Bi moralo bit ravno obratno. Ukinit kovid dodatke za cepljene, saj so na varni strani.
Če priznavajo učinkovitost cepiv in zaupajo v stroko, se jim ne more nič zgodit, zakaj bi za nenevarnost dobivali dodatke? .
Covid-19 Covid 19 Navodila vlade
- Ustvarjalec teme AndrejD
- Začetni datum
Če priznavajo učinkovitost cepiv in zaupajo v stroko, se jim ne more nič zgodit, zakaj bi za nenevarnost dobivali dodatke? .
Copy/paste dela PDF iz drugega linka
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J Schünemann, on behalf of the COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors* Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread personto-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-toperson virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects metaregressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] –10·2%, 95% CI –11·5 to –7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD –14·3%, –15·9 to –10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD –10·6%, 95% CI –12·5 to –7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization. Copyright © 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ukinitev brezplačnega testiranja?
Aha, okej, obešaš se torej na specifične besede. Ihan je stroka, ki nikakor ne sodeluje pri odrejevanju ukrepov. JJ in njegovi buddies odrejajo ukrepe, ki včasih imajo kakšno povezavo s stroko, včasih pa ne. Ihan pri tem govori s stališča svoje stroke, niso pa upoštevani strokovnjaki, ki imajo mal več idej kako je specifično z bodočimi generacijami, ki naj bi predstavljale našo prihodnost.
Lahko pač še naprej trobiš talking points opcije, ki je očitno zagovarjaš, lahko pa priznaš, da so nekaj ukrepi (ki jim ne nasprotujem vsem počez), nekaj drugega pa strokovno, jasno in strateško odrejanje ukrepov. Ki ga btw zagovarjam osebno. In h kateremu poziva SD v tistem pozivu, ki je začel razpravo. Pa btw, SD ne bi volila niti pod razno. Ampak z njihovim pozivom še vedno ni kaj dosti narobe.
Nekaj čudnega se dogaja. Med necepljenimi upadlo število okuženih, med cepljenimi pa še kar vztrajno raste.
Prav tako skokovit porast hospitaliziranih cepljenih oseb (pred 2 tednoma je bilo necepljenih hospitaliziranih 10x več cepljenih, prejšnji teden samo še 3,5x več).
Priponke
-
Brez naslova.png
Nazadnje urejeno:
Stalno nošenje mask v razredu je seveda ena velika neumnost. Je pa grozno, da se to vprašanje politizira in s tem nabira poceni politične točke, kar SD definitivno počne.
PCT v fitnesih. Še pravi trenutek so dali, zdaj je virus pod nadzorom.
Pri govorjenju o stroki je treba upoštevati, da je strokovno delo slovenskih strokovnjakov zelo vezano na spremljanje tuje literature in izsledkov, precej bolj, kot na lastne raziskave. Enako je z ukrepi vlade, ki sledi naši stroki (in posledično tujim raziskavam (zaradi česar je tu časovni zamik in potem hitre reakcije)) in primerljivim ukrepom v tujini. Covid je s stališča znanosti zelo nova stvar, zato neka prava strategija niti ne more obstojati - če se pogoji tedensko spreminjajo, morajo temu slediti tudi ukrepi. Primer, če bi hoteli narediti pravo, znanstveno in strokovno neoporečno raziskavo o maskah, bi za to porabili najmanj leto ali dve in tega časa enostavno niso imeli. Zato je gornji poziv proti maskam samo poceni populizem in ceneno politikantstvo, nikakor pa poziv nima nobene veze s stroko.
prej nisi popravil slikce iz potrjenih primerov na hospitalizirane, zato taka razlika.
Včeraj je bil na covid sledilniku, mogoče pa nekaj ni štimalo, čeprav so skupne cifre vseeno držale.
Sej je še vedno na covid sledilniku če gor klikneš na 100.000 oseb v skupini.
Je pa bolj relevanten graf relativnosti. Ta pokaže, da imamo okoli 25% okuženih in hospitaliziranih cepljenih, kar pomeni, da če imamo pribložno 50% precepljenost, da je učinkovitost cepiva okoli 50% (polovica od cepljenih zboli in je hospitaliziranih).