MrAlex94

14 ms·

151.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
There are many factors at play: * Cost of vaccine * Ease of manufacturing * Ease of distribution * Prevention of severe cases and hospitalisations It seems all vaccines currently approved so far prevent hospitalisations completely. It won’t
152.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
70% efficacy in that case wouldn’t prevent an epidemic, but since it prevents hospitalisations and severe effects of the disease it’s still worth it.
153.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
Both vaccines seem to stop hospitalisations completely, which seems to be the most important part. > No hospitalisations or severe disease observed in the vaccinated groups from three weeks after first dose https://www.ox.ac.u
154.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
Seems at least 60% is good enough: > Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number=2.5–3.5). T
155.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
In the peer reviewed study for the vaccine, it showed that it prevented hospitalisations [1]. Surely that’s still valuable? Also a separate study seemed to show anywhere between 60% to 80% efficacy is needed depending on vaccine coverage -
156.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
AstraZeneca did not conduct the study, Oxford did from the looks of it in relation to the half dose. The independent regulator was aware at every stage and recommended they continue with trying the half dose trial. [1]( https://ww
157.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> Once the outcome disparity was noted, it's unimaginable that BOTH blunders would not be revealed: 1) low concentration in the first dose, and 2) exclusion of age 55+ patients. The regulator was aware at every step and recommended
158.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> Later, a vaccine candidate that has been proven safe in clinical trials could be given to a group of healthy adults in this age range, who are then exposed to the virus in a controlled environment. They would then be closely monitored
159.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
This is great news! Really nice to see another browser engine out there being developed. Hope to be able to use this in a project one day in the future and all the best to the team - quite a feat how far Servo has come in supporting web sta
160.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> There is no clear scientific evidence that increased outdoor lighting deters crimes. It may make us feel safer, but has not been shown to make us safer. https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-s.
161.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
Well, we won't find out until the trials end, but why would they have been approved to continue by safety boards if that wasn't the case? Also, the AZ trial was given the go-ahead along with the J&J trial. https://w
162.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> It uses a weakened live virus that can (and apparently has, in the case of the J&J vaccine, which is using very similar tech) cause serious adverse systemic reactions. There is no evidence to prove the vaccine has caused any seriou
163.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> Do scientists agree on climate change? > > Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. https://climate.nasa.gov/
164.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
Don't Barclays have their own already, called "Expert Sans"? Looks like it was designed in 2004 by Monotype.[1] 1: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040803005135/en/Agf...
165.
by MrAlex94 6y ago
> A company which receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore, the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition
166.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
Don't know if it's a British-ism or just me, but I would define it as someone who is pleasant.
167.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
And then the article says: "But secret assholes pretend to be nice too." So it's being able to tell the difference between someone genuinely nice and someone pretending to be nice? I guess that's just life and comes with
168.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> It's selling out because it was a nonprofit project, and now the Man owns it, and will try to monetize it. This is textbook selling out. I don't know if anyone is reading these comments anymore, but I'd like to point ou
169.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
I'm not sure I understand the criticism to my previous comment. If System1 would change any privacy aspects (which they won't) and I assume people are going to assume for worst case scenario - users would need to be notified. Then
170.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
Because they both have commercial elements, where the post was asking if there were any alternatives without? Also, a Pale Moon has start.me ( https://start.me/privacy ) by default, with this for its privacy policy: "Amo
171.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
Sorry that sounded a little arrogant, maybe I should’ve phrased as ‘my experience’ rather than ‘myself’.
172.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use. That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid issues like this. Nothing has even happened to Waterfox, but
173.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> And they are always lying. I’d like to believe I did enough due diligence to make sure that’s not the case.
174.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
Ah I see, fair enough.
175.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> Lots of fame in it for you. I’ve been doing Waterfox for near a decade, I don’t think that’s true. There were a few, but they ultimately got shut down. I think a few times due to legal issues. If anyone is planning to do something, ple
176.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> And I think you're unable to see or you're plainly ignoring the issue from concerned users perspective I don’t think that’s fair; I’ve done my best to reply to everyone. > what's more, you managed to insult them here
177.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> The correct line of action IMO would have be to tell straight the situation (urgent funding needed), then attempt to crowfund the development, and only then in case of failure sell to someone else. That way nobody could have complained
178.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> Did he, though? Reading his post here, it sounds like he never cared much about user privacy and thinks users were mistaken to assume that is the goal of this browser. I think that’s a bit harsh. I’ve always been privacy conscious and
179.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> He didn't sell a product, he sold a userbase and a brand. I mentioned it in the blog post, but System1 were after myself moreso than Waterfox.
180.
by MrAlex94 7y ago
> browser that was sold to them on the basis of privacy is now the property of an ad company it smacks of disrespect and dishonesty. I’m sorry but Waterfox has never been touted by a privacy tool in the same vein as something like Tor, a

More ›