine exposure poses a mere 1/72 transmission probability of actual infection. However, like for HIV, CoV exposure does not guarantee infection (and subsequent manifestation of nucleocapsid antibodies that verify true infection seroprevalence). Obviously, infection denotes that exposure occurred, from a contact or from being in contact with the virus to such a degree that exposure ensued. Immunity surveillance data support the reality that the cumulative pandemic infection escape rate across all age groups put together is in the 15-20% range, yet higher for older folks. That metric diminishes over time as would be expected. There is no established arbitrary clinical or colloquial term for the breadth of that metric. It is simply an estimated absolute number between 0 and 100. It is reasonable to assume the exposure escape rate is less, and the contact escape rate is negligible and applies to lighthouse keepers and the like. If I pilfered 8 jelly beans from my little niece’s stash of 50 jelly beans, and claimed it to be negligible, a few, a handful, &c, consensus would be lacking as we stared each other down. Aspersions might be cast upon me, by other adults present, much to my protest, about my attempting to gaslight her. Her dentist might side with me regarding the amount significance. It would be far easier to purchase my own candy. The trend for infection escape among older folks may be attributable to more assiduous public health prevention adoption among older folks and their contacts’ sensitivity to illness severity vulnerability. That is a good thing if it is actually a central basis of lower infection rates because morbidity, mortality, and health system burdens are associated with this age subgroup’s infection incidence. Beating a dead horse, the query about SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced insomnia would prompt verification of infection that naturally proceeded in linear fashion from viral exposure.

150 to the house and no self-stim? In Montreal we call that Bastille Day.

I finally watched RRR and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a wild ride.

It was on my radar but I forgot to tune in. I should get in the habit of downloading at least 1st episodes of shows that I think could be good. Then there would be a list easier to keep track of and jog memory right within the app. One thing I like about Netflix and Apple is the option to speed through boring parts aimed at stretching out the length. My TV service has cut out Netflix viewing option on the set and I am reduced to my iPhone.

So then, he’s keen on client background including mine.

The history of stings in the area has been the targeting of hetero male johns and female sex workers, sometimes operationally distinct, other times overlapped. The concept of controlling human trafficking and dissuading men from hiring women seems to have been central to the police activities. While communication may be with a bogus that is male undercover yet posing online as female, it seems that in-person female undercover officers posing as escorts for the most art are finalizing the bust. No indication of charges related to MSM sex trade. Speaking of which the location brings to mind the Cape-located recent TV/streaming crime drama series Hightown. The main actor also had a small role as Tina in the movie Bros.

Heck, in Colombia this year I texted a strip club host with whom I had already had back room fun time. I cryptically entered a number I thought he would automatically grasp as generous yet befitting, and representative of cash, given the previous club transaction, and expected a response of OK or 👍. He responded: “Did you write that you will pay me [X]?” Perhaps he wished to simply clarify denomination currency. Nevertheless, I shut it down and would have circled back to the club to keep communication about a hookup offline, but for the limited club opening nights and a more secure established connection with a Theatron Pelicula gogo.

No point closing the barn stable door for this unfortunate lot.

Right. There does not seem to be anything particular about the problem source being CoV infection or not, in terms of sleep disturbance management, unless one is really stuck on the etiology of insomnia and the knowing part might be psychologically helpful in some fashion, in turn possibly mitigating the disturbance. Otherwise, the management strategy transcends presumption versus verification.

Blame me, though I think I’ve tried to refrain in this thread from digging rabbit holes, planting land mines, lighting gas lamps, remotely flying arms-loaded drones, and standing on tall buildings with telescopic lens hoisted up to my face.😏 I spearheaded the convo about the estimates of true SARS-CoV infection to date because if you were never infected so far you cannot have COVID-specific sleep disturbance, physiologically that is. Pandemic stressors are another matter. And because the likelihood of never having been infected is surprisingly high, particularly among older persons. Well, what information do you (OP) have that could corroborate the hypothesis you put forward here? ?? There is typically a threshold of added information that assists other platform members to enter productive responses. There is nobody in my family or social network that, if uncertain about actual infection but experiencing new symptom presentation that COULD be a signature indicator of lingering COVID morbidity, wouldn’t be dragged by me to the venipuncture lab with a requisition in hand for assessing infection-induced antibodies. I would happily pay the mid-2-figure amount myself. The test will cover both types of antibodies: 1. the quantitative volume of spike (S) protein antibodies that inevitably resulted from infection alone, inevitably resulted from vaccination alone, or from both infection and vaccination (hybrid immune response), the test therefore accurately signifying past infection on its own only if not at all vaccinated with any dose because of the common feature of both infection and vaccination creating S antibodies. 2. the categorical binary (yes detected vs no not detected) of nucleocapsid protein (N) antibodies (not quantitatively depicted) that would be represented by having had SARS-CoV-2 infection or the disease COVID (terms used interchangeably) irrespective of vaccination uptake. The S volume is a bonus in the 2-for-1 procedure if one wishes to triangulate immunity information around trip-planning and booster or reboot formulation vaxx uptake timing. If my recent infection had been asymptomatic and not spurred infection testing I would have pursued, in the absence of knowing infection history to date, yet another N test before queuing for the Fall rollout. Similarly, I was in an early vaccination trial fraught with deficiencies and unblinded myself at 10 months at the point early trial data were reported regarding the percentages of poor levels of antibody titres for vaccine recipients. They had 10 months of follow-up and my data were not discarded because infection incidence rates are collapsed across total study cohort person-years. They only eventually got as far as 6-month immunogenicity for the study cohort anyway. Sure enough, my S antibody levels sucked, N antibody negative, and S levels then soared at the point a few days prior to boost dose of 2-dose mRNA primary series. Hit the road travelling abroad with a sense of solid artificial immunity yet realization of risk of infection. I would not have opened this can of worms but for the fact that a very sizeable proportion of the population assumes not having been infected when they actually have been infected and do possess N antibodies and, more to the point, approximately half of that proportion in volume terms among older folks have never been infected irrespective of their second-guessing assumptions about infection status … some 99%-100% of that population component would not know they don’t harbour N antibodies and it would not be front of mind anyway outside of the context of a clinical reason that renders expedient knowing the specifics of antibody status. Most are understandably fine with knocking over the hurdle bar while assuming infection immunity status, yet circumventing the high bar of definitive awareness. Since long-COVID morbidity is not dissimilar from unrelated disease or pathogens, any clinician assessing such in the context of unconfirmed past infection might be deemed to be out to lunch. The imperative of a simple N antibody test is greater among older folks because their past infection rates are the lowest for adults (estimated at 70-75% cumulatively in Canada, for example) and older folks are more likely to possess morbidity that resembles COVID symptom sequelae yet is truly unrelated if infection did not occur. Similarly, any adult person, particularly not older group, doggedly putting forward the logical fallacy that they have not been infected (we already know those subjective estimates fall short of reality) but claiming to have extended vaccination-induced morbidity should have the nucleocapsid antibody assay in order to possibly disabuse them of the claim, depending on the N binary result, that vaccination alone fucked them over.