India Battles a Second Covid-19 Wave and Vaccine Skepticism (nytimes.com) 111
An anonymous reader shares a report: India is racing to contain a second wave of the coronavirus, but its vaccination campaign is running into doubters like Akbar Mohamed Patel. A resident of Mumbai's densely populated slum area of Dharavi, Mr. Patel survived a severe bout of the coronavirus in May. The first wave prompted Mumbai officials to seal off his housing complex, confining thousands of people for nearly two months. Still, the current campaign has been marred by a slow initial government rollout, as well as skepticism and apathy from people like Mr. Patel and his neighbors. "On social media we come to know this is all a big game to make money," Mr. Patel said. Of the vaccine, he said, "many things have been hidden." The coronavirus, once seemingly in retreat, is again rippling across India. Confirmed infections have risen to about 31,600 daily from a low of about 9,800 in February. In a recent two-week period, deaths shot up 82 percent.
The outbreak is centered on the state of Maharashtra, home to Mumbai, the country's financial hub. Entire districts of the state have gone back into lockdown. Scientists are investigating whether a new strain found there is more virulent, like variants found in Britain, South Africa and Brazil. Officials are under pressure from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to aggressively ramp up testing and vaccination, especially in Mumbai, to avoid disruptions like last year's dramatic nationwide lockdown and resulting economic recession. "I am very categorical that we should stop it, contain it, just here," said Dr. Rahul Pandit, a critical care physician at a private hospital in Mumbai and a member of the Maharashtra Covid-19 task force. India's vaccination campaign could have global consequences. Last week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that an expected drop in Britain's Covid-19 vaccine supplies stemmed from a nearly monthlong delay in delivery of five million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine being manufactured in India. The reasons for the delay are not clear, but the manufacturer, Serum Institute of India, has said shipments will depend in part on domestic Indian needs.
The outbreak is centered on the state of Maharashtra, home to Mumbai, the country's financial hub. Entire districts of the state have gone back into lockdown. Scientists are investigating whether a new strain found there is more virulent, like variants found in Britain, South Africa and Brazil. Officials are under pressure from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to aggressively ramp up testing and vaccination, especially in Mumbai, to avoid disruptions like last year's dramatic nationwide lockdown and resulting economic recession. "I am very categorical that we should stop it, contain it, just here," said Dr. Rahul Pandit, a critical care physician at a private hospital in Mumbai and a member of the Maharashtra Covid-19 task force. India's vaccination campaign could have global consequences. Last week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that an expected drop in Britain's Covid-19 vaccine supplies stemmed from a nearly monthlong delay in delivery of five million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine being manufactured in India. The reasons for the delay are not clear, but the manufacturer, Serum Institute of India, has said shipments will depend in part on domestic Indian needs.
Nobody outside of possibly Israel... (Score:4, Insightful)
... is currently battling vaccine skepticism, as they're not enough vaccine for everyone who wants it. The battle against vaccine skepticism will only begin once supply outpaces demand.
Here we're at about 10,5% of the population having gotten at least one dose (15,3 total doses per 100 people), and that's actually quite good compared to the European average. No vaccines are going unused for want of an arm.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we are, let Darwin sort out who deserves to stay healthy and who gets to become a COVID long-hauler or take up residence in a pine condo.
It's not quite so doom and gloom. I'm very much pro-vaxx and just got my Johnson and Johnson shot last week, but those who don't aren't exactly going to be dropping like flies. Because of the way statistics work a large number of people may die (and already have), but the risk to any one individual is rather small.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who set her a social media profile name of hers to "(FirstName) 'Vaccinated' (LastName)" (then later changed it to "(FirstName) 'Fully Vaccinated' (LastName)") when she got vaccinated in January, and has kept it that way ever since. She says she does it because she wants to "normalize vaccination", but most people in the world already want to get vaccinated, but can't get it. I think it's so offensive non-stop pointing out the fact that you were able to get vaccinated against a deadly disea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your reading comprehension sucks:
She says she does it because she wants to "normalize vaccination"
Read it again.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet she's just excited about it. This is the endgame for a lot of peoples' shittiest-year-ever, and they have cause to celebrate. Shouting is one of the ways some people do that.
I won't deny she's flaunting her good fortune, but that's not uncommon on social media. If it happens to be Facebook or Instagram, then even your "well-fed" example happens to actually be pretty common (plenty of meals and beer flight photos on there). Seems like in over half the photos where someone "tagged" me on Facebook, I'm d
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who set her a social media profile name of hers to "(FirstName) 'Vaccinated' (LastName)" (then later changed it to "(FirstName) 'Fully Vaccinated' (LastName)") when she got vaccinated in January, and has kept it that way ever since. She says she does it because she wants to "normalize vaccination"
I know someone who got vaccinated willingly because their friend did something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
but most people in the world already want to get vaccinated, but can't get it.
Only about 50% of Republican men [arstechnica.com] would choose to be vaccinated.
But they are often times living in their own little world. So maybe it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:3)
...Once we are, let Darwin sort out who deserves to stay healthy and who gets to become a COVID long-hauler or take up residence in a pine condo.
That would be fine if the people who caught the virus kept it to themselves, but half of the reason to vaccinate people is that we want to break the chain of transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is the case in various parts of the world, but in my area, there's not really any problem getting the vaccine if you want.
I got my first shot on a Tues after deciding to look for appointments the day before...and there were openings available all days that week...when I got to where they were giving them (a CVS store) it wasn't really crowded or anything.
I know several people...folks that are intelligent and have
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps this is Darwin in motion again....people self selecting to remove themselves from the gene pool?
People dying from COVID-19 are not typically those young enough to reproduce, so Darwin's law doesn't apply very well here.
Re: (Score:3)
Survival of the Fittest doesn't cover death, but reproduction. COVID19 is leaving people with long term and probably permanent illnesses, reducing their likelihood of finding mates, so it does apply. Damage includes lung and heart damage, kidney problems, arthritis, possible brain damage, loss of the senses of taste and smell, among others. This is the gift that's going to keep on giving for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID19 is leaving people with long term and probably permanent illnesses, reducing their likelihood of finding mates
I doubt this is true. People 40 and below, and especially 30 and below, which are those likely to get kids after the pandemic, are not getting big consequences from COVID19. A lot of people are even asymptomatic. I reduces chances to reproduce by exactly 0%.
Re: (Score:2)
Asymptomatic people have been showing signs of lung and heart damage, to start with. https://www.webmd.com/lung/new... [webmd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Must not be very frequent, otherwise we'd know it. Unless it somehow triggers more than a year after being infected.
Re: (Score:2)
From the link which you obviously didn't read: "Across four different studies of people with asymptomatic infections, about half have had ground glass opacities on CT scans."
Re: (Score:2)
As of January 2021, the precise incidence was unknown. The incidence declines over time, as many people slowly recover. Some early studies suggested that between 20% and 33% of people with COVID-19 experienced symptoms lasting longer than a month
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So in short, most people are not going to have long term effect.
risk factors for long COVID may include:
Age – particularly those aged over 50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So again, it affects mostly those too old to have kids anyways
Conclusion: Darwin's law will have very limited effect.
Re: (Score:2)
It may have something to do with the strain contracted or individual genetics. It's ripping the guts out of Peru, and among my wife's family (in addition to over a dozen deaths in people from 20s to 80s) 2 have arthritis, 2 have kidney problems, 1 still has problems ascending a single flight of stairs after 4 months, several have not gotten back their sense of smell/taste (an atrocity in a country with food that good), 1 appears to have developed liver problems, another is still losing weight 6 months afte
Re: (Score:2)
Well do you have any non-anecdotal evidence about that? Being not an expert in the field, I tend to rely on what is said on Wikipedia, which seems to have a pretty complete article on long covid.
Re: (Score:2)
I would take the CDC's word on this in preference to Wikipedia. Long term studies are now under way, they don't bother with those unless there is enough evidence to warrant further study.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've seen that page. But it doesn't give any hint on how frequent or how serious the problem is.
If it were badly affecting people under 40 to the point that it significantly reduces their chances to reproduce, I think we'd already know it.
There are 124 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide. The sample is big enough.
Re: (Score:2)
also there is one important sentence in your linked page:
While most persons with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients can have symptoms that can last for weeks or even months after recovery from acute illness
So again, everything points out that Darwin's law won't have much effect. Most people getting COVID-19 will be just as likely to get kids as if they didn't. And so will their kids.
And censorship doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
I know several people...folks that are intelligent and have good jobs, that are if nothing else, hesitant for various reasons.
It doesn't help that the anti side of the discussion is heavily censored by social media.
If your position is really the correct one, then it should stand against the counter arguments on its own. People should be able to view your argument alongside the counter-arguments, and decide "well, that doesn't make sense. I'll go with this other one".
Winning the argument by censoring or suppressing the counter argument is quite the wrong way to do it, and only makes people think you're hiding something. Usually "hiding something" means "has a motive to take advantage of the reader" so it causes more skepticism, not less.
Scott Adams recently pointed out that there's virtually *no* news of vaccine related side effects, which is suspicious because before the vaccine there were predictions of side effects but now there are none.
So which is better: saying that there could be side effects, citing the probability of effects along with probability of Covid (or death from Covid, or whatever), or suppressing the other side with hand-waving and saying "getting the vaccine is better" with no counter arguments for comparison?
The 2nd path leads people to think something is wrong. We have the phrase "what are they hiding?" for a reason.
People seem to think that censoring one side of an opinion is the answer. It doesn't help, and actually makes matters worse.
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
If your position is really the correct one, then it should stand against the counter arguments on its own. People should be able to view your argument alongside the counter-arguments, and decide "well, that doesn't make sense. I'll go with this other one".
You clearly don't understand the anti-vaxers if you think you can win them with a rational argument.
The last one I spoke to was basically
him: You shouldn't take an experimental vaccine
me: it's not experimental, it's been approved and results have been published in peer-reviewed journals, here is the link
him: but it's been tested only during X months and it usually takes years
me: OK, so after 5 years, would you take it?
him: No, because it's an experimental vaccine, I would never have that injected in my veins
me: It's not in the veins it's in the muscle
him: but it's still experimental, mRNA vaccines were never used before.
me: OK, so would you take the AstraZeneca vaccine instead?
him: No, because it can cause blood clots
me: There is no significant increase in blood clots, here are the numbers. But even if there was, it's still a lot less likely than dying from COVID-19
him: but I trust my immune system, so I don't need the vaccine anyways, why don't you trust your immune system and want an experimental vaccine?
me: It's not about you and I, we collectively need a high amount of vaccinated people to win the fight against the virus and start living normally again
him: it's a fake pandemic anyways, they fake the numbers to force us to get the vaccine
me: you are not forced
You really can't convince them with rational arguments.
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks he respects facts and science and I didn't. That's the problem to begin with.
Not all vaccines are safe (Score:2)
A friend in the Philippines recently pointed out why the people there are skeptical about the COVID vaccines. They remember Denvaxia [wikipedia.org] like it was yesterday. Oh, wait - it pretty much was "just yesterday".
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't trust a vaccine only approved in 3rd world countries either, which was the case for Dengvaxia when it was first used in the Philippines.
It turns out it's not a bad vaccine, but should only be administered to those who, like me, had dengue fever before, but also live in a risky (tropical) area.
So what, though? (Score:2)
The fact you're unable to convince a hard-core "anti-vax" person to get the COVID vaccine with logic doesn't justify a need to resort to censoring anything you can find that speaks negatively about it! That's the original (and VERY valid point) that was made.
You can't convince a certain percentage of people about almost anything.... We still have a "Flat Earth Society", among other things.
The older I get, the more I'm "ok" with that -- because either A) it really won't matter anyway in the grand scheme of
Re: (Score:2)
But does your right to "put whatever they want in their own bodies, or refuse to" include your right to spew virus every where you go? I'm turning 60 next month and have asthma and have had a couple of bad bouts with pneumonia already, I feel very strongly that you do **NOT** have the right to kill me with your Libertardian religion. We eliminated smallpox) with mandatory programs (and were very close to eliminating polio until the CIA played with the vaccination program. I can guarantee you don't want t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccine is never 100% efficient. And some people have conditions where they can't take it. We need maybe 80% of the population to get it to get rid of the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the thing.
We will never get rid of the virus...just like we never get rid of the flu or cold virus.
At some point, you have to trust the vaccines and go on with life.
At some point, most of the people will either be vaccinated, and/or have had the disease (possible asymptomatic)...and will be going on about normal life again like
Also.... regarding: (Score:2)
>him: You shouldn't take an experimental vaccine
>me: it's not experimental, it's been approved and results have been published in peer-reviewed journals, here is the link
>him: but it's been tested only during X months and it usually takes years
>me: OK, so after 5 years, would you take it?
I would have responded a bit differently here, but still with some skepticism.... The approval process itself does concern me here, because there's been SO much pressure to get a vaccine to market ASAP, I don'
Re: (Score:2)
There's one theory circulating that COVID is going to mutate into less deadly forms
No, that's a hypothesis generated by wishful thinking. There's no evidence that may be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they did take some shortcuts to get the vaccines approved. They now injected millions of people. Far more than any clinical trial. And they started with the old and vulnerable people. When it becomes my turn (should be in June), I'll be far more confident in getting the vaccine I'll get for COVID-19 than many other "regular" vaccines developed without taking any shortcuts.
And yes, there are concerns with vaccines. It's just that the benefits outweigh the risks, and by a lot.
There won't be any forced
Re: (Score:2)
by the way yes the muscle vs vein is a technicality. The main point was that he was always coming back saying the vaccine is "experimental", even if it's not, by definition, because it's been approved.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who are mostly rational should already be able to inform themselves and conclude COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sometimes people donâ(TM)t want to hear the truth because they donâ(TM)t want their illusions destroyed" --Friedrich Nietzsche (b. 1844)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying censorship is the way to go. Only that we must accept that some anti-vax are a lost cause and will never be convinced by a rational argument.
Re: (Score:2)
In a debate, your goal should be to convince the audience, not your opponent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well thanks, I'll think about it next time I am debating with this guy live on prime time TV. Except it's not going to happen.
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:4, Interesting)
"When was the pro-censorship side ever on the right side of history?" Answer - when the information being censored is military intelligence when fighting a war. Of course a pandemic is not a shooting war, it is a different kind of war. The consequences of losing the pandemic battle are actually more expensive than losing a shooting war seeing as the pandemic kills civilians overwhelmingly. A nation that leaked military information as a matter of "freedom of speech" is not going to be under the same management for very long. One wonders if a nation that thinks spreading misinformation about public health measures is a "free speech" issue is going to stay under the same management very long either. We live in interesting times.
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:5, Interesting)
"When was the pro-censorship side ever on the right side of history?" Answer - when the information being censored is military intelligence when fighting a war.
Deception is an important part of military strategy. So censorship and lying can be justified.
Deception is not a part of public health policy. On the contrary, it is trust that is important.
Re: (Score:2)
A good example is the 1918 flu. It originated in the United States, but at the time it was known as the "Spanish Flu" because Spain was neutral in WW1 and didn't censor news about the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
How about when Britain and the US censored pro-Naz1 propaganda? When Twitter cut off discussion of planning for a cross burning in front of a black family's house because the son was dating a white girl? There are plenty of times when censorship is called for.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. By definition, when it's approved, even by EUA, it's no longer experimental.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in the USA therefore the FDA has no jurisdiction here. Many countries approved vaccines using regular procedures.
Place to check covid vacine side effects (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To check Covid vaccine side effects go to OpenVAERS [openvaers.com].
This is awesome data, but one thing that you must be aware of: Anyone who dies within 60 days of getting the vaccine is on this list. Regardless of the actual cause of death. You'll notice a huge portion of the deaths are 85+ years old and listed as already in a nursing home or assisted living situation.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, to be fair...we've seen a LOT of the same thing when it comes to attributing cause of death to covid, when it might not have been the actual cause...etc. Especially early on, there's potential signs t
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, there's a difference between seeing a body in a pool of blood and a series of injuries consistent with a stab wound and saying murdered and claiming I saw him drink water last week, that's probably what did it.
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-Vaxxers Misuse Federal Data to Falsely Claim COVID Vaccines Are Dangerous [vice.com]
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a remedy can legally be sold, its contents is printed on the package or on the leaflet coming with it.
Homeopathic, natural or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll guarantee you that a tomato does not come with a label of ingredients, and I'm going to be putting a couple of them in my body in a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Guaranteed the side effects of catching coronavirus are worse than the side effects of getting the vaccine.
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I stopped reading dilbert back in 2017 or so when I realised he is a Trump supporter. Not that it makes a difference to anyone, but in my mind it does make a difference to me.
Re:And censorship doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
I know several people...folks that are intelligent and have good jobs, that are if nothing else, hesitant for various reasons.
It doesn't help that the anti side of the discussion is heavily censored by social media.
If your position is really the correct one, then it should stand against the counter arguments on its own. People should be able to view your argument alongside the counter-arguments, and decide "well, that doesn't make sense. I'll go with this other one".
This is Utopian and Pollyannaish. It assumes that propaganda and marketing are impotent because all listeners are completely driven by reason. The only reason to favor such a hands-off approach is not because such a system works but because the alterative requires trusting a censor and is frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help that the anti side of the discussion is heavily censored by social media.
I don't agree at all.
Psychologically, the mere casual exposure to all this bullshit is harmful. It's like the the many memes and jokes about "the people up there not caring about us" or "hahaha! the vaccine will give you green horns!". If you merely expose people to hundreds of these things, this will leave psychological scars - even if you know that they are bullshit.
So I'm all for the current system of "if you search for it, you will find the bullshit you are looking for - but you have to do the first
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, social media isn't a forum for reasoned debate and logic. That's not why people go there, and it won't happen there. Even if you let the 'tards scream fire.
Speaking of which, how do you reconcile your conspirational "no news of vaccine related side-effects" with your next sentence noting the side-effects widely reported in the media and many nations pulling it to investigate said effects, also reported heavily in the media?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is a massive amount of vaccine-access inequality around the world. Israel, US, and UK (and a couple tiny areas) have lots. Most places have little to none.
Re: (Score:2)
"lots" = still not everyone can get it in the US and UK, and it's rather luck-of-the-draw based on who you are, where you are, timing, etc. Most states in the US are still only up to 20-30% for the first dose, 10-17% or so for the second.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your anecdote and raise you I have been refreshing multiple "schedule an appointment" pages multiple times a day ever since I became eligible in my state and I'm still getting "no appointments available". I know several others in a similar situation.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, but we must start the fight against vaccine skepticism now so that when the time comes, these people get vaccinated.
It's the kind of thing (Score:3, Interesting)
You get people yelling about their freedom to get sick & die instead of questioning why they have to get sick & die in the first place.
You also condition people to think of gov't as unhelpful at best and harmful at worst, instead of as a positive force for good in their lives. This in turn encourages them to abstain from taking part in Demo
Re: (Score:2)
"Government is the problem." - Ronnie Raygun, aka "the great communicator"
Here in the US we've got Farrakhan's followers ... (Score:2)
Nobody outside of possibly Israel... is currently battling vaccine skepticism, as they're not enough vaccine for everyone who wants it.
Not so. Here in the US, for instance, we've got Farrakhan's followers, just for starters.
After the change in administration Biden's people scrapped Trump's plans for distribution and tried to substitute a policy correcting "severe and pervasive health and social inequities in America." by prioritizing "For instance, people of color ..." [whitehouse.gov] in, among other things, access to vac
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Those who don't want it but couldn't get it.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are a crowd of people with identical ideas on every issue (no matter how, for instance, some politicians try to social-pressure their followers into Politically Correct conformity, while others try to pressure them into a set of distinct stereotypes and play them
Fake News - scepticism and anti-vax not the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
India has administered 45 million doses, but sold 35 million abroad to make money. Trying to manufacture a narrative about large number of people unwilling to be vaccinated is distraction from reality. Pointing out a single case or two of antivax people is silly.
Slashdot saying link to Deutsche Welle about this blocked as "ascii art", article on dw.com is "Has India's coronavirus vaccine diplomacy hit a hurdle?"
Re:Fake News - scepticism and anti-vax not the iss (Score:5, Informative)
Make the money you say:
India has given millions of vaccines for free already [japantimes.co.jp] while the liberal USA sits on piles of soon to expire vials and its nerds debate if it should be given or not.
Vaccine drive IS being affected by scepticism. India, in a bid to keep the price low and the vaccine out of the black market, has only allowed elderly people to get the vaccine. Elderly people are the most sceptic of them all, so it had a lot of surpluses. As of now, the Covid-19 cases are rising and just today the Indian government has allowed 45+ old people to get the vaccine too as it hurries to contain the spread.
Lastly, the muslim people of India doubts the existence of coronavirus itself. They are mostly uneducated as they hate English education and the Hindu government. Muslims leaders [india.com] are openly asking people to not take vaccines
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, India's big pharmy are making the money, India's government (really the citizens!) pays bill, ... yet they only have 45 million vaccinated while big pharmy sent away 35 million because they got their money. Indian citizens are getting screwed over.
And no, skepticism not a big iissue, there are hundreds of millions of Indians who would get the vaccine if they could.
You are mischaracterizing the real situation, India is not taking care of its people while screwing them over by taking their tax dollars
Re: (Score:2)
You are repeating your point and have obviously not followed it closely enough to make an informed decision on what is right or wrong.
Here [reuters.com]
Serum Institute of India, which is a private entity just like Pfizer, has taken order of 70 million doses and has deliverd 14 million so far.
Where did you get this 35 million
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a good article that might actually help you understand your own culpability in this matter:
India coronavirus: Can its vaccine producers meet demand? [bbc.com]
Furthermore, the vaccine was developed in Oxford and SII is contractually obligated to supply it in equal amounts to countries that are able to buy (and at a fixed pr
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't even read the article you linked with comprehension. There is NO LIMIT on the amount of vaccines the THREE domestic makers are making for domestic use, and they were even told by the government to prioritize domestic production, but they are not.
You don't get an opinion, ignorant child.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it completely. You didn't even read what I wrote which is that SII is contractually obligated to supply a large number of vaccines to other countries where AstraZeneca/Oxford want. The only way to stop that is if the Indian government passes a bill to nullify that contract and never get any other vaccines being built in India.
Re: (Score:2)
False, SII can and is ordered to supply domestic need independent of and before considering any foreign contracts.
Re:Fake News - scepticism and anti-vax not the iss (Score:4, Interesting)
"while the liberal USA sits on piles of soon to expire vials and its nerds debate if it should be given or not."
You are a bit behind the news... The US has decided to ship it's current supply of the A-Z vaccine to Mexico and Canada to help there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I am always bringing facts to anti-India and Hinduphobic rhetoric in an attempt to raise the bar of discussion. If data makes you look bad it is not flaw for being instrumental in making you look like a bullshitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Government credibility (Score:1)
They are only at wave 2 when others are at wave 3? (Score:2)
They are only at wave 2 when others are at wave 3?
Re: (Score:1)
But mah freedoms!
outsourcing vaccines to India? (Score:2)
...an expected drop in Britain's Covid-19 vaccine supplies stemmed from a nearly monthlong delay in delivery of five million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine being manufactured in India.
I am all for the right of free trade, but how about more judicious decisions by those engaging in it?
Everyone knows the deal with outsourcing to India and China. It is lower cost but higher risk and that works to the advantage of some customers, depending on their risk profiles and expertise in those markets. However, procuring vaccines is a very risk-sensitive endeavor because lives depend on it. So outsourcing vaccine production to a nation with a high-trust business culture, such as Germany or Switz
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, get your head out of the sand once in a while. The world has not "outsourced" its weapon manufacturing to the USA. Serum Institute of India manufactures and exports medicines all over the world.
Not everything is a software you know.
This does sort itself out (Score:2)
More virulent? (Score:1)
> investigating whether a new strain found there is more virulent
It's a virus. It's 100% virulent. What else could it be, bacteria-like?
Re: (Score:2)
> investigating whether a new strain found there is more virulent
It's a virus. It's 100% virulent. What else could it be, bacteria-like?
I think that was intended as a pun ("virus" stems from the Latin virus, "poison", while virulent stems from the Latin virulentus, "poisonous") but indeed, some viruses are more virulent than others, just as some poisons are more poisonous than others.
Re: (Score:2)
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
You might want to check your comprehension of english language.
Don't bother being smug on TV (Score:3)
Focus on stories about vaccines being stolen, people skipping the line, stuff that puts value on the vaccines.
If you do the ol "take vaccines, listen to us, we're smarter than you" shit you usually do, you will end up with a shitload of anti-vaxxers, because those are better at the charisma game.
New Variants in India (Score:3)
As I predicted [baheyeldin.com] a few days ago: any place that is not controlling the pandemic enough will be a breeding grounds for variants, because more generations means more chances for the virus to mutate and more natural selection for more infectivity, and more immune evasion.
India is one of these places that I predicted, because they cannot impose strict stay at home orders because of economic concerns (many labourers there earn their living day to day).
And sure enough, there is now a variant in India [bbc.com], with E484Q (not E484K like in South Africa and Brazil), and L452R.
Together with position 501, 484 seems to be under selection pressure with variants showing the same mutations in different parts of the planet.