Good riddance. It's telling that most of the employees losing their jobs over this across the country are almost never physicians and researchers (and only occasionally nurses). It's mostly support staff: people who often have no scientific or medical training and/or no college degree. That should tell you a lot about how justifiable their die-hard belief is.
I don’t know about your must obey tactics, it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.
Your proposal presupposes that their decision-making is grounded in fact. It is not. Data and evidence have no bearing on their mindset.
There will always be a more creative justification as to why it's the wrong thing in their mind. The goal posts will always move.
>"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?
>ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it.
Parent mentioned moving goal posts, not I.
>maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.
The facts show that vaccine side effects are generally mild, vaccination reduces transmission by 5X or more and that natural immunity offers inferior protection to vaccination. If you have convincing evidence showing otherwise, I encourage you to present it.
OpenVaers is a public reporting tool - anyone can type data into there. Unfiltered, it is basically junk, and claiming it as data against the COVID-19 vaccines is dishonest scaremongering.
Hospitals directly report to VAERS as well. We've had this system in place for a reason, you need a way to track anecdotal reactions in individuals that suffer extreme reactions or death that were otherwise healthy.
There's countless instances of healthy people dying right after the shot, doesn't matter if you wish it away.
Yes it may be a small amount percentage wise, but the more you scale the more absolute deaths you get.
> Hospitals directly report to VAERS as well. We've had this system in place for a reason
Correct, and this is not the reason. You are misusing it.
> There's countless instances of healthy people dying right after the shot,
Calling BS on that, it's not "Countless", far from it. And it needs to be compared to the - far worse - risks of COVID.
This statement is dishonest scaremongering.
>natural immunity offers greater protection than the vaccine, you're thinking of combined vaccine + natural immunity.
No. There is no consensus on the duration of natural immunity, nor do we know how effective it is against variants. We do have confidence in the duration of vaccine-derived immunity and its performance against existing variants (https://www.newsweek.com/natural-covid-immunity-delta-varian...).
>vaccine side effects range from mild to death
You've not provided convincing evidence of this.
From the VAERS website: VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
These reports are investigated. The number of deaths reported to VAERS is inconsistent with results of clinical trials for the major COVID vaccines.
VAERS was created as a provision of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. The NCVIA was enacted because manufacturers of childhood vaccines could not obtain robust liability insurance.
> These reports are investigated. The number of deaths reported to VAERS is inconsistent with results of clinical trials for the major COVID vaccines.
A clinical trial !== an investigation into the report. Do you know what the investigation for each of these reports concluded or are you assuming they were "inaccurate".
Have you read these detailed submissions of VAERS? It's very hard to conclude anything other than the vaccine does have adverse effects in some people.
I am as appalled by the mandatory vaccination push as the next guy. That being said, all the data I've seen shows that the risk of covid complications is significantly higher than the risk of covid vaccine complications. If the fear of vaccine adverse effects is the only thing that keeps you from getting a vaccine, consider getting the vaccine.
> I am as appalled by the mandatory vaccination push as the next guy.
What does this mean? Vaccine mandates for certain jobs and circumstances are what we are getting, and this is _not_ "mandatory vaccination".
And in fact these mandates enjoy broad support (1). Do you expect the people who agree to be shouting about this? Of course they are not. The only people worked up about it are the minority who don't like it, for various reasons, most of them IMHO misguided, factually incorrect, poorly evidenced, or coming from faulty understandings of relative risk. Echo chambers that make it feel that "people are with us" even with small groups with extreme positions are an unfortunate fact of modern online life. As is disinformation.
The next time that I am on an aircraft or in a restaurant, I would be very happy to hear that everyone else there, staff and customers, are also vaccinated. And that goes triple for if by some misfortune I have to go to a hospital.
I'm not asking that people "be forced to take a medication they don't want" (you are still mischaracterising it as "mandatory vaccination") but it's a stretch that they should ask to opt out of safety measures, and then still insist on being an ICU nurse. Sorry, no. Choices have consequences. it's just such an easily avoidable risk.
But what about their job? What about it? If truck driver goes blind, are you going to let them keep their job out of pity, never mind the damage that it will do?
Most people understand this logic. If you're "as appalled by the mandatory vaccination push as the next guy" then ... since the median next guy isn't appalled much, you aren't appalled much?
We are on the same page. Nobody should ever be forced to take a medication they don't want. Some people ride motorcycles on the freeway, or do wingsuit jumps, or surf bigwaves, or ski the backcountry, or freesolo el Capitan. I guess it's more fun than getting a bad case of covid, but either way, more power to them.
The only point I'm making is that VAERS data by itself is negligible compared to the effects of covid itself. I understand that it can be frustrating to interact with 2-masks+3-jabs+forever-lockdown+kill-unvaxxed crowd, especially given the political power it wields in the real world, but IMHO the VAERS data does not make a strong case for passing on the vaccine.
My only point for VAERS is that there are instances of people reacting to the vaccine. Yes anecdotes should be verified, but they do exist as does the small chance of a reaction.
So that small reaction should be enough for people with immunity from a previous infection to say, "hey, that's my reason". Not that they need one :)
Exactly! None of your damn business how other people handle their health. Go cower in the basement if you can't handle a (hopefully temporary) less than 15% increase in the death rate for your age cohort.
All that can be concluded from VAERS is that some number of people reported these effects after claiming to take the vaccine. It does not imply causation nor can we infer correlation. This is why clinical trials were done before the vaccines received an EUA.
>it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.
Based on the statistics in the OP, and other reported successes (the US military has achieved over 95% compliance) it looks like these mandates are achieving the desired effect: more working adults are getting vaccinated. It seems as though the most effective tool at combating misinformation is not to try and talk over people spouting lies. Instead, it's to make vaccination a matter of workplace safety, which is difficult for even the scammers to dispute convincingly.
What exactly is "the desired effect?" If it is to eliminate Covid, the vaccine doesn't seem to help much, considering vaccinated people can still get infected and pass on the infection to others.
The desired effect of the mandate is to increase the percentage of the workforce that is vaccinated. It appears to be achieving that goal.
As has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 to others.
Your numbers are way off. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But the reduction in risk of transmission is far more limited and temporary than you claim.
> Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.
> A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
I am not going to say that's impossible. I am going to say that there would be Nobel prize in medicine waiting if 2-year effects are both observed and explained.
Having some amount of caution for a novel vaccine for a novel disease with novel vaccination types seems reasonable. These vaccines are the first mass vaccinations with mRNA or the first mass vaccination with modified adenovirus, depending on which one you get. Personally, the risk from the disease outweighed the risk from the vaccination, but I also wasn't anywhere near the front of the line to get one.
Also, my child participated in a "long term" study on a childhood vaccine reformulation, and long term just means one year. So, if there were side effects outside of that period, it wouldn't be found from long term studies, it would have to come from some other research. Of course, small effects that show up years later is going to take a long time to pin down, and would have required a very large study group to notice statistically.
Realistically, if there is some negative side effect that takes years to develop and only affects a very small fraction of people, we won't know that it's related to any particular vaccine for a long time. And we'll figure it out from epidemiology studies, not from safety studies.
Just curious, how many babies have been born from two vaccinated parents? How many studies have been done to ensure there are no side effects on the conceived child and/or the mother?
Yes, you just take one month of safety data on 60 patients and that's 5 years of safety data. It appears the anti-vax are innumerate as well as anti-science!
> So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
Dying or taking up a valuable ICU bed. And that’s not just bad for them, but also for anyone else who might have need for ICU, or someone who is medically unable to get the vaccine who is now also at increased risk.
The point isn’t that it magically makes everything perfect, but that at scale, vaccines very much decrease the severity of the pandemic.
> if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.
And if COVID would stop mutating, we wouldn’t have a vaccine be (possibly) less effective as time goes on. Surely you realize that a vaccine is not (and never was or is) 100% effective?
mRNA covid vaccines are, sadly, in a class of their own. Compare with, e.g., polio vaccine:
> Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.
> It is not known how long people who received IPV will be immune to poliovirus, but they are most likely protected for many years after a complete series of IPV.
All the "6-in-1", "4-in-1", "3-in-1" include anti-tetanus, diphtheria and Polio shots. A 15-year-old UK citizen has had Five doses against those diseases in this standard schedule.
But these diseases are not a problem any more, not widespread? Yeah, vaccination is the reason for that.
Absolutely. Note that all the standard schedule vaccines offer long term, possibly life-time protection against both infection and severe cases. Alas, there are no signs that the current crop of covid vaccines are capable of the same performance. The problem of long term effective vaccines against sars (and flu btw) is still wide open.
For example, one of the highest vaccinated countries in the world, Singapore, is now experiencing a covid spike with cases in the same order as Texas or Florida, the supposed bastions of stubborn resistance to vaccines. Deaths are still way behind, so those vaccines are good for something.
> Alas, there are no signs that the current crop of covid vaccines are capable of the same (long term effective ) performance.
That's quite possible, and we'll know more in a few years.
Israel has good stats after a 3rd shot within 6 months of the second ( https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1444675839904210951 ), but we don't know if that will be the end of it.
However the saying is: "you go to war with the army that you have now, not the army that you want to have". We're very fortunate to have fairly effective COVID-19 vaccines within a year of the pandemic starting - in early 2020 we did not expect vaccines so soon. We should use them as well as we can. Dismissing the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for not being 100% effective or everlasting after 1 or 2 shots, when we still give 5 Polio shots, decades later, is lunacy.
"Either mRNA vaccines are best thing since slice bread, or they are completely useless" How about neither?
The contention of this general thread is whether imposing vaccine mandates at the cost of destroying livelihoods is just. Sorry, the mRNA vaccine performance is too weak to justify such measures. For all we know (epidemiological data from UK, Singapore) there is not much difference in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people / populations.
The following two statements are consistent:
* Covid mRNA vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and death, especially in adults.
* Covid mRNA vaccines are NOT that effective in preventing infection, and pretending they are to justify unheard of drastic vaccine mandates is BadJuju.
>if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.
What exactly does this mean? Some vaccines confer sterilizing immunity, some confer non-sterilizing immunity. Both classes of vaccines have been used successfully in humans and animals to control disease outbreaks for decades. It's difficult to confer sterilizing immunity to coronaviruses as they are more likely to mutate. That doesn't mean the vaccines 'don't work.'
It's a gish gallop through the greatest hits of the antivaxers.
You can still get it so what's the point of vaccination! Fat people! Maybe there are side effects! Vaers! Liberty! Not a proper vaccine!
Whenever one is countered, just swap to the next one, and cycle back to the first when you run out. We've seen all of these before. It's very tiresome and a bit sad.
One usually cycles through retorts when one is confronted with the same propaganda!
> Oh those pesky anti-vaxxers taking up ICU beds, that's how they harm vaccinated!
Ok so we should make sure all the risks of covid are minimized, lets encourage the reducing of the leading morbidity of covid and other diseases by forcing people to eat healthy.
It seems to me people like you are more accepting to force people to inject something into them than you are to force people to exercise or eat right.
Both are appalling, one you see is appalling, the other you do not.
If the vaccine works for you, great. Unvaccinated people are not a risk, the ICU is not going to crumble and there are much more dangerous things in life to give up your freedoms for.
Just incase your precious ICU fills up, first you could kick out the "anti-vaxxers", then the fatties, then anyone with a criminal background, next we can have a government panel decide who does or doesn't get care!
If we're at the point of society of banning things and forcing injections I don't see why we can't just ban sugar.
The argument isn't unvaccinated people are spreading covid directly to vaccinated people, it's now that unvaccinated people are taking up ICU space and resources.
Under that logic we should start cracking down on other things that stress the healthcare system.
We should start looking at the other leading causes of hospitalizations.
That's heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Got any idea what those have in common?
Maybe if you're a PoS person, and your social score is low enough, you don't get care.
Likewise, maybe if you caused that car collision, you don't get care?
All because the ICU might hit capacity. Talk about fear mongering.
> If we're at the point of society of banning things
We’ve been at that point for, literally, all of recorded history. You are a little late to the realization.
> I don't see why we can't just ban sugar.
We can. The question is whether we should; banning popular, habituating substances has a pretty bad track record of doing more to exacerbate than solve the problems associated with consumption, as well as being a source for all kinds of additional problems.
“Banning” isn't the same thing as “magically eliminating”.
> The backlash of banning things is warranted for many reasons.
There's plenty of things uncontroversially, unproblematically banned. There arr particular classes of things that have historically been notably problematic to ban.
> But why care when we've already moved on to forced injections through career intimidation.
Jobs with vaccination requirements are also not new, though not quite as old as banning things.
I’m not sure why the existence of such requirements makes the real problems with banning certain classes of things any less important. This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.
>So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
The data is clear that unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and spread COVID-19[1]. So the fewer unvaccinated people in the workplace, the less likely an outbreak becomes.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation on why UK case rates per 100k for vaccinated people are higher than unvaccinated in >30yo age groups. Whatever the reasons is, it does not match '5X more likely to contract covid'. According to the UK dataset, in 40-49 the rate of infections in vaccinated people is double the rate of infection in unvaccinated people.
Yes, the data shows vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalization and death. If you are an adult, get a covid vacine, it will keep you from getting a nasty disease. It's just that the vaccines don't appear to be effective at preventing infection, and this is a major pretext in the push for mandatory vaccinations, to the point we are firing people over it (!!!) while the crowds are cheering (!!!).
> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection
Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's
>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection
You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine.
Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?
CDC has instituted a policy where vaccinated people were instructed to test on symptoms, whereas unvaccinated people were instructed to test on contact with infected person. In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. The faulty policy was active March-July 2021.
TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data.
> In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint.
I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population.
My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you'd get a better response if you were to formulate your questions in a less pointed way. For example, try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'. I can't speak for the parent poster, here are some thoughts:
* As I mentioned, US data is not very credible because of a data collection fumble.
* There are legitimate concerns of vaccine effectiveness dropping over time: either VE is constant over time, or boosters are necessary, but not both at the same time. Note Israel is at 40% population boosted.
* Recent Canada data is the most promising with VE against Delta infection of 87-92%. The catch is that the measurement stops at 5 months. Perhaps mix & match + large interval between shots is the golden recipe!
* OTOH, UK data is significantly less rosy. Assuming we believe PHE data (VE is negative in 30+yo age group) or the corrected version (VE is <50% in most age groups), something doesn't add up.
May the winter season be light so we can hopefully put the covid crisis past us.
>try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'
Call it whatever you want, the position is still unsupported by data. Ironically, that side is typically against any form of 'political correctness.'
The UK data also doesn't support what you claim elsewhere in the thread. When adjusted for confounders, unvaccinated case rates are higher across all age groups in the UK according to the twitter link you cite above.
We can geek confounders all day long. At the end of the day, after all confounders have been accounted by reality, the epi data is what the epi data is. Asking for someone's vax passport status (in UK) says little about the risk of the respective individual being infected or not at a given point in time.
Furthermore people vastly overestimate the risk of infection a healthy person poses. This has got beyond grotesque, we are excluding healthy people from society on account that sometime someday they might get infected with covid. As if they can't quarantine for a few weeks if the need arises.
The discounting of time-tested pandemic control methods, from denying natural immunity for people with past covid infection to denying quarantine-on-symptoms as an effective mechanism for controlling spread, its perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the official response to the pandemic.
Funny enough, if you'd ask me, I'd tell you to get vaccinated if you are >18, and wait for more long term data and/or novavax if you are <18. But that doesn't matter. All that it matters is whether we can somehow mess with the lives of those that have the slightest skepticism re a novel technology with yet to be proven long term effects and real life pandemic control results (see UK, Israel, Singapore).
Human rights? Freedom of thought? Bodily autonomy? Obsolete.
> Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's
mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.
Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.
I believe that American workers have a right to a safe workplace. It is a fact that the federal government has the power to set and regulate workplace safety standards. This is not new.
So why not continue testing unvaccinated people, and allow them to work as long as the test comes back negative? Why throw a blanket over an entire group, even when the majority of them are perfectly healthy?
risk cost analysis. if you have enough protection already, why add more at the risk of a potential side effect, that's up to the individual.
why not exercise, why not inject yourself with x, why not do this or that. why don't you just get in the train.
why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it. we're already forcing people to show their papers, why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease? why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.
Risk of vaccination is low, benefit good, seems legit.
> that's up to the individual
Sure, if and only if it's also up to the employer to choose as well. Individual choice without accountably for the consequences of that choice would be nice, but it's in short supply on account of the deadly pandemic.
> why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it.
This is a pointless question. Do fat nurses harm patients thereby? No.
> why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease?
There are many contexts in which vaccinations are required. _shrug_
> why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.
You're not making rational arguments here, just throwing emotional words around.
The more unvaccinated staff there are, the more risk there is to all staff, vaccinated or not.
And tell me, what about the patients? What if they're not vaccinated through no fault of their own (too young, immune-compromised etc)? Do they not deserve safety in hospital?
I want liberty too, liberty from the risk of being around unvaccinated people. I understand that I won't get that liberty in all contexts, but in some such as hospitals and aircraft, I am glad of it.
Your arguments are full of emotion, but they just don't add up. "other side" means that you think you're fighting someone.
> The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others.
I am a stuck record on this topic by now, but the word "can" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. You're making it sound like vaccinated and unvaccinated are equivalent, but they are not.
I can win the lottery. I can win a coin toss. But they are not equivalent, the odds are drastically different, so the risk management is different between the two cases.
There's more to it than "it can/cannot happen". it's not boolean. It's all risk mitigation, phrases like "80% vaccine efficacy" should tell you that we're not sith dealing in absolutes here.
it is simply pragmatic good sense to keep unvaccinated staff away from patients, because of the increased risk.
R, RStudio, and Shiny are great for prototyping, but you'd regret building a production data science ecosystem around them. Better to start with Python and rely on JavaScript viz tools in the end.
I agree completely. We made a dashboard in Shiny which was initially really quick and easy to make, but now several years later I've spent so many hours cursing the thing. All new dashboards are now made in python.
In addition to being a language that does almost nothing to encourage good development practices and discourage bad ones, compared to Python the R ecosystem's tooling is just so inferior in every area: IDE, unit/functional testing, ETL, deployment, dependency management, etc. etc.
It's illegal under GDPR and european data protection rights anyway. You have a right to have your account and data deleted if there aren't any important reasons not to (like finance stuff).
I don't think it's "run by" the YCombinator. If I recall correctly, YCombinator pays for HN costs, in exchange for 3 things: recruitment posts, YCombinator new startups posts, and having alumni see each others as orange.
The tech behind the scenes is pretty advanced though, from what I've read. (At least compared to reddit, along with apparently pretty good bot detection and such.)
It's infuriating to me that WebSQL was killed. 99% of real-world data is relational and yet the powers that be decided that we should all be forced to use IndexedDB and hacky layers like PouchDB built atop it.
WebSQL wasn't killed by opposition to having a relational API, it was killed because the spec was tied to, and only implemented by embedding, a specific, identified version of SQLite.
I think that a developer distaste for relational databases was a major driver. Digging back into correspondence on this a few months ago (when this came up on HN) I found clear statements that Mozilla opposed anything relational. The SQLite version is a convenient excuse for some developers who, at the time, we're enamoured with "NoSQL".
Mozilla for a long time backed their IndexedDB with SQLite, they wouldn't have done that if they were that antagonistic to relational databases.
I trust Mozilla's surface reasons here: they inherited the mess that was NPAPI from Netscape, then decades of experience with XUL binary components, were among the many dealing with Flash bugs and zero-day fallout well after Flash's "heyday", and have combined multiple decades of experience in what happens if the web depends on specific binaries to do its job. From that standpoint of they were already knee deep in trying to sandbox/reign in NPAPI, remove XUL, and remove Flash I absolutely understand why "you want the web to depend on the bugs and zero days of SQLite directly with no abstraction layer between?" was a complete non-starter.
The need to productionize another embedded database in order to support embedded SQL in the browser seems like a tough hill to climb given how widespread SQLLite is. This stance is always going to keep web apps behind mobile apps in terms of features and performance.
IMHO, these days browser should just ship popular libraries, e.g. sqlite, with browser, or download them once and cache them permanently, until never version is released. Think like «Linux distribution», but for web/wasm.
Ok, and if you want your non-web app to be compatible with Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android and you don't want to write more than one app, your options are...?
At some point in time after infection, viral load might be the same, but:
> the viral loads
decreased more rapidly in vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals in Singapore [3], suggesting
that vaccinated individuals may remain infectious for shorter periods of time.
How often is that something otherwise invisible, however? Like if I put one on my bike are there really many thieves who would otherwise not have considered it? I’m sure there are some small things which are relatively covert but it seems like a relatively uncommon situation.
