The unfortunate tautology here is that we still lost either way.
If the election was not fraudulent, then Trump decided not to take illegal action to prevent certification. We lose because election was legit.
If the election was stolen, then Trump decided not to take action and let Biden be confirmed. We lose because Trump backed down.
None of this is going well.
If it's a non-coding region, it won't be expressed in the spike protein, and won't trigger an immune response. It appears this sequence is only in the mRNA used to co-opt cells to produce spike proteins but the sequence itself doesn't trigger an immune response.
Your immune system doesn't develop a defense against all of the other human DNA floating around in your system (yes yes, auto-immune conditions exist but for many other complicated reasons) and this is just one tiny sequence inside the vaccine.
As u/SkepButOpen mentioned, there are simple explanations for many of these but folks here often only want to hear the more complex explanations that fit into a larger plan.
Number 20 has one of the most mundane explanations of all: Buckingham Palace has been undergoing a renovation for the last couple years (covered windows), The Royal Crest was damaged (and removed for repair), and the queen's standard (elaborate flag) follows her wherever she is staying which hasn't been Buckingham Palace.
I feel like too many folks follow Q's pattern of asking leading questions but then reject answers that are simple in favor of far less likely (but more exciting) answers.
But that's exactly what this post is trying to do: compare populations of different sizes using only an isolated subset population. It is an error to treat the ratio of two subset populations as an indication of probability in the total populations unless you also factor in their relative size.
What doesn't make sense? In a population of 100, say 80 are vaxxed. Say also that 40 vaxxed go to ICU and 10 unvaxxed go to ICU...50% of each. You can't say vaxxed are 4x more likely because the relative rate is the same (and in this data unvaxxed are clearly not going to ICU at the same rate).
That shows case rate, not hospitalization or ICU rate. That is not relevant unless we can also see how many of each group never got tested. Most stats I have seen show that vaxxed get tested at a much higher rate (probably because they fear the virus more).
Correct, which means the unvaxxed population is something like 4x more likely to go to ICU.
There are valid concerns about vaccine safety out there but these sorts of posts are just misleading and make skeptics look like fools.
Hmm not sure I agree with that assessment. If 80% of the population gets vax, and the same percentage of vaxxed/unvaxxed get sick, then it will look like 4x more risk for vax population. Based on this graphic, something like 3x more hospitalizations were vaxxed and maybe 1.2x ICU were vaxxed...but Canada has four times as many vaxxed people as unvaxxed. Bottom line then is that unvaxxed are more likely to be hospitalized and much more likely to go to ICU.
Assuming these numbers are accurate, of course.
It appears the facts about miscarriage and covid vaccines have been misrepresented. Every thing I have read about this points to a single report claiming 82% of vaccinated pregnant women miscarried. The truth, however, is that that statistic only included women who were vaccinated during the 1st or 2nd trimester and also miscarried within the three months of the study. Hundreds more mothers who were also vaccinated within those three months did not complete pregnancy (either by birth or miscarriage) and so could not included in that statistic.
The actual numbers:
- There were 4000 pregnant women in the study who were vaccinated while pregnant.
- Of those 4000, 827 pregnancies completed during the study.
- Of those 827 completions, 104 were miscarriages, around 12%, which is not unusual.
We can't draw any more than this from the data because almost 80% of participants did not complete pregnancy during the study, one way or another. The miscarriage rate for those that did complete pregnancy was not unusual considering the short timeframe (take a 3-month window out of a 9-month pregnancy, only include completions, and of course it will skew miscarriage rates because only 3rd tri completions even have a chance of being normal).
https://fullfact.org/health/miscarriage-vaccine-misinfo/
I hope your daughter is induced to avoid eclampsia and the baby and mother come out of this safely!
Also the tariffs that Trump imposed on China include fertilizer and fertilizer distribution equipment. Not sure if we should roll that back but it probably isn't helping matters.