Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134
1
I agree, and also think higher SWE in winter will not be making it into spring, as a general trend.
My past "research" into individual weather stations did not show much correlation of higher snow thickness in winter with a later melt-out date.
Certainly the inconvenience and potential spring flooding resulting from more winter snow are here to stay in many northern places.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: March 04, 2021, 05:23:31 PM »
What the ice does, will do and did belongs here.
Deep discussion into the various thickness models and their relative or absolute merits - not here.
PIOMAS, CS2SMOS, and Hycom considered relatively reliable for ice purposes, and can be posted freely. I guess Mercator too though am unfamiliar with it.
DMI and AMSR2 thickness/volume not considered reliable enough, and can be posted here occasionally and sparingly, or (better) discussed in their own threads.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: March 04, 2021, 05:10:41 PM »
Thanks for the rotation Glen.

AMSR2 thickness measurement is too unreliable as to be quite useless IIRC, best not to discuss it in this thread. Wipneus explained it once, I think there's a thread somewhere with this info.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: March 04, 2021, 12:49:09 PM »
Nice explanation uniquorn. The very visible leads in brightness temp are actually refrozen so hidden beneath the ice surface, waiting for the melting season to manifest their thinness.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 03, 2021, 10:17:31 PM »
Wipneus while we are at it, vould you please update the regional area/extent charts to include 2021?
Thanks a lot for all the data you enable.

6
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 03, 2021, 03:04:55 PM »
It appears recovering persons are currently at risk from the new variants (UK, SA etc.), while vaccinated persons are apparently more protected, at least according to some information published locally here. Haven't found any quantitative data.

7
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 03, 2021, 02:37:33 PM »
The last few days have been quite the event for this time of year, statistically speaking.

8
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 03, 2021, 05:44:47 AM »
Good point SH. My thought was on WW2 casualties, it should be obvious that the bar chart minimization isn't contributing anything.
I would remove the second chart you posted though, it makes me uncomfortable.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: March 02, 2021, 09:19:18 PM »
No need to fear, it just needs to be posted in the appropriate thread.  ::)

10
The rest / Re: The off topic off topic thread
« on: March 02, 2021, 09:14:43 PM »
Careful what you wish for... Friv usually comes when the ice is crashing.

But you can already see how the thread suddenly became very active as soon as a few days of losses came along. Many posters will come out of their hibernation, rest assured.

11
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 02, 2021, 05:16:32 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)
...
If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people of all ages on some kind of life-support care every year, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 500,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analysis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.

Quote
The graph shows weekly raw death counts from all causes, enabling the viewer to assess excess deaths by comparing to the death counts of previous years.
Indeed, at the two peaks death rate was ~80k vs. ~55k in all previous years shown. An increase of about 25k weekly deaths, almost 50%. this just doesn't happen randomly or as a result of a long term rise in obesity or smoking or whatever. Something came along and finished off these people, whether they were primed for it or not. Otherwise statistics show that only 55k would have died, and 25k lived on another week despite their healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Using "50% increase" is not a valuable observation, especially in a population which is about 327 million people...or maybe 329 million. No-one is really sure. Literally.

These big changes in demographics are yearly, across the board, and such deaths from flus and coronaviruses don't just rise in a constant straight line, it comes in waves, and get bigger and bigger death numbers, taking out "dry-tinder" every few years. They were shocked and horrified in 2018 when hospitals were overloaded in USA from flu, and they had a vaccine for that. But no vaccine for covid in 2020. The focus on excess deaths before in-depth scientific analysis takes place, as I explained, is not remotely scientific. So we will have to wait. But the deaths per capita population are tiny for this virus. The ongoing excess deaths caused by lockdown policy, are (will be) significant, and among the young and healthy.
And by the way, due to the large rising elderly population every year, a large number of excess deaths are noted as being from Alzheimers, as the growing older group shuffles off this mortal coil.
I am not being rude, but re-read my post because you missed a lot of science and rational in there regarding excess deaths from other causes. Take the time to think about it. Read it again.

See my reply to Jim Hunt above to make the other comparisons you are talking about.
The bolded part is what I call hand waving. I bring you a graph that shows total deaths from all causes are quite stable across years and quite unique in 2020, and yet you claim big waves every few years. Where are they? Show me big waves in numbers please.

Maybe you do not intend it, maybe you do, but the italicized part does come across as rude, especially as it is being repeated in your posts. Implying others miss so much and need time to think and re-read the words of wisdom.

12
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 02, 2021, 04:31:49 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)

...

A difference of one death per 150,000 per day is not the end of the world. Nor even 7 deaths per 100,000 per day, which is more than what happened every day in America...for a whole month...in Spring 2020, in terms of difference in excess death between different years, and for about a month recently. And the excess deaths are not just covid-19, as has been seen.
The longterm harms of lockdowns will go on for years. Not to mention progress to a cleaner environment has been set back massively.

If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people of all ages on some kind of life-support care every year, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 500,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analuyis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.
The graph shows weekly raw death counts from all causes, enabling the viewer to assess excess deaths by comparing to the death counts of previous years.
Indeed, at the two peaks death rate was ~80k vs. ~55k in all previous years shown. An increase of about 25k weekly deaths, almost 50%. this just doesn't happen randomly or as a result of a long term rise in obesity or smoking or whatever. Something came along and finished off these people, whether they were primed for it or not. Otherwise statistics show that only 55k would have died, and 25k lived on another week despite their healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Of course, there are ways to minimize this number. If you calculate deaths per microsecond per billion people, it will be even lower than your number of 1 in 150000 per day. BTW, I believe it is actually 1.6 per 150000 per day (assuming 330M total US population) but whatever.
If half a million dead persons in the US - that would not have died this year statistically if Covid wasn't around - seems like a small number to you, we shall have to disagree.

Note that the better calculation is to sum deaths over the whole year, rather than focus on single weeks (a more accurate method to examine whether the virus is responsible would be to sum March 20-Feb 21 and compare to previous similar periods). But just eyeballing the graph on a weekly basis can easily show the uniqueness of this year.

You should note that there is very little variation between the years. For the peak April week the range of 2015-2019 varies by less than 3k, while 2020 was 24.5k above the average. I can't calculate how many SDs above the norm the 2020 result is, but it's surely not random chance that brought the result.

You should also note that assignment of causes can be trickier, which is why the CDC might revise flu deaths by 25%. But death from all causes circumvents this issue completely, and it does not vary by 25% or is revised by 25%.

13
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 02, 2021, 01:33:48 AM »
Unfortunately, the parameters of discussion are set by the media, and given the advanced degeneration of said media, parameters are set very narrowly because governments have opted for a strategy of fear and distrust.
You give way too much credit to the power of the media, and too little credit for the intelligence of the people who have gathered under your guidance here in the ASIF.

14
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 01, 2021, 05:27:10 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

15
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 01, 2021, 05:12:03 PM »
If these are accurate, neither of us will probably benefit from further discussion.
Thank you SH for putting the matter to rest (though it was quite obvious from the first salvo).

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: March 01, 2021, 02:02:22 AM »
Sig, may I suggest limiting discussion of SpaceX ideas like the above to the SpaceX thread, at least until they become actual solutions and not just ideas or promises.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 28, 2021, 10:56:15 PM »
Some peripheral seas, amsr2-uhh, feb19-27.
okhotsk, bering, atlantic side and baffin(labrador).  All scaled to 50%

FG, check out uniquorn's animation of the Barents showing the ice suddenly disappearing.

18
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: February 28, 2021, 10:22:42 AM »
At least in the Cryo section we've had peace for a long while, but recently some issues arose.
May I remind all: when you see a post that falls outside posting guidelines, for example profanity, personal attacks, disruptive, repetitive or whatever else, it is best to click "report to moderator" and add a few words detailing the issue. This can help moderators realize a post is problematic for non-trivial issues, and can also help shorten moderator response time, especially for those mods who sleep from time to time. (I only have this problem on weekends).
This is often better than rebuttals in the same thread, because disruptive parties often escalate the disruption when they meet opposition, and those that were eventually "innocent" (by moderator judgement) can be offended by public admonishment.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 28, 2021, 09:37:03 AM »
Another big increase will turn further years into bin "A". Maybe March 1st for the start of the melting season thread should be delayed...
Thanks Stephan.
Indeed, March 1st was predicated on a lack of rebound, while a rebound we did indeed get. Back to waiting.

BTW, kudos to those who predicted the rebound by looking at the weather.

20
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 27, 2021, 10:48:31 PM »
So a virus that kills >1% of the over 60 cohort ,as it actually did in a certain segment of the Israeli population, and even that only achieved thanks to very good healthcare that prevented more deaths, is weak? What is the meaning of that?

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 27, 2021, 08:44:59 PM »
Has ArctischePinguin retired?
No, but Wipneus usually take s a while to switch over the new year in his charts. I have the same issue myself in my volume charts.

And please don't post so many consecutive posts, some of which have been posted upthread already.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: February 27, 2021, 04:04:17 PM »
So this is what normal freeze-up is like, as temps stay low throughout the winter. It's quite impressive how much damage is caused to the freezing process by spikes in air temperature, at least as evidenced by the very quick rise of the core temp of the ice, and its relatively slow drop afterward (shown in the previous animations upthread).

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 27, 2021, 03:59:34 PM »
Hello echoughton, you can read all about it in the area and extent data thread and in the PIOMAS volume thread. Extent was higher than most recent years but recently dropped to 2nd or 3rd lowest while wobbling. Volume is 3rd lowest after 2017 and 2018, interestingly both years had a weaker melting season than other years with higher winter volume and extent such as 2012, 2019 and 2020.

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: February 27, 2021, 12:53:02 PM »
Good point on tankers. A lot of shipping should/would be unnecessary - oil, LNG, coal.

And indeed, in an age of zero or even negative interest rates, the capital tied up in inventory isn't as costly as it used to be. For goods whose supply chain is relatively stable, timeliness is much less of an issue. So Christmas decorations or the autumn fashion must get there quickly, but construction materials can travel more slowly as long as the supply chain is being fed constantly.

25
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: February 27, 2021, 12:46:29 PM »
FG, your question was on topic but it was repeated in multiple posts and became a long discussion. Moreover, you used some harsh terms which naturally produced strongly worded responses which naturally produced some backlash, still reverberating through the thread.
OTOH all I asked was that if you wished to discuss it further, please continue it elsewhere. Not really singling you out or anything. In reality I probably should have been more hands on and edited out some language or moved some posts elsewhere, yet was too busy/tired.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 27, 2021, 12:13:54 PM »
Folks, please avoid personal comments and snark (or responding to such). I have been lax due to being RL busy, but I will remove/edit/move as needed if things escalate.

27
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 27, 2021, 11:14:09 AM »
Quote
Remember, the entire lot does not need to be vaccinated, just a large enough amount to make infection chains highly unlikely events. That can be achieved with as little as 20% of the population if the right people are targeted.
Nothing I've seen so far supports this claim. The virus is highly contagious, 20% immmunity will do nothing to stop it unless you refer to a widespread population of isolated farms or something similar.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: February 27, 2021, 12:11:37 AM »
Nice post Glen. Yes, all ASI measures have their merit.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 27, 2021, 12:08:01 AM »
A. What Neven said.
B. FG if you want to discuss satellite and data policies further then fine, but not on this thread.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2021, 08:42:08 PM »
Total volume peaks in early April, and CAB volume can peak in early May. However, the melting season in the peripheral seas begins when extent reaches the annual maximum, and the forum traditionally switches over to the melting season thread at this time.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: February 26, 2021, 12:04:47 PM »
Following on from T85 analysis

That cooling is still ongoing. There is an interesting small gradient change from mid january onwards between thermistors 150 and 210. Previously I would have identified that as thickening, now I think that is also phase change as the winter cold finally reaches the bottom of the ice.
Unfortunately T85 Heat is not working or turned off.
Very interesting behavior. A steep gradient fast moving up to thermistor 150, then a shallower gradient slowly progressing. Must be some physics there, but weird.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2021, 07:11:59 AM »
Unless there is some rebound (or an additional crash), we will change over to a melting season thread on March 1st.

33
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 26, 2021, 06:28:12 AM »
Another study from Israel, by the same organization (CHS), not peer reviewed yet.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-research-british-variant-increases-risk-of-serious-covid-by-70-percent-660226

Quote
The study compared a group of about 60,000 people infected with coronavirus between October 1 and December 19, 2020 – before the start of the vaccination campaign and before Israel identified its first cases of the variant – to a group of 50,000 unvaccinated people who contracted coronavirus between January 17 and February 7. During this later period, the Health Ministry estimated that the (UK) variant was the cause of 80% of new infections.

In the first period, 1% of people aged 30-50, 3.7% between 50-59 and 14.5% of those 60 and deteriorated within a 14-day period and experienced a serious case of the disease. In contrast, during the later period, 1.3% people ages 30-50, 5.5% between 50 and 60 and 19% of those 60 and older became serious patients within 14 days.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: February 25, 2021, 06:26:25 PM »
There is an opportunity at Suez and Panama for recharging

Or for tenders to charge their batteries in port then charge the tanker / bulk carrier offshore.

There is trans Pacific / Atlantic traffic, but also a lot of coastal shipping:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-29.2/centery:3.0/zoom:2
I think this is the best idea for straight battery electric, set up fast charging ports in strategic points along the route. Not a full port with all its delays and costs, but an in and out charging terminal.
But still for very long cruises synthetic fuel would be cheaper.

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: February 25, 2021, 03:23:01 PM »
NeilT, did you notice the news item referred to a local tanker used in fueling other vessels?

In any case, a huge battery for a 20 day trip of a heavy cargo ship or tanker doesn't make much economic sense. Batteries need to be cycled often to recoup their initial investment. Better to use a synthetic fuel produced using electricity. Of course, slowing cruising speeds and potentially adding smart sails and a solar canopy can reduce the overall energy requirements.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 25, 2021, 10:36:22 AM »
Thanks to all. I'll give it at least another day.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: February 25, 2021, 06:17:31 AM »
It's weird that all these buoys are in place but in essence there is no good reliable way to find out where the ice ends and the water starts. There must be a better way than just thermistors with ambiguous results. An interesting engineering challenge, which I have no clue how to solve.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 25, 2021, 05:01:40 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

February 24th, 2021:
     13,701,350 km2, a drop of -47,203 km2.
     2021 is now 2nd lowest on record.
     In the graph are today's 15 lowest years.
     Highlighted 2010's average, 2021 and the 5 years with daily lowest minimum:
          (2012, 2020, 2019, 2016 & 2007)

P.S. 277K km2 lost since Feb 16th.
      Is it time to declare the start of 2021 melting season?  :o
It seems it might be time already, though surprises are possible. Stephan - another update of your historical analysis would be most helpful.

39
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 25, 2021, 04:36:35 AM »
Current distribution of hospitalized persons in severe condition in Israel, by age group:
Over 60 - 56.5%
50-60 - 19.7%
40-50 - 11.8%
30-40 - 7.3%
20-30 - 3.7%
<20 - 1%

This distribution is affected by the differential vaccination rate among the age groups, and probably a difference in behavior as well, but still gives pause to those who might think Covid is only dangerous to old people.

40
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 25, 2021, 04:22:07 AM »
Finally, a peer reviewed study about the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness in Israel, published in the NEJM. Seems like a well designed study confirming the randomized trial results in a real-life setting. A good read.

Quote
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765?articleTools=true

Quote
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND
As mass vaccination campaigns against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) commence worldwide, vaccine effectiveness needs to be assessed for a range of outcomes across diverse populations in a noncontrolled setting. In this study, data from Israel’s largest health care organization were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

METHODS
All persons who were newly vaccinated during the period from December 20, 2020, to February 1, 2021, were matched to unvaccinated controls in a 1:1 ratio according to demographic and clinical characteristics. Study outcomes included documented infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), symptomatic Covid-19, Covid-19–related hospitalization, severe illness, and death. We estimated vaccine effectiveness for each outcome as one minus the risk ratio, using the Kaplan–Meier estimator.

RESULTS
Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95); for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) and 94% (95% CI, 87 to 98); for hospitalization, 74% (95% CI, 56 to 86) and 87% (95% CI, 55 to 100); and for severe disease, 62% (95% CI, 39 to 80) and 92% (95% CI, 75 to 100), respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72% (95% CI, 19 to 100) for days 14 through 20 after the first dose. Estimated effectiveness in specific subpopulations assessed for documented infection and symptomatic Covid-19 was consistent across age groups, with potentially slightly lower effectiveness in persons with multiple coexisting conditions.

CONCLUSIONS
This study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting suggests that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective for a wide range of Covid-19–related outcomes, a finding consistent with that of the randomized trial.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: February 25, 2021, 03:43:50 AM »
(Moved here from freezing season thread. Emotions don't belong there)

42
The politics / Re: The Collapse Of America
« on: February 24, 2021, 05:55:35 AM »
Really it's not enough for you that over 500,000 have died? You still grudge the meager steps that were actually taken to stem the virus in the US? You might wonder how other countries had much less dead, took much greater steps including longer and stricter lockdowns, and yet hunger did not manifest itself.
The problems in the US are structural, the virus has just exposed them.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 24, 2021, 05:05:18 AM »
Likelihood is increasing daily but the jury is still out. Stephan's stats are a great help in determining probability.

44
Antarctica / Re: Getz Ice Shelf Discussion
« on: February 24, 2021, 02:33:43 AM »
Indeed, a very interesting article.

However, their definition of "greater than" percentages is simply wrong.

Quote
Satellite data have shown that in Antarctica the dynamic ice loss (6.3 ± 1.9 mm sea level equivalent (sle)) is 86% greater than the modest reduction in surface mass (0.9 ± 1.1 mm sle) since the 1990s

Apologies for nitpicking.

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 23, 2021, 09:57:20 PM »
Ignore what FT, WSJ and Bloomberg say about reasons for market movements. They are clueless.
Your last sentence, OTOH, is quite right.

46
Antarctica / Re: Getz Ice Shelf Discussion
« on: February 23, 2021, 09:51:39 PM »
The math is weird. Speed of 669 now, higher by 391 over the year 1994. So 1994 was 669-391=278.
669 is 140% higher than 278.

391 out of 669 is ~59%, but the use of this figure in the sentence was wrong. Or the numbers were not quoted properly.

In any case, a disturbing report.

47
The politics / Re: The Collapse Of America
« on: February 23, 2021, 10:19:16 AM »
Quote
over 12% of Pennsylvania households were experiencing hunger at the end of 2020.
This number is huge. In the supposedly richest most powerful country in the world.

(Cross post from the Covid recession thread).

48
Quote
over 12% of Pennsylvania households were experiencing hunger at the end of 2020.
Pause on this for a moment. The US is a failed country, exposed by the pandemic.

49
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 23, 2021, 10:12:50 AM »
In Israel the huge wave of first doses did not do much in terms of national infection and hospitalization statistics. Of course this was also affected by behavioral developments in the unvaccinated cohort and by the emergence of the UK variant. Also quite a few peoole were infected, hospitalized and died after receiving their first dose. The following wave of second doses did make a dent in the national statistics, and also received stamps of approval from studies tracking individual persons. My intuitive take on all this is that the first jab is not effective enough on its own, though I'm sure it partially helps.
Note: this is all only relevant to Pfizer.

50
Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: February 22, 2021, 01:22:55 PM »
Nice animation. I suggest to repost in the freezing season thread.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134