SirBillybob

I don’t know if this article will link because it is a paid subscription. Montreal is one of the central (and was the 1st) of Pornhub headquarters, unbeknownst to me. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-working-to-address-child-pornography-as-montreal-based-pornhub/ If you cannot access the article you can likely look up a New York Times piece about it.

Top or bottom? Cut or uncut? Incall or outcall? Cash or credit? Boom.

So, back to Brazil ... Talk about all over the place. The state of São Paulo may be utilizing the CoronaVac vaccine, a China-Brazil collaboration, administering it on an emergency basis starting in January, because it will be able to access and assemble the constituent elements very quickly. Brazil, mainly healthcare workers there, has been one of the major Phase 3 study locations but there are no efficacy results yet released. Apparently the threshold number of infection cases has been reached, or will be soon, and we should see the data imminently. São Paulo represents a one-fifth share of the nation’s population.

My main source of providers is Brazil. I had myself only signed up to Facebook and Instagram a few years ago. I was surprised when I realized the link between their (and I assume my own) Whatsapp number and the “people you may know, discover people, etc” aspects of social media. Over time, more and more of them seem to be ‘privatizing’ their accounts, omitting their number (like I do) from their account registration, or I suspect if they have a high yield business they may use an exclusive number for clients. I myself have omitted my mobile number ... I only have the one ... and I get annoying reminders to enter that data. At first, I found it awkward to use their pseudonym in conversation with them if I knew it was manufactured, or sometimes I thought their real name suited them better (LOL, I want to be a bossy nom de plume consultant). I have written off many an ad based on a lame name, that is, a first and/or surname that can theoretically exist in the real world. Parenthetically, It bugged me a little when a provider up here in North America, likely due to his own shortsightedness, for many years used the wrong Romance language spelling version of a name that he intended to pair with the particular Mediterranean country that he identified as his roots. I teased him by using a dramatic accent associated with the country from which he devised the spelling he chose but that was not his background. He did not speak any Med language. Ironically, his true given name in my view did not suit his actual ethnic background. You know what I mean about saying a name ... it is personable to use someone’s name when conversing with them. But then I noticed with the Brasileiro fellows that I only got called “baby”, “bb”, etc in conversation or text, so I started doing the same. Mind you, they have to deal with countless of the generic “baby” punters, and an error for them may be costlier, while I tend to be selectively obsessed and cannot for the life of me forget any of their particulars!

Cute. Anyone’s guess. Actually, if Cuba makes like Sputnik and remains spaced from other nations it does not urgently need a vaccine, having had only 1 case per 1,390 population and 1 death per 83,000 population. It is not improbable that the overall death rate will be lower because of the lack of tourists potentially bringing seasonal influenza into the country. It is somewhat of a powerhouse in general vaccine development and has a few of its own candidates that will not easily be studied within its own population because the case incidence is too low, and it lacks the resources to launch Phase 3 trials in other countries. Cuba’s COVID crisis is more economic than health-related, with drastic food shortages. Queues for food far exceed those of coronavirus testing. Getting back on its feet will hinge on eventual incoming tourists that will have had vaccination accomplished. Canadian snowbirds are a big source of tourism revenue but it will be at least a year before that occurs. I wonder if the global shake-up will alter US-Cuba relations in a way that assists Cuba to recover. Until Cuba regains sufficient capital to perhaps be able to import a vaccine it will likely be among those countries relying on the global COVAX initiative.

The constellation

Looks like Brazil is forging ahead with UK-based Oxford-AstraZeneca’s vaccine as its first line vaccine, while the UK is forging ahead with US-Germany based Pfizer-BioNTech’s product (manufactured in Belgium) for its initial rollout. Not surprising for Brazil given the cold-storage challenges for a nation in tropical/subtropical climate along with a vast size and scattering of remote areas. ——— Addendum: the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been officially ruled out for Brazil.

I would venture to say is genuine. Might be his first time in Stockholm. Seems to have been in Brussels a lot. Phone number is the same one he gave me in Zürich 30 months ago.

I was only referring to a Laval U Medical Anthropologist’s reference in the press to changing poll data. I think that the poll questions are very brief and basic. I have not drilled down to explanatory variables within her research or that of others in Canada. The latest poll occurred, I believe, prior to the 2nd week of November release of vaccine data, but within the window of the second wave equalizing or surpassing the May peak. It seems that vaccine interest nationally is decreasing in spite of no sign of case incidence waning. Quebec province’s uptake of flu vaccine historically, however, has been the lowest in the nation. But your question is certainly pertinent given the same poll results by that same researcher in Quebec yielded 75% in favour of vaccination 6 months ago, dropping to 25% currently!

As far as the question of Montreal clubs goes, add to this that a vast majority of Québecois, more so Francophones than Anglophones, are resistant or tentative about COVID vaccination ... only about 25% reporting interest and intent in potential early inoculation rollout.

Manitoba is now trending worse than approximately a dozen USA states. There is significant permeability at the border even within the guidelines. I don’t think we will see Montreal strip clubs re/opening for a long long time. The case incidence modelling is very alarming unless people’s current behaviour changes.

Months ago the Canada-China collab based in Nova Scotia collapsed over political issues. ———- Dozens of vaccine candidates have lost the likelihood of sufficiently recruiting for Phase 2/3 trials because they would require volunteer commitments of time that may exceed the distribution of the few promising vaccines that people will be eager to take if available. I am trying to volunteer for the first candidate that is recently approved in Canada along with a likely Montreal study location, but now I have second thoughts, as the company likely has as well. Following huge sums of government money thrown at vaccine research there is likely tension between funding for research/development and massive production/distribution. Much will depend on future incidence rates versus approved vaccines reaching everybody.

Solo videos from many years ago done with MuscleHunks and PowerMen. You can Google search using his name + porn.

Montreal stripper Malik has just started an account at Onlyfans: malikdelgaty. This coincides with a new Twitter account with one blurred out solo JO teaser but who knows how much will be presented on OF? I have been disappointed by the content of two Brazilians’ accounts ... Brazilians in Brazil, not Canada ... this month and won’t be checking out our hometown lad Malik’s unless he ‘stocks’ (pun intended) it with plenty of, and sufficiently x-rated, material. You would think these local strippers getting filmed masturbating at Stock should not restrict their paid-for content.

Right you are. And Studio 54 was shot in Toronto. Big Sky was originally to have been filmed in New Mexico. Some of the border exceptions seem to have been keeping ‘Hollywood North’ a bit active. ——- Though Vancouver filming has not spared Richard Schiff hospitalization there due to CoV. And his time in the West Wing was long before the pandemic. Apparently he and his wife acquired it in the community, not specifically on set.

Better in Montana than Studio 54 ... there’d have been major rioting and cinema walkouts.

Hahahah. She looked so familiar but older, I had to look up her background. The casting call: “a live Mrs Bates”. But what a shocker/ hook in the pilot.

Some of what people are suggesting is missing information is contained in the very lengthy study protocols. They are accessible in the public domain. The primary endpoint variable is the binary: vaccination vs placebo among those without known prior infection. The assumption is that individuals as an overall group of 40,000 behave in the same manner with respect to behaviour, mitigation, etc. I believe that similar results have been obtained thus far for one of the secondary endpoints that includes a composite of participants with or without prior infection. I do not know the percentage of prior infection scooped into recruitment but it was deliberate. The updated (rounded) effectiveness ratio is 20:1, not 9:1, but what I want to know is the average time frame for the vaccination assignment group’s population-adjusted infection rate of 40 per 100,000 because total cases puts it on par with, for example, New Zealand’s total since the pandemic commenced. I believe the longest time frame begins at the end of August, a month following the study commencement. One of the BioNTech’s scientists cautions that the current results translate to expectations of halving transmission patterns one might otherwise see a year from now.

Updated to 95%, as by now many of you will know.

Boom! What did I tell you 5 days ago (re: Pfizer-BioNTech)?! Though it’s clearer now that the add-on is number of participants at the same time point from baseline (that had not been reached a week ago at first release), not an additional week of surveillance. I had thought that the vaccinated that got infected might have been outliers that needed a bit of extra time to develop immunity.

Just throw it a bone, perhaps giving it credit for two versions of vaccine candidates undergoing clinical investigation: inactivated; subunit sub-particle virus.

I neither know Garrett nor watch American stations but I just read an extensive piece she wrote on vaccination in Foreign Policy. She totally distorted the main clearly delineated finding Pfizer released ... cringeworthy ... then proceeded to grouse about the scarcity of additional details. If she is a credible med science reporter, she could pay attention to how her wording in one sentence describing a central result contradicts the wording in another sentence, or get a skilled editor. Every one of her statements should accurately reflect the data. Much of the lack of study results detail is attributable to the early stage of the research. Moreover, the companies are wise to be parsimonious at this point because if journalistic distortion is going to occur, best to reduce the bullet points and breadth of misinterpretation. The few Infectious Diseases experts I have read a bit critically appraising the two studies’ early results are naming limitations that you will find in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Discussions sections when published. The authors won’t need to take cues from the input of experts interviewed by the press.

I can try to answer your question but I am not sure what you mean by “it’s” (did you forget “that” later in the sentence, and I don’t know what you mean by “less severe” ... less compared to Pfizer? Less than some other thing? I don’t know why you think I may be downplaying good news (if you are thinking that) in such a way that negates the idea of a win. The prospects for emergency authorization are good since the standard is 50% at 2-month follow-up. Sign me up. I doubt any of us are reading the same stuff as it is so ubiquitous. I did not catch any reports regarding infection severity in the Pfizer release and I have yet to understand whether they only counted symptomatic cases as incidents of infection. I am only going to pay attention to the company press releases and not try to second-guess too many comparisons or get caught up in the distortions that often occur by journalists’ interpretations. I can tell you that the Pfizer release does not mention infection severity. Because greater severity is rare for something else that is already rare (ie, infection over the short duration), there is currently lacking statistical power to compare the two studies, or in fact the two arms within either study, according to a greater threshold of severity on the severity continuum. Moderna reported that the small number of infections accompanied by greater disease severity were all in the placebo group, as would be expected since the number of infection cases therein was high enough to contain the low rate of greater severity that occurs in the general population. There were insufficient cases in the vaccinated group to stratify on a severity gradient or to mirror the rate of greater severity in the placebo group or gen pop. That about ~10% of cases, so far, among the unvaccinated are considered severe, assuming all infection cases are captured, provides additional support for the benefit of vaccination uptake, and may sway some of the vaxx naysayers or the relative neutrals/fence-sitters that downplay how sick one can be if infected.

It is generally good news. Cannot wait to read the published versions. Among a subgroup of 5 vaxx arm participants that were infected, you would not expect any to have a severe case beyond coin-toss odds, given about 10% of those infected in placebo arm met severity criteria. Therefore, Moderna answered a question that is among those typically front of mind, but prematurely assessed at this stage. This comes back to whether vaccination can mitigate severity even if infection occurs. ——— So far, Pfizer has conceded placebo participants can elect to be vaccinated when the product is approved and regulated. One of the reasons I am curious about severity is that Moderna’s severity rate is high enough that one would anticipate placebo participants in either of these two trials of a similar class of vaccine to pursue study unmasking and receive the two doses. The original long term durability assessment would then rest on a reduced placebo arm. I wonder if we will see Pfizer’s 5-week results this week. If 20-25% more placebo arm are infected, adding the additional week to 4 weeks (1 additional week subsequent to second dose), the two study results are even more similar. If I recall correctly, Pfizer already reported that 2 weeks post final dose might confer better protection. What is strategically better for press release and attention-grabbing than 95% effectiveness at 5 weeks? ... 90% at 4 weeks followed by greater than 90% at 5 weeks.

Moderna’s preliminary results are released and similarly promising. Apparently their protocol specifies novel detecting coronavirus infection irrespective of symptoms, but Pfizer’s does not specify tracking asymptomatic cases. Yet the overall placebo arm infection rates reported are similar to each other and consistent with general community rates. A bit confusing since only counting symptomatic cases biases results, and one would expect differences unless both candidates track the same way. Perhaps the two candidates have similar infection tracking after all and it is a question of wording in the Pfizer protocol. I suppose it hinges as well on frequency of visits because they would have to be spaced fairly closely to capture evidence of infection among the asymptomatic. What the Moderna report suggests, however, is that greater case severity occurs in at least 10% of all cases including asymptomatic. That contradicts a lot of layperson claims that severely symptomatic cases are rare.