SirBillybob

Transmission, otherwise known as secondary attack rates, isn’t amenable to measurement because the assessment context is heterologous. All households contain a variable mix of immunity and its temporality. Household members also engage with the outside world. You cannot design transmission efficacy without a clear assignment of two separate scenarios held constant. Such a prospective design is cost-probibitive. This is one of the reasons that the basis of vaccination is oriented to morbidity and mortality. To suggest an elective uptake is outrageous considering that most people making that decision would be lacking comprehension of risk or are simply contrarian; they would not tend to be cavalier about the right to choose and its potentially dire consequences. It is not incontrovertible that transmission is not reduced by uptake, for the design reasons I put forward.

You didn’t say it, I said it; but it’s a clinical heuristic consistent with your initial stratification of health status and knowing such arbitrary status being an albeit flimsy basis of sorting out to vaxx or not to vaxx. Again, an arbitrary dichotomy of healthy vs unhealthy is not predictive of vaccination value.

This is specious. If you consider healthy status to be dichotomously yes/no (as you seem to suggest) a viral infection is by definition representative of compromised health. A common cold caught at baseline health, irrespective of that health, shifts well-being status to unhealthy on the overall gradient of health/wellbeing. Nobody can possibly know what huge array of personal complex variables predispose them to morbidity and mortality upon CoV infection. As such, it would be ludicrous to stratify one’s potential benefit of vaccination according to knowing something essentially unknowable. The suggestion to bypass vaccination remains absurd. Science without logic falls flat.

Did you post research supporting this elsewhere? I am credentialed and have not come across any convincing data that underpins the assertion you just wrote. And exactly what proportion of deaths are followed by autopsy?! Obviously the risk is much less, to be sure. And while vaccination may be less imperative it offsets transmission to loved ones that possess higher morbidity/mortality risk. I just don’t see the point of this post and it is unrelated to the Florida data.

The 84% increase for males in that age group was not statistically significant. It was based on a total of 10 additional deaths than would be expected compared to the control period. That is 10 (rounded from 9.6) male cardiac deaths per hundreds of thousands of person years, among a huge age-specific population, above what would be exactly equal to the control period incidence. I don’t have time to estimate the excess rate (10 is the differential, not the rate) according to the denominators of Florida males vaxx’d from the get go. The lower bound of the confidence interval for 1.84 relative incidence is 1.05; take away one or two of those 10 deaths, legitimately due to common measurement error, and the lower bound drops below 1.0 … rendering the association meaningless and not clinically significant; again the inferential analysis lacks statistical power in the first place. Comparatively more overall population COVID deaths can likely be expected owing to the booster hesitancy this bulletin will spur. It would be easier and more sensible to spare single-figure cardiac death over some 18 months though lifestyle changes attenuating cardiovascular disease risk. What is particularly ludicrous is that the most convincing literal interpretation of the data is that neither gender age 25-39 should risk vaccination with ANY CoV vaccination platform on the basis of cardiac mortality risk. That subanalysis is statistically significant and the 2-fold short-term risk relative to the control period has a lower bound confidence interval much greater: 1.35 … much more measurement error required to nullify the association. However, it would be ridiculous to recommend no primary series or booster of any authorized platform typology for such a large proportion of the population. That science table is out to a buffet lunch.

Just found him. No reveals; don’t ask. Latest IG Dec 2021; looks good. Latest FB he is a gogo hunk in a 2015 photo with other Gogo hunks. They often age out early 20s. I would say he is a genuine provider to make a more decent income than dancers. What your experience would be? No clue. He is quite short in stature but I think a dynamite body. I have not met him but he runs with a crowd of providers off the sauna brothel scene. You never know what you will get. I hook up with just as good looking guys in Brazil for $50-80USD in curated escort settings.

I used to follow the guy in these photos on Instagram. I cannot for the life of me remember his name since I had to streamline due to endless app ads that meant taking ages to scroll thru posts. So deleted many follows. Not that I would give his name but it might aid in determining his legitimacy.

Thanks, better. I don’t care about PM Hx.

My question has not been answered. I received 3 seemingly differently worded suggestions. I cannot think of a better way to ask it. Can’t somebody simply indicate what exactly I will need to do, if anything? Never heard of Firefox. I know what my email for the board account is. I use Google as my browser. I have never learned to change a password for any application. I have in the past retrieved forgotten passwords but due to the graciousness of related systems. Please use simple language and apply it to the Google platform. I have 12 years of university but nothing in IT. If mastering unfamiliar tech is the price of membership I will likely just drop out due to diminishing returns. Probably best if RadioRob manages this, keeping it to one person using one tech jargon format.

I just noticed today a request to confirm my email for this board, which I did. It was at the bottom of scrolling through topic headings. I have no idea what my password is because the board opens when prompted according to my handle and the password is never truly requested so my memory fails me. So, a bit confused. After the change, in which I think I enter my email rather than click on my handle when prompted, will I need the password or will the board similarly open by default without the password?

Chiming in … sounds more like a massage+ review than a MPXV-centric piece. Ontario? I doubt the provider is RMT. When there I had a few RMT providers give multiple sessions regularly due to a problematic back. Three providers over 25+ years; hundreds of appointments. The Ontario regulatory body, like any other certifying professional College (in Ont they are not called Boards, etc) would prohibit sexual interaction no less vehemently than for a physician, nurse, psychologist, what have you. This guy could be hung out to dry and even sued by a client, however complicit. Additionally, RMT is title-protected and it is as illegal to advertise or claim RMT status as it is to claim for example physician status without the “College” license. I highly doubt this escort is certified or aware he is treading on thin ice claiming such. I suppose he could say he is “professionally trained” in massage therapy. Or he may be “registered” in his own mind because he had a crash course at some point. I realize that I am splitting hairs if he dances around his true qualifications and how he articulates them, but there are strict laws about how this is represented. (Writing from Colombia so $500CAD seems outrageous LOL)

I have been to Colombia recently. You must do their Check-Mig health declaration within 72 hours of your arrival, note arrival, not the boarding date and time. This application can be very temperamental, so be prepared to possibly sweat it out prior to successfully receiving the receipt with some of your data. Read about it online and consider viewing some YouTube tips. Do an image search to pull up some examples of what your receipt looks like. It appears within the application and is not emailed to you. The airline in Montreal required it to board. You declare that you are CoV-vaccinated but do not download it on Check-Mig, but be sure to have proof at the ready at Immigration in case asked. And get this, you must do it again to leave Colombia. Eeesh. Ostensibly to manage exposure of Colombians boarding flights out. And they are asking a few questions on the online form related to Smallpox (aka MPXV) as well; only about exposure / symptoms, NOT vaxx.

The paltry supply issued to Riverside County is disturbing, especially for those that want to be on the safe side in spite of substantial decline in case incidence in California, in which the Riverside case share is 5% (not depicted).

There are peers here wondering about a second booster, same situation as me. The Canadian guidelines do not recommend a second MVA-BN dose for most of us, that is, a boost dose single-figure weeks following prime for previously VARV unvaccinated or 2 consecutive boosters with a single-figure weeks interval for VARV-vaccinated decades ago. Moreover, the lack of access to a second dose is not attributable to vaccine supply chain; the guidance reflects best practices. That said, unrelated to stockpile or just-in-case imminent replenishing, I could neither get a second booster dose 8 weeks ago nor today if I wanted to. If you want to throw down, you could always challenge Canada’s immunization science table. But you would need to present detail that suggests you think just the right amount, not too much or too little. ————— For anybody here that accessed a 2nd MVA-BN dose, it is not ill-advised or contraindicated. My concerns about not accessing a second booster dose were minimal and further assuaged by Bavarian’s current publication of immunogenicity data that had already partially existed in the public domain. We now have a few sources of research that point to the residual protective benefit of the VARV vaccination that eliminated Smallpox.

The dosage is standard and the same for adults of all weights.

NACI concedes that common sense can override interval arbitrariness. It was expedient to administer Imvamune to circuit-break transmission.

The Canadian guidance is bidirectional. As I wrote, unknowns about amplifying cardiac risk that is itself subject to demographic variables, as well as sorting out what product would be considered to have prompted, say, a serious adverse event if products are given too closely together.

Bavarian Nordic has finally elaborately written up their old studies for Smallpox. A lot to unpack but corroborates my view of not needing to rush to get the 2nd MVA-BN dose. Let me put my situation this way: ‪So my 1st Imvamune dose is a *booster dose post childhood Vaccinia & noninferior to 2 current doses for Vaccinia-naïve even up to 2 yrs, but a 2-year ^booster for the latter group then supersedes the former. The 2nd *booster for Vaccinia-experienced in childhood seems superfluous for now; can defer to an undefined date.‬ The question, then, is when should we older guys pursue uptake of a 2nd *booster in order to more closely equivalize the titres conferred by a ^booster at 2.5 years (6 months past ^booster for the younger group), of course given unknowns about the correlation between immunity parameters and protection as well as crossover to Monkeypox immunity. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.07.22279689v1.full.pdf

Addendum: the above is deemed prudent but the imperative of MVA-BN ring PEP based on a defined presumed transmission event could logically override the delay.

Yes, 4 weeks before and after, either sequence of the two products. As a compounding of risk is unknown and the confounding of attribution of an adverse event is greater the shorter the interval.

As promised, I am indicating the small Jynneos dosing trial is now open to enrolment: Subjects cannot have received any yet. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05512949?recrs=ab&cond=Monkey+Pox&draw=2&rank=6

I follow it very closely. No, not yet. Possibly not at all. It will hinge on new case incidence trends, that seem to be dropping to about 1 case daily in 25,000 per capita wherein the denominator is adjusted to reflect the susceptible subpopulation. Additionally, the majority of MSM has not yet received an initial dose, likely mostly by choice and assessed risk factors. Another obviously relevant variable is current residual vaccine stock and anticipated future supply.

I wasn’t aware of this phenomenon. Could it be a ‘keloid scar’ that might occur for some not others? The CDC guidelines suggest the standard sub-cut dose over the new fractioned intradermal method for anyone with a history of keloid scarring. Reading between the lines, my tentative assumption is that a different location for intradermal is difficult to negotiate. I don’t know how easy it is to manoeuvre the preference of dose-specific format at point of care, or perhaps with a prescription. The risk then must be similarly considered for a 2nd intradermal. Might be simpler to fly in and out of Canada for the standard method, a decision also based on your interpretation of what might be better immunologically and as someone with childhood VARV vaccination. Whichever way, in particular for intradermal, make sure the vial has been swirled for homogeneity of doses extracted. Also your infection risk. I would probably roll up my sleeve now for the initial standard dose, if I hadn’t already a few months back, just because of the guidance, but I wonder if case incidence is naturally self-limiting and how much is attributable to vaccination campaigns. A dip in incidence is seen in Canada with about 20% of the target population having received at least one standard MVA-BN dose. A very substantial dip in case incidence in Spain is seen with merely 15,000 doses that reached only about 5% of the target population.

It’s odd that so many have anterior forearm marks, since the fractional dose intradermal method in that location of the body replaced the conventional dose subcutaneous route quite recently, usually given in the tricep area where my swollen redness (and others’, posting the same reaction on line) occurred in that location but resolved quickly. But it may be that the P-town fellows had recent vaccination of the later method and less time to fade? I assumed the intradermal, one puncture, would leave a temporary wheal but not a lasting scar. I believe anterior forearm is the preferred location for the intradermal because those administering it likely tend to be experienced with Mantoux tests where I believe the needle comes in at the same shallow angle and with the needle bevel facing up. It seems to be a bit more technically demanding, therefore best invariant. Also, apply no pressure to the area afterwards that would problematically distribute the product subcutaneously. You know how for venipuncture we apply pressure even with a bandaid? That’s a no-no even if a bandaid is administered that might prompt a knee jerk reaction of applying pressure as for blood draws.

I went to Campus this weekend for 75 minutes. I live nearby but visit very infrequently as I have not found it interesting for many years. I used to spend a lot of money there, hundreds per month, and my current disposable income is no less. This visit did not change my view. It was busy with all seating taken. It remains overall a good social space for gatherings of friends in a bar setting and the energy was good. I think it is fairly profitable for the owners. From arrival to a drink in hand took 55 minutes in spite of repeated signalling for attention. Not a problem for me as I drink water mainly, but a lot of patrons were getting up and trying to order at the bar because floor service was scant. This sort of deficit does not influence my venue ratings. Lack of service personnel is a known current chronic problem not necessarily related to management attitudes. The evidently impermeable plexiglass seal of the MSM private dance space seems misguided, if intended to obscure the area from gawking from the main bar. Air being the new poop, why compromise already negligible ventilation by creating a separate person-congested zone? An opaque hard partition perhaps with saloon doors, or fabric on a raised rod, either partly but not completely up to the ceiling, and leaving some open space above might have been more prudent to do the trick blocking views while better maintaining air circulation among the divisions. I wouldn’t personally vote to tear it out but it may have been a solution that could be deemed environmentally unsound. For all I know it may have been imposed by regulators of erotic entertainment disconnected from pandemic-related public health principles. Lest I be accused of venue favouritism, I should add that the other 3 stripper bars are not even on my radar.