61–70 of 337 posts
My current take (not a virologist, doctor): At this point, if you are not immunocompromised and you have the first vaccination and a booster. You should be able to easily recover regardless of the mutation(s). The virus would need to completely diverge from SARS-CoV-2 in order to fully defeat the countermeasures of the current vaccinations.
I gotta say, COVID releases new features faster than a lot of teams do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the problem with Xi? Perhaps there is a second meaning I don't know?
But that's pronounced chi like chai no? I tend to not read Xi as pinyin unless it's in context with other Chinese words.
I gotta say, COVID releases new features faster than a lot of teams do.
My current take (not a virologist, doctor): At this point, if you are not immunocompromised and you have the first vaccination and a booster. You should be able to easily recover regardless of the mutation(s). The virus would need to completely diverge from SARS-CoV-2 in order to fully defeat the countermeasures of the current vaccinations.
Any reasoning/source or this is just what you wish for / want to believe?
Interesting choice to pick "Omicron" instead of "Nu," which news outlets had been expecting them to use. Perhaps this allows them to avoid having to use "Xi" as the name of a Covid variant, which would have been...inconvenient for the WHO.
Have you heard about the nu variant? No, what’s it called? The nu variant Yeah, does it have a name? It’s nu Yeah I know it’s new but what do they call it? What does who call it? That’s what I’m asking you! What does WHO call it?
How was "Omicron" chosen as the name of this variant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s disturbing how poor the civics knowledge regarding multinational organisations remains in much of the world. The relations between countries in general are dysfunctional, driven by politics and selfish interests, often corrupt, and dependent on power, why are we surprised when those same factors affect shared multinational organisations?
Even though there are good reasons for it to be the case, I do agree with the OP that it undermines the trust in them. Politics should not override science IMO.
And the only feasible solutions to creating those forums are points somewhere between "completely political" and "apolitical."
So it's constructive to say "I wish the WHO were less political" or "The WHO should appease its members by doing X, so that it could be more neutral in Y," but it's pretty trite to comment that it's political. Yes, and what alternatives are possible?