#results of the COVID-19 lockdown

[vanteguccir]

── ୨୧ !　𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗗𝗜𝗘

　　　　　　　　𝒄𝒉����𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒐 x reader

SUMMARY: When Nick and Matt test positive for covid and Chris has to go into lockdown to prevent catching the virus, who will look after them?

WARNING: Covid-19, sickness.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: That is my work, I DON'T authorize any plagiarism! | English isn't my first language, so I'm sorry if there's any grammar error.

　　　༻✦༺ 　༻✧༺　༻✦༺

Y/N sighed as she turned off her car, preparing herself for the long days ahead, not that it was a burden for her to take care of her boyfriend and best friends, almost brothers.

Matt and Nick tested positive for Covid-19 two days ago, and the first thing Chris did upon receiving their test results was send a quick text to Y/N saying that they both had the virus and that he and his brothers would have to be in lockdown for at least five days.

He sent many texts asking her to not worry, as his brothers' symptoms weren't much more than the flu, and that he was fine and would stay in his room so he wouldn't run the risk of catching the virus too, but who said she listened?

Y/N knew that Chris wouldn't have the patience to make healthy food at least three times a day for him and his brothers, and she knew how afraid he was of getting sick too. Y/N didn't have that worry, being a medical student and a resident at LA's main private hospital, she knew very well how to deal with all of this and wouldn't spare any energy when taking care of her family.

The girl was grateful that her boss had empathy and gave her a few days off work.

With that, Y/N prepared herself the day before, going to the nearest pharmacy to buy some boxes of covid tests and a new box of disposable masks, since the one she had at home was running low, and then went to Target, buying several healthy snacks, fruits, vegetables and chicken to make several soups and light food dishes, not intending to make anything heavy or fatty with fear of making the boys' situation worse.

Today, before leaving the house, Y/N prepared a backpack with a few extra changes of clothes, without overfilling it due to having more than enough of it at the triplets' house. Furthermore, she took a purse and put everything she would need: masks, tests, food and some medicines that are allowed during covid to alleviate some symptoms.

Before getting out of the driver's seat, Y/N grabbed the mask she had ready next to her, putting it on her face and finally getting out of the car. Y/N closed the door and opened the back seat, grabbing her backpack and purse, quickly locking the car and walking to the front door. The girl searched the pocket of her Fresh Love sweatpants, soon finding the spare key to her boyfriend's house.

After unlocking the door, she opened it carefully, not wanting to make too much noise, already knowing that one of the boys had a headache, if not all of them.

The girl walked to the kitchen and placed her things on the counter, before going back to the door to close and lock it.

Before Y/N started her first task, she walked to Chris's room, seeing the door closed. She knocked twice lightly, opening it slowly and seeing Chris under the covers staring at the ceiling, in the dark, with only the light from his TV illuminating the space, the girl held back a laugh knowing that her boyfriend was probably losing his mind for staying locked in his room alone for days.

Chris quickly raised his head with the sound, taking a few seconds to realize that Y/N was there, his eyes widening in surprise.

"Babe, what are you doing here?" He asked, getting up quickly and walking towards her, asking with his eyes if he could get closer and the girl rolled her eyes, nodding.

"I came to take care of you three idiots." She mumbled against the mask, closing her eyes momentarily as she felt Chris's arms around her, never wanting to let go.

"I told you not to worry, I had everything under control." Chris murmured, pulling away to look her in the eyes.

"Of course, so much so that you were lying there staring at the ceiling like it was the most interesting thing in the world." She let out a laugh when she heard Chris snort. "I'm sure you must be starving, when was the last time you ate some real food?" Y/N questioned, seeing Chris shrug.

"You talk as if I didn't show up at the hospital almost everyday with lunch for you." Chris snapped like a child, crossing his arms.

"Lunch that Nick made." She argued, laughing loudly when Chris huffed, frowning. "I'm kidding, baby, I love it when you show up at the hospital with lunch for me." Y/N said, approaching and planting a kiss on Chris's shoulder behind the mask.

"By the way, weren't you on duty today?" Chris asked, furrowing his eyebrows as he took his phone out of his hoodie pocket and double-clicked the screen, checking the date.

"I did, but I asked my boss for a few days off so I could take care of you and she gave it to me." Y/N said smiling big, and Chris couldn't help but smile back as he saw his girlfriend's eyes shrink from her happy expression, without being able to see her smile directly.

"Well, since you're already here, I think I'm a little hungry." Chris joked, running his hand over his belly and giving her a mischievous smile.

"Alright little kid, I'm going to cook you something and you're going to stay here in your room and look pretty." The girl said, pushing Chris lightly, blowing a kiss and closing the door behind her.

Y/N walked to the kitchen again, not containing her goofy smile.

　　　　　༻﹡﹡﹡﹡﹡﹡﹡༺

Y/N lifted the lid of the pan, taking the wooden spoon and quickly tasting the chicken soup (here in Brazil we call it canja, and it works miracles when you're sick, and it's delicious), letting out a sound of pleasure for the flavor. She turned off the heat, taking three plates from the cupboard and the spoon, distributing the soup on each of the plates, sprinkling some leek on top before taking three spoons and placing them inside the plates.

The girl took three glasses and added fresh orange juice, which she made minutes before, and took two pills of the only headache medicine allowed during the virus.

Y/N opened one of the cabinets and took three trays, placing them side by side on the counter and arranging on top of each one the plate of soup, the glass of juice and the medicine pill.

She quickly grabbed the first tray and walked carefully to Matt's bedroom door, bending down and placing the tray on the floor before knocking on the door three times.

"Matt?"

"Y/N? What are you doing here?" Y/N heard Matt's voice, feeling in his voice the pain the boy was feeling.

"I came to take care of you three, I made some soup and juice, they're in here." She replied, hearing the boy move around inside the room before walking away and returning to the kitchen, hearing the sound of the door opening and closing a few minutes later.

Y/N took the second tray and walked to Nick's room, hearing his voice behind the door, assuming he was on a call with someone or recording a video. The girl bent down and placed the tray on the floor again, knocking firmly on the door to make sure Nick heard.

"What are you doing outside your room, Chris?" Nick shouted from inside the room, making the girl laugh. "Y/N?!" He asked in surprise before quickly opening the door and Y/N applauded herself for wearing the mask. "What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be working?" Nick asked, holding the camera in one of his hands, looking at her with a raised eyebrow.

"I took a few days off to take care of you three. And I made real food!" Y/N repeated the same sentence for the thousandth time, pointing to the tray, smiling when she saw the taller's eyes light up.

The boy bent down, picking up the tray with one of his hands and straightening up, raising the camera again and smiling wide at the lens.

"Guys, Y/N brought food for us, the hungry ones. Everyone say "thank you Y/N"." Nick spoke into the lens, smiling widely at the girl before closing the door after seeing her turn to go back to the kitchen.

Finally, the girl took the last tray and walked to the last room, her boyfriend's, where she would stay for the rest of the days, knowing that the boy was free of the virus.

"Honey? Open here for me, please." Y/N asked from behind the door, entering the room after Chris quickly opened it with a smile on his face, staring at the soup on the tray.

The girl let out a laugh, placing the tray on the boy's computer desk and sitting on his bed, pointing at the food.

"Bon appétit, my love."

"What would I do without you?" Chris asked, approaching the computer desk and sitting in the chair.

"Starve and die." She replied, laughing loudly behind her mask as she saw Chris shove a spoonful of soup into his mouth as he nodded quickly, without actually hearing her.

[thoughtlessarse]

Something strange happened when the Earth was gripped by the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, scientists claim: the Moon got substantially colder. As detailed in a recent article published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, scientists from the Physical Research Laboratory in Ahmedabad, India, observed that lunar nighttime surface temperatures dipped substantially across six observation sites on the near side of the Moon. They propose that this "anomalous dip" was caused by a sudden drop in radiation being emitted from Earth as human activity plummeted during global lockdowns, which limited the amount of pollution and overall heat released by our planet at night. "Therefore, our study shows that the Moon has possibly experienced the effect of COVID-19 lockdown, visualized as an anomalous decrease in lunar night-time surface temperatures during that period," the scientists concluded in their article. The results also indicate that studying the Moon's temperature swings could provide us with a "stable platform to study Earth's radiation budget and climate change."

continue reading

[beardedmrbean]

Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award.

The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.

That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.

All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.

It did not matter that positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many.

Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.

Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court

Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.

Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, the media further ostracized dissenting critics.

Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.

I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions.

They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.

Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.

So what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?

Universities shred their ethics to aid Biden’s social-media censorship

Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked  Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.” 

Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”

None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.

There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.

The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.

[cenestpaslavie]

Election Fraud?

You've seen this image:

It’s a graph from a website named ZeroHedge. Its purpose is to highlight the dramatic increase in democrat votes in 2020, and the subsequent decrease in 2024. This is to bring attention to the theory that the 2020 election was a farce. However, this graph is not viable evidence of election fraud. All it shows is that more people, overall, showed up to the 2020 election. I believe this increased turnout can be attributed to the unprecedented circumstances at the time.

Firstly, it is clear that Democrat and republican votes increased from 2016 to 2020. For Democrats, it was a 23% increase, and for Republicans, it was 18%. It then seemingly drops to normal levels for Democrats in 2024, but not for Republicans. It should be considered that this is a developing situation, the article this graph was created for was posted on November 6th, while votes were still being counted. Currently, on November 8th, the graph would look more like this:

As the rest of the votes are counted, the graph will continue to shift. It’s still a significant loss in Democrat votes, but it’s definitely not the flat line shown in the original graph anymore.

The drastic increase in the votes of Democrats and Republicans (though admittedly, mostly Democrats), can be attributed to the issues at the time. In 2020, there were the George Floyd protests, which went on the entire year (and almost another two after that), there were the California wildfires which decimated 4.3 million acres, and of course, the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns, which ruled over the entire year. In times of exceptional social tension, voter turnout will increase; this has always been true. For example, in the first election after 9/11, democrats showed a 16% increase in votes, and Republicans showed a 23% increase, based on the votes of the previous election. An increase, which is proportionally very similar to 2020, only reversed. Another important factor is the social distancing protocols in 2020, where the reasons a person could request to vote by mail were expanded, and many states sent all registered voters a ballot by mail. So, people who had not voted before had a mail-in ballot dropped in their lap and might have already been pushed into action by the increasing social tension.

In the 2024 election, though, the drop in voter turnout was not proportional to what we saw in 2008, the second election after 9/11. Though, again, as the votes are counted, this gap will decrease. It is my belief that many typical Democrat voters were feeling disillusioned with the state of things. Trump’s campaigning was ever-present, the assassination attempt caused massive publicity, and Kamala only had a few months to campaign. The biggest issue many left-winged people were concerned with this election was the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Since both Trump and Kamala did not plan to stop funding Israel’s invasion, many people voted third party or did not vote. While Kamala did show more empathy towards the Palestinian people than Trump, it was not enough to sway the majority to her side.

In conclusion, there was not and is not an election fraud. The results are what they are, and trying to prove a voting fraud distracts from the action that needs to be taken now to win back the Democrat votes for 2028. It also risks re-empowering the 2020 election fraud movement, which was violent and conspiratorial.

I would also like to add that despite the mostly neutral tone in this post, I am firmly a leftist. It is genuinely gutting to see the outcome of this election, not because of fraud, but because all of those people really approved of such archaic, hateful ideas.

Sources: 

Durden, T. (2024). Trump Wins: Here Are The Economic, Market, Tax, Tariff, Immigration And Regulation Implications. [online] Zerohedge.com. Available at: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-wins-here-are-economic-market-tax-tariff-immigration-and-regulation-implications [Accessed 8 Nov. 2024].

This is the ZeroHedge article which contains the original graph.

HOW WE VOTED IN 2020 A TOPICAL LOOK AT THE SURVEY OF THE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS. [online] Available at: https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2021-03/HowWeVotedIn2020-March2021.pdf.

This is a breakdown of voting methods in 2020, used when talking about the increase of mail in ballots.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (2017). United States Presidential Election Results. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863.

This is an official record of the United States presidential election votes. This was used to calculate the increase of Dem and Rep voters, and to construct the updated graph.

Molski, M. (2024). How voting demographics changed between 2020 and 2024 presidential elections. [online] NBC4 Washington. Available at: https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/.

A comparison of voter demographics between 2020 and 2024. Used for me to get a general idea of the situation.

Kerlin, Katherine E. “California’s 2020 Wildfire Season.” UC Davis, 4 May 2022, www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/californias-2020-wildfire-season-numbers.

Acres burned in the 2020 wildfires.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

A recent study has revealed that the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the prevalence of myopia among children and teenagers globally with projections to exceed 740 million cases by 2050.

In Short -More than 1 in 3 children are affected by myopia or short-sightedness -Over 740 million children and teenagers will have myopia by 2050 -The increase in myopia cases has been notable after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic -The widespread occurrence of myopia has made it a public health concern, especially among researchers. While the escalation of its prevalence remains elusive, researchers of a recent study on myopia -note that there's a link between increasing cases of myopia and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Myopia or short-sightedness is an eye condition where a person cannot see objects far away clearly. This vision can be corrected with glasses or contact lenses.

In their latest study, published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, researchers from China's Sun Yat-Sen University and Henan Provincial People's Hospital, found that around one in three children and teenagers worldwide are short-sighted.

Prompting calls to discourage screen time and increase physical activity, they stated that the Covid lockdowns had a negative impact on eyesight in children, who spent more time on screens and less time outdoors.

"Based on our trend analysis, it has been observed that there has been a significant rise in the occurrence of myopia among children and adolescents globally over the past 30 years, with the prevalence increasing from 24.32% to 35.81%. This increase has been particularly notable after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic," the researchers wrote.

The study looked at research involving more than five million children and teenagers from 50 countries across all six continents. The highest rates are in Asia - 85% of children in Japan and 73% in South Korea are short-sighted with more than 40% affected in China and Russia.

Their analysis showed that the prevalence of short-sightedness has tripled from 1990 to 2023, reaching 36%. The study warns that myopia is an escalating global health issue, projected to exceed 740 million cases by 2050.

Myopia usually begins in school, which tends to worsen over time, until the eye has stopped growing, till 20 years of age.

Several factors increase the likelihood of developing short-sightedness, with living in East Asia being one of the most significant. Genetics, or the traits passed down from parents, play a role, but other influences exist as well.

In regions like Singapore and Hong Kong, children begin formal education as early as two years old. This early exposure to reading and screen time puts extra strain on their eyes, which research suggests can lead to myopia.

In contrast, myopia is seven times less common in Africa, where children typically start school at the age of six to eight years old.

The study further indicates that girls and young women may experience higher rates of myopia than boys, partly due to spending less time outdoors both at school and home as they grow up.

Additionally, girls often enter puberty earlier, which may lead to the onset of short-sightedness at a younger age.

"With the increase in enrolment pressure, students are experiencing a rise in learning pressure and burden. As a result, they are spending more time focusing on close-range activities with their eyes, which reduces the time they spend on outdoor sports and exercise.34 This constant strain on the ciliary muscles often leads to eye fatigue and myopia," the researchers wrote.

While Asia is projected to have the highest levels of myopia by 2050, with nearly 69% of the population affected, developing countries could also see rates as high as 40%, according to researchers.

The researchers added, "According to our projections, there is an anticipated 9% rise in the overall prevalence of myopia between 2023 and 2050, which will lead to a substantial burden of ocular disease, affecting more than 740 million children and adolescents."

The common signs and symptoms of myopia or short-sightedness include difficulty reading words from a distance, like reading the board at school, sitting close to the television or laptop or holding a tablet or phone too close to the eyes, getting frequent headaches, and rubbing the eyes a lot.

Study link: bjo.bmj.com/content/early/2024/08/14/bjo-2024-325427

[rammingthestein]

🎂 ZEIT TURNS TWO YEARS OLD TODAY 🎈

29TH APRIL 2022

Zeit is the eighth studio album by German Neue Deutsche Härte band Rammstein, released on 29 April 2022 through Universal Music. Produced by the band with Olsen Involtini, the album was unplanned and recorded as a result of the band's tour being postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Flake, the sessions were spontaneous and that the lockdown caused the band to "have more time to think of new things and less distraction"

The photograph used for the cover art and promotional material was taken by Canadian musician Bryan Adams. It shows the members of Rammstein walking down a staircase connected to the Trudelturm, a monument dedicated to aerial research, located at Aerodynamic Park in Adlershof in Berlin. 

Rammstein began posting clips to their social media accounts on 8 March 2022, teasing forthcoming new material with the hashtag "#ZEITkommt"

[darkmaga-returns]

A Scientific Explanation of the Fraud of RT-PCR Testing for COVID-19

Corinne Michels

Nov 05, 2024

“The COVID-19 PCR tests were a fraud.” You have heard this before, but is it true or just more hype? Read this report and decide for yourself. It explains the fundamentals of the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase - Polymerase Chain Reaction) test kits for those who want to understand the facts. Do not expect an easy read. For starters, you will need to familiarize yourself with the basic structure of DNA. Understanding how misinterpretation of the RT-PCR test results was used to create the COVID-19 pandemic will be your reward. You will be immunized against future efforts to create fear and societal discord. Rest assured; they will try again!

A serious flu-like respiratory disease began to spread in early Fall 2019 with Wuhan, China, as “ground zero.” By December, worldwide spread of the disease was underway. Images of hapless pedestrians suddenly falling dead in the streets; overwhelmed hospitals in Lombardy, Italy; government-imposed lockdowns; and nonstop coverage of worldwide COVID deaths fanned the flames of fear surrounding this unknown disease. It was not enough to be symptom-free. People demanded the development of a test to detect silent carriers of the infectious agent.

Only the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was known at the time, and the only available testing method used polymerase chain reaction, a.k.a. PCR. Despite many known contraindications, RT-PCR widespread testing for COVID-19 began. According to Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America, blind faith in the results of technically complex molecular tests results in “pseudo-epidemics.”  [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html] The COVID-19 pandemic was one of those.

[dailymanners]

Hello, Stranger. By Will Buckingham. Granta; 336 pages; £16.99 The Power of Strangers. By Joe Keohane. Random House; 352 pages; $28. Viking; £16.99 Fractured. By Jon Yates. Harper North; 348 pages; $28.99 and £20

ATTITUDES TO STRANGERS tend to follow a familiar pattern. Children are taught never to speak to unknown grown-ups, especially those regarded by their parents as untrustworthy. The onset of adolescence and young adulthood brings a bursting desire to interact with all sorts of people, particularly the kind who might not elicit family approval. Whether the resulting encounters are sexual or social, they confer a thrilling frisson of escape.

Social circles generally narrow again as people find life-partners, form households and produce offspring of their own. Time becomes scarce; new friendships are often based on sharing the burden of child care. Some people never recover the youthful zest for unforeseen liaisons. Professional duties swell even as parental ones diminish, and the inclination sags. In old age, even if curiosity and charisma remain undimmed, frailty makes new serendipitous connections harder to establish.

But that is not the whole story. In mid-life and beyond people can still experience the joy of a random meeting, however short, which somehow touches a nerve. That might involve nothing more than a smile, or a chance remark that hits an emotional spot; or it might be an unexpectedly deep conversation on a plane or train, a surge of mutual understanding that is life-affirming even if the interlocutor is never seen again. This aspect of the promise and peril of strangers has enticed storytellers—from the rapture of “Brief Encounter” and “Before Sunrise” to the ruin of “Strangers on a Train”. The knowledge that the exchange will be a one-off can permit a delicious, uninhibited frankness.

In the age of covid-19 and Zoom, the chronological pattern has been warped. Instead of their hazy possibilities and risks, strangers have assumed an all-too-literal role as a looming source of infection. During lockdowns they are officially to be avoided. Yet youngsters still long, dangerously, for the ecstasy of communion, not just with edgy individuals but anonymous crowds. People of all ages have come to miss the human stimulation of busy high streets or trains, or the comforting sense of fellowship in a cinema or theatre audience.

So this is an apt moment for three books about meeting strangers. Will Buckingham has written a moving memoir of finding solace, after the death of his life-partner, in travelling and talking in lands such as Myanmar that are culturally distant from his native England. Joe Keohane, an American journalist, argues that communicating empathetically with strangers is vital and potentially life-changing. Jon Yates, who runs a youth charity based in London, frets that deep fissures in Western societies are making it impossible for people to reach, even casually, between classes, religions, ethnicities and generations.

All three authors make sweeping generalisations about the evolution of human society, from hunter-gatherers to the age of Homer and beyond. But they are more interesting when they reflect, using personal experience or scientific research, on how people live and communicate now. In different ways, they all make two separate but related points. First, interacting meaningfully with a new person can bring huge rewards—but it is a skill that must be cultivated and can easily be lost. Second, the self-segregation of modern Western societies means that, for many people, conversing with some fellow citizens seems pointless, undesirable or outlandish. The second problem exacerbates the first: if you consider others beyond the pale, why make the effort to get to know them?

. . .

Mr Buckingham focuses on the pleasures and pitfalls of encounters in remote places where the stakes are lower because the acquaintanceships are bound to be temporary—in a holiday flat-share in Helsinki or while travelling through the Balkans. But, like the other two, he notes that wariness of unfamiliar people is neither new nor insuperable.

Faces look ugly when you’re alone

Mr Keohane and Mr Yates offer tips on befriending strangers. . . Mr Yates discusses the case for a kind of national social service that would encourage youngsters to mix with other groups and generations. Both have homely micro-solutions that readers can apply in daily relations—assume the best of others, remember that most have stories they are longing to tell, react philosophically when a friendly approach is rebuffed.

A telling point that none of the books captures is a paradoxical one: some of the most sophisticated forms of interaction between strangers occur in societies that are chronically divided. Think, for example, of rural Northern Ireland, or of parts of the former Ottoman Empire, such as Lebanon, where residents have lived in separate communal silos. In ways impenetrable to outsiders, the denizens of such places develop perfect antennae for the affiliation of a stranger and adjust their remarks accordingly. The ensuing exchanges occur within well-understood parameters—including a sense that social categories are resilient and pleasantries will not change them. But tact allows people from antagonistic camps to have amicable encounters and transactions.

All three authors are inclined to overstate the ability of brief interactions to stave off conflict. Yet at least this much is true: a capacity to engage with new people in civilised, humane and meaningful ways is a necessary condition for social peace, even if it is not a sufficient one. That points up a half-hidden cost of covid-19. Children educated on screen; teenagers bouncing off the walls; adults working at home; lonely pensioners: more or less everyone’s social skills have been atrophying, with consequences not only for individuals but, perhaps, for the fabric of society.

As lockdowns lift, people are now stumbling back into a world of accidental collisions, some eagerly, some queasily, most with an odd sensation of novelty after a year of hibernation. The lesson of these books is that the easing of restrictions is not just a coveted opportunity to reconnect with those you love and resemble. It also restores a freedom, long taken for granted even if little used, to come to know the profoundly different. ■

[mariacallous]

The right-wing wave surging through Europe picked up size and speed on Sept. 29 as Austria’s hard-right Freedom Party won the country’s general election. Following on the heels of far-right victories in eastern Germany and the Netherlands earlier this year, Austria joins the likes of Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary as European Union members where extreme rightist parties have—armed with unabashedly illiberal, authoritarian agendas—rendered the political establishment impotent.

Openly calling for a Volkskanzler (people’s chancellor) to lead the country—just one piece of Nazi lingo that party head Herbert Kickl regularly employs—the Freedom Party took 29 percent of the vote, catapulting it over the ruling conservative Austrian People’s Party, which sank to 26.5 percent, and the Social Democrats to a meager 21 percent. The Freedom Party’s record result though is not enough to form a government on its own. Moreover, the centrist parties’ totals, when combined with the spoils of one of two smaller parties—one liberal, one green—would constitute the makings of a majority.

But the Freedom Party is now front and center in Austrian political life. On the campaign trail, Kickl promised to turn the country into “Fortress Austria” by stopping migration cold, “remigrating” (that is, expelling) Austrian citizens with foreign roots deemed unable to integrate, purging the education system, and neutralizing the public media. He rants against “gender madness” and “climate communism.”

The Freedom Party also owes a particular debt to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the crisis, the Freedom Party alone assumed the stance of critic and championed freedom of choice in response to pandemic-driven restrictions and requirements. The conspiracy theories that swirled around the crisis fed the Freedom Party’s own body of irrational accusations and baseless explanations. The government did itself no favors by imposing four nationwide lockdowns, stiff penalties for noncompliance, and nearly 40 weeks of school shutdown.

The Freedom Party buttressed its prominent place in the annals of Europe’s postwar extreme right. It initiated the far right’s modern normalization in Europe when it took a place in government under the People’s Party in 2000, breaking the country’s mostly rigid pattern of conservative-social democratic leadership that had marked the Cold War era and beyond. When the Freedom Party’s charismatic frontman Jörg Haider temporarily became vice chancellor in 2000, the event was so unprecedented—even scandalous—that EU members isolated the Vienna government and imposed political sanctions until he resigned from the party leadership. Critics feared that tolerating an EU member with such questionable democratic credentials would legitimize it—and encourage imitators across the continent. (This happened even though Haider’s politics, when measured up against Kickl’s, were relatively moderate.)

And this is exactly what happened. In 2017, the Freedom Party returned to government—in control of six ministries, including defense, the interior, and foreign affairs—this time with no fuss from Brussels. Yet the coalition lasted less than two years, falling out in disgrace when Freedom Party leader and Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache was caught on video in an Ibiza hotel room soliciting funds from a purported Russian national and expressing intentions to take over and censor Austria’s most widely read newspaper.

It is a sign of new times that the possibility of today’s yet-more-radical Freedom Party coming to power is now acceptable in European company. There are no major protests or calls for sanctions. Moreover, it trashes the hypothesis—heard in Germany regarding the AfD—that stints in government will discredit incompetent, conspiracy-preaching populists whose outrageous pledges can’t possibly turned into effective policy. If the sordid 2019 video footage didn’t kill off the Freedom Party, presumably nothing will.

The extent of the right-wing shift within Austria—and its implication across Europe—isn’t superficial, and the results cannot be written off as a “protest vote” or as a diffuse swipe at the system. Kickl is an extremist among extremists who appeals to Austrians’ worst instincts—and with this triumph, he contributes to a playbook that Europe’s extreme right has been drafting since the 1990s.

“Our studies in recent years,” said Andreas Kranebitter, the director of the Documentation Center of Austrian Resistance, a Vienna-based research institute, in an interview with Foreign Policy, “show that there is more racism and antisemitism in the population, and a higher number of people adverse to foreigners and hostile to immigration, than at any time in recent decades.”

The Freedom Party, Kranebitter said, has spurred and accompanied this trend, even reinserting into the party program Nazi terminology such as Volkskanzler and Volksgemeinschaft, the latter referring to a homogenous ethnic community. “These are code words that right-wing militants understand very well, and ever more new supporters are accepting of or indifferent to, too,” he said. “And this now includes more women, professionals, college educated, and young people.”

Ulf Brunnbauer, an Austrian historian at Regensburg University, agrees that Freedom Party backers are not largely protest voters. “This might have been the primary motivation of its voters in the 1980s and 1990s,” he told Foreign Policy, “when the party broke the political duopoly that governed Austria since 1945. But today, the Freedom Party is the party of the establishment, too. Austrians understand very well that the party is racist and authoritarian, Kickl himself full of hatred and notoriously pro-Russian and anti-immigrant. Most people voting for them do so out of ideological conviction. It almost reflects the average person in Austria society.”

And this, Brunnbauer said, is in part a consequence of the Freedom Party’s meticulous groundwork. “They have systematically invested into propaganda work and built an alternative media universe. The party has created a new sense of ethnocentric patriotism and engaged broadly in local government. The Freedom Party learned from [Italian theorist Antonio] Gramsci: Political power rests on cultural power. The Freedom Party has transformed Austria’s political culture.”

This process—again, much like in Germany—includes the consternating transformation of the country’s traditional conservative party, the People’s Party. Whether as a result of the shifts in societal opinion or the Freedom Party’s success in tapping it, the conservatives have put up no fight against the far right, but rather have embraced ever more of its stances on migration, even etching in its program that asylum-seekers should have their valuables confiscated at the border, purportedly to cover the costs of processing them.

This year alone, Karl Nehammer, the country’s conservative incumbent chancellor, has dangled one piece of populist bait after another in the face of conservative constituencies, such as the denial of social benefits to asylum-seekers during the first five years of their tenure in Austria. “Our aspiration is a social welfare system for those who can’t work—not for those who don’t want to,” he said, referring to migrants. And, in addition to offshoring asylum procedures outside of the EU, the party has proposed that there should also be prisons in third countries for sentenced migrants.

On the issue of immigration, opined Die Presse, a conservative Austrian daily, the People’s Party “is barely distinguishable from the Freedom Party.” And as in Italy, France, and elsewhere, it didn’t pay off: “All those in favor of such policies have long been voting for the Freedom Party,” the newspaper concluded. The 11 percent points that it shed went largely to the Freedom Party.

Kranebitter and other observers note that the pandemic played an important role in the Freedom Party’s reemergence. When Austria made vaccination compulsory late in 2021, Kickl exclaimed: “As of today, Austria is a dictatorship.” The Freedom Party’s poll ratings shot up to around 30 percent, concluding its brief stay in the post-Ibiza scandal doghouse.

“Austria not only pursued a very restrictive coronavirus policy,” argued the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a Swiss-based, German-language daily newspaper, “but many of its measures also differentiated between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This caused deep resentment among those who felt discriminated against by the state. This feeling has occupied those affected much longer than the memory of arduous restrictions.” The fiasco wounded all three government parties (the People’s Party, the Social Democrats, and Greens) in one shot, while the Freedom Party stood defiantly against what many felt as injustice.

As it was in 2000, the Freedom Party is now among Europe’s far-right pioneers again, proving that a once-discredited, ultraright party can still upturn and defile an entire political culture. The lesson will not be lost on Central Europe’s other pro-Russia populists.

[cbc-bb]

I think people forget the whole covid 19 pandemic was preventable. we had early warning systems that were sounding alarm. we had early outbreaks that were contained. we knew about temporary lockdowns and masking early on. but leaders (especially in America) failed us big time, ignored the warnings, tried to brush it off with racism and magical thinking. and now we’ll have it forever

outbreaks like these are not inevitable, they’re the result of ignoring science and electing morons to office

[foreverlogical]

It was a time of fear and chaos four years ago.

The death count was mounting as COVID-19 spread. Financial markets were panicked. Oil prices briefly went negative. The Federal Reserve slashed its benchmark interest rates to combat the sudden recession. And the U.S. government went on a historic borrowing spree—adding trillions to the national debt—to keep families and businesses afloat.

But as Donald Trump recalled that moment at a recent rally, the former president exuded pride.

“We had the greatest economy in history,” the Republican told his Wisconsin audience. “The 30-year mortgage rate was at a record low, the lowest ever recorded ... 2.65%, that’s what your mortgage rates were.”

The question of who can best steer the U.S. economy could be a deciding factor in who wins November’s presidential election. While an April Gallup poll found that Americans were most likely to say that immigration is the country's top problem, the economy in general and inflation were also high on the list.

Trump may have an edge over President Joe Biden on key economic concerns, according to an April poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. The survey found that Americans were more likely to say that as president, Trump helped the country with job creation and cost of living. Nearly six in 10 Americans said that Biden’s presidency hurt the country on the cost of living.

But the economic numbers expose a far more complicated reality during Trump's time in the White House. His tax cuts never delivered the promised growth. His budget deficits surged and then stayed relatively high under Biden. His tariffs and trade deals never brought back all of the lost factory jobs.

And there was the pandemic, an event that caused historic job losses for which Trump accepts no responsibility as well as low inflation—for which Trump takes full credit.

If anything, the economy during Trump's presidency never lived up to his own hype.

DECENT (NOT EXCEPTIONAL) GROWTH

Trump assured the public in 2017 that the U.S. economy with his tax cuts would grow at “3%,” but he added, “I think it could go to 4, 5, and maybe even 6%, ultimately.”

If the 2020 pandemic is excluded, growth after inflation averaged 2.67% under Trump, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Include the pandemic-induced recession and that average drops to an anemic 1.45%.

By contrast, growth during the second term of then-President Barack Obama averaged 2.33%. So far under Biden, annual growth is averaging 3.4%.

MORE GOVERNMENT DEBT

Trump also assured the public that his tax cuts would pay for themselves because of stronger growth. The cuts were broad but disproportionately favored corporations and those with extreme wealth.

The tax cuts signed into law in 2017 never fulfilled Trump's promises on deficit reduction.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the deficit worsened to $779 billion in 2018. The Congressional Budget Office had forecasted a deficit of $563 billion before the tax cuts, meaning the tax cuts increased borrowing by $216 billion that first year. In 2019, the deficit rose to $984 billion, nearly $300 billion more than what the CBO had forecast.

Then the pandemic happened and with a flurry of government aid, the resulting deficit topped $3.1 trillion. That borrowing enabled the government to make direct payments to individuals and small businesses as the economy was in lockdown, often increasing bank accounts and making many feel better off even though the economy was in a recession.

Deficits have also run high under Biden, as he signed into law a third round of pandemic aid and other initiatives to address climate change, build infrastructure and invest in U.S. manufacturing. His budget deficits: $2.8 trillion (2021), $1.38 trillion (2022), and $1.7 trillion (2023).

The CBO estimated in a report issued Wednesday that the extension of parts of Trump’s tax cuts set to expire after 2025 would add another $4.6 trillion to the national debt through the year 2034.

LOW INFLATION (BUT NOT ALWAYS FOR GOOD REASONS)

Inflation was much lower under Trump, never topping an annual rate of 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual rate reached as high as 8% in 2022 under Biden and is currently at 3.4%.

There were three big reasons why inflation was low during Trump's presidency: the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, Federal Reserve actions, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump entered the White House with inflation already low, largely because of the slow recovery from the Great Recession, when financial markets collapsed and millions of people lost their homes to foreclosure.

The inflation rate barely averaged more than 1% during Obama's second term as the Fed struggled to push up growth. Still, the economy was expanding without overheating.

But in the first three years of Trump's presidency, inflation averaged 2.1%, roughly close to the Fed's target. Still, the Fed began to hike its own benchmark rate to keep inflation low at the central bank's own 2% target. Trump repeatedly criticized the Fed because he wanted to juice growth despite the risks of higher prices.

Then the pandemic hit.

Inflation sank and the Fed slashed rates to sustain the economy during lockdowns.

When Trump celebrates historically low mortgage rates, he's doing so because the economy was weakened by the pandemic. Similarly, gasoline prices fell below an average of $2 a gallon because no one was driving in April 2020 as the pandemic spread.

FEWER JOBS

The United States lost 2.7 million jobs during Trump's presidency, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the pandemic months are excluded, he added 6.7 million jobs.

By contrast, 15.4 million jobs were added during Biden's presidency. That's 5.1 million more jobs than what the CBO forecasted he would add before his coronavirus relief and other policies became law—a sign of how much he boosted the labor market.

Both candidates have repeatedly promised to bring back factory jobs. Between 2017 and the middle of 2019, Trump added 461,000 manufacturing jobs. But the gains began to stall and then turned into layoffs during the pandemic, with the Republican posting a loss of 178,000 jobs.

So far, the U.S. economy has added 773,000 manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency.

Campaign Action

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Brian Melley and Jill Lawless at Associated Press, via ABC News:

LONDON -- Britain’s Labour Party swept to power Friday after more than a decade in opposition, as a jaded electorate handed the party a landslide victory — but also a mammoth task of reinvigorating a stagnant economy and dispirited nation.

Labour leader Keir Starmer will officially become prime minister later in the day, leading his party back to government less than five years after it suffered its worst defeat in almost a century. In the merciless choreography of British politics, he will take charge in 10 Downing St. hours after Thursday's votes are counted — as Conservative leader Rishi Sunak is hustled out. “A mandate like this comes with a great responsibility,” Starmer acknowledged in a speech to supporters, saying that the fight to regain people’s trust after years of disillusionment “is the battle that defines our age." Speaking as drawn broke in London, he said Labour would offer “the sunlight of hope, pale at first but getting stronger through the day.” Sunak conceded defeat, saying the voters had delivered a “sobering verdict.” For Starmer, it's a massive triumph that will bring huge challenges, as he faces a weary electorate impatient for change against a gloomy backdrop of economic malaise, mounting distrust in institutions and a fraying social fabric. [...]

Britain has experienced a run of turbulent years — some of it of the Conservatives’ own making and some of it not — that has left many voters pessimistic about their country’s future. The U.K.’s exit from the European Union followed by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine battered the economy, while lockdown-breaching parties held by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his staff caused widespread anger. Johnson’s successor, Liz Truss, rocked the economy further with a package of drastic tax cuts and lasted just 49 days in office. Rising poverty, crumbling infrastructure and overstretched National Health Service have led to gripes about “Broken Britain.” While the result appears to buck recent rightward electoral shifts in Europe, including in France and Italy, many of those same populist undercurrents flow in Britain. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has roiled the race with his party’s anti-immigrant “take our country back” sentiment and undercut support for the Conservatives and even grabbed some voters from Labour. The exit poll suggested Labour was on course to win about 410 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons and the Conservatives 131. With a majority of results in, the broad picture of a Labour landslide was borne out, though estimates of the final tally varied.

[...] The Liberal Democrats won more than 60 seats, on a slightly lower share of the vote than Reform because its votes were more efficiently distributed. In Britain's first-past-the-post system, the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins. The Green Party have won four seats, up from just one before the election. One of the biggest losers was the Scottish National Party, which held most of Scotland's 57 seats before the election but looked set to lose all but handful, mostly to Labour.

In the United Kingdom, the Rishi Sunak-led disaster class Tories have been sent packing at the ballot box and fall down to Official Opposition Status at around 120 seats, as Keir Starmer’s Labour is set to make mammoth gains. The Lib Dems have recovered to become the 3rd largest party in Westminster.

[its-a-rat-trap]

BOB GELDOF: OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING CITIZENS OF BOOMTOWN

From The Pen of Bob Geldof:

My Fellow Citizens…

Time moves on alas and Boomtown needs to re-purpose its infrastructural modalities. That’s right Citizens we need to up-scale, downsize and re-position ourselves vertically but on a horizontally focussed axis to be better prepared online-sly speaking for the coming mega-celebratory 50th Boomtown Birthday.

The Citizens of Boomtown site and forum will shortly be seamlessly absorbed into the NEW BOOMTOWN SUPERSITE!! still giving you all the current extraordinary benefits of Citizenship, geeky discursive debating platforms but not really! Wow!!

Basically there’s no point in having two sites in effect doing the same thing so some maddened managerial time and motion efficiency freak begged Pete (blame him) to allow Mayor Jennifer and Techno buff Joke to “rationalise” our online presence, be slightly more professional (who? Us? The Rats? - you’re joking mate) and frankly get it together webbily-speaking. So…

COB is a great album but being released two days before lockdown, like a lot of things and people it got obstructed by Covid 19. So goodbye promotion, tour and what we had hoped would be a different route of approaching the band and music through a site or device where fans would be the same as the band in a shared experience of being Citizens of the “idea” of what Boomtown might be or could be and which, as a result become self-growing, outside of the band where the band and its members became irrelevant to the ongoing life of the site/idea/citizens. But still the background hum that united it all was the music coming out of that towering imaginary Ratopolis.

So feel free to jump in your leaky inflatable rubber dinghy, don your useless safety vest, pay a scumbag Rat-trafficker and migrate the tricky electric tides away from the doomed but forever beautiful city to the fun-lovin’, hip-swingin’, ga-roovey, ca-razey sunny uplands of brand new/old Ratland! That country where even the Rats roam free and zephyr winds carry wafts of gentle heavenly Ratmusik to all the green corners of its lush pastures. Where parliaments of citizens still carry on arcane esoteric deconstructive debates over the “true” meaning of “Do The Rat” and it’s global implications to the coming US elections particularly with regard to the swing states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin wherever the fuck that is.

So..thank you for all the fun of COB and hello to Ratsite 2. If you think it’s crap you’ll let us know and remember Pete is the one to blame..

Rat On..

BG xxx

[demonicintegrity]

Just saw a tiktok comment that said “it’d be great if people got over 9/11 as fast as they get over school shootings.”

And I’m not gonna lie, that stunned me. Holy shit that was a comment. That did shift my perspective on things so I looked up a few things:

Death toll of 9/11: 2,977

Number of anti Muslim hate crime in 2001: 481 (it was just 28 incidents the year before.) (and 2015 anti Muslim hate crime jumped to post 9/11 levels and then anti-Muslims assaults surpassed the 9/11 levels in 2016) I tried finding if there was a death toll associated with this but couldn’t.

Hate crime instances in 2021 alone (for any reason): 7,262

Death toll from school shootings (includes suicides and domestic violence): 279

Total death toll from Covid-19 in the US alone: 1,174,691 (do you remember hearing “a 9/11 a day” at some point? Cuz I do)

I can’t find an exact number of people who’ve died as a result of roe v wade being overturned but I know there are deaths because of it.

Death toll of Hurricane Katrina: 1,245-1,836

Death toll of HIV/AIDS: 65,000 in 1995 alone, 675,000 total now

And I want to be clear: I’m not trying to rank any of these tragedies as more devastating than the others. All of them are horrific and tragic for their own reasons. All of them deserve the grief and mourning that comes with them. But only one of them is given the most attention. A national remembrance every year, written into the curriculum of schools, and never allowed to be scoffed at or joked about. Only one of them explicitly told to never be forgotten.

But everything else is allowed to be brushed off, even when the effects are felt currently. When I was a child I didn’t worry about terrorism, I worried about school shootings. Because they were happening. Sometimes even the county right beside mine, sometimes my school would go on lockdown for an outside incident. But people would swear up and down until they were blue in the face that I and my peers were being over dramatic. (But god forbid we didn’t give 9/11 the respect it deserved. God forbid we didn’t stand for the pledge.)

I got scoffed at by my mom when I said I have to consider politics when thinking about where I want to live because I’m queer. That wasn’t a real issue.

These are all real issues. But only one is given the national attention of being a real issue. Hell if you bring up any of the other ones it’s only a matter of time before someone says “you’re living in the past” or “that’s just how it is.” And I think that makes reconsidering how we address things as a country.

[talktomeinclexa]

Wanna Be My Pandemic Buddy?

By: TalktomeinClexa

Rating: Explicit

Warnings: Mentions of Covid

Status: Complete (19/19)

Summary: When Clarke, a graphic designer stuck at home during the lockdown hears about the Dutch Institute for Public Health’s official guidance to find someone to “share physical contact with” to limit the risks, she realizes that this might be her chance to get Lexa, her beautiful neighbor, into her bed. They start sleeping together and the chemistry is amazing, but will they manage to get over their emotional constipation before the pandemic ends?

***

Day 1: Agreement

Adjusting her mask for the nth time, Clarke took a deep breath to steel her nerves and resolutely knocked on the door of apartment 4B, across the hall from hers.

Luckily for her, the stupid cotton rectangle covering half of her face hid her instinctive smile when the door opened. Even though she hadn’t been out in days and wore sweatpants and a comfortable T-shirt, her neighbor was as gorgeous as always. And the best part was, in her hurry to answer the knock, Lexa hadn’t bothered to put on a mask, leaving Clarke free to admire the pouty lips she had been dreaming of kissing more and more recently.

“Clarke, hi. Is everything all right? Do you need something?”

“Hi, Lexa. How are you?”

A perfectly plucked eyebrow rose at the tentative small talk. Ever since the number of Covid-19 cases exploded, the government had put in place a series of strict measures to contain the pandemic. Closed borders, masks at all times, social distancing, restaurants and gathering places closed for the time being… Telecommuting was the new norm, and companies developed new tools every day to facilitate digital communication.

As a result, the news outlets reported fewer and fewer new cases every day. But with social quasi-nonexistent interactions, people felt lonelier than ever. Knocking on your neighbor’s door to chitchat was highly discouraged, and Lexa hadn’t expected any visitor.

Still, she was nice enough not to close her door in Clarke’s face, and, encouraged by her curiosity, Clarke carried on. “Have you watched or read the news recently?”

“Not really, no. All they talk about is the pandemic; it’s depressing. Why? Did I miss something?”

“Well, the Dutch Institute for Public Health released an official guidance a few days ago that might pique your interest. With the current danger we face every time we meet someone, they recommend single people find a person to have regular contact with. That way, we can enjoy physical contact while limiting the risks of spreading the virus.”

To her credit, Lexa didn’t outright laugh or slam the door in Clarke’s face, and that counted as a small victory. Instead, she looked at her with curiosity and a glint of something mischievous in her viridian eyes. “Just to be clear, we’re talking about sex, right?”

“Yes. Sex.” Clarke nodded, proud of herself for not blushing too hard or stuttering. “Or you know, cuddles are allowed too. Physical contact in general.”

“Hmm. And you want me to be your ‘cuddle’ buddy? Why me?”

Keep reading

[covid-safer-hotties]

Estimate: COVID vaccines saved up to 2.6 million lives in Latin America, Caribbean - Published Sept 11, 2024

By Mary Van Beusekom, MS

COVID-19 vaccines saved about 610,000 to 2.61 million lives in 17 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in the first 1.5 years of vaccine availability, estimate researchers from Yale University, Brazil, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

For the observational study, published yesterday in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, the investigators used data on COVID-19 deaths and vaccine effectiveness (VE) and uptake to arrive at a counterfactual estimate of the number of unvaccinated adults saved through vaccination from January 2021 to May 2022.

"Despite the initial availability of COVID-19 vaccines across the region, wide inter- and intra-country variation in access and availability to vaccines were observed in the region," the researchers wrote.

Deaths averted varied by vaccine uptake, outbreak timing More than 1.49 million people died of COVID-19 in the studied countries over the study period, the researchers found after accounting for underreporting. Reported deaths over the same period numbered 1.05 million. Had there been no vaccine, 2.10 million to 4.11 million people likely would have died, the model estimated.

As a result, vaccines may have saved an estimated 610,000 (assuming low VE) to 2.62 million (assuming high VE) lives. In total, vaccines likely averted roughly 273 deaths per 100,000 people. A sensitivity analysis suggested that, if consideration was limited to COVID-19 deaths as reported with no assumed underreporting, vaccination may have averted 870,000 deaths.

The rate of averted deaths averted by country differed by vaccination uptake over time, particularly in those aged 60 and older, as well as whether COVID-19 outbreaks were seen primarily before or after vaccine rollout. "For instance, the model estimates that proportionally more deaths were averted in Chile and Uruguay, as there were spikes in deaths at a time when a lot of the population (especially those 60 and over) was vaccinated," the authors wrote.

Substantial impact of vaccination The researchers noted that their study didn't account for protection from previous COVID-19 infections against reinfection and severe illness or the effect of other public health measures such as lockdowns.

"Despite the many challenges to COVID-19 vaccination in LAC—including timely access to vaccines, varying vaccine products and schedules, evolving circulating variants, and shifting vaccination strategies and target groups—these findings underscore the underscore the substantial impact of timely and widespread vaccination in averting COVID-19 death," the authors wrote.

"Future directions of this work include more in-depth analyses of countries with additional available data in order to assess differences in vaccine effectiveness by specific region or population group (including socio-economic status), and evaluation of potential alternative vaccination scenarios," they added.

Study Link: academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofae528/7754719