pfg

The current title is misleading. The PM (of Macron's government) was ousted; Macron is still the president.

Again, the result holds for all M3 Pro models. The Apple M3 Pro 11-Core even takes the lead in terms of efficiency in some of the benchmarks. The text makes multiple direct comparisons between M3 Pro and M4 Pro efficiency.

It looks like they don't have benchmark results for Cinebench 2024 for some older models, so they're only shown when you switch to Cinebench R23. The Witcher 3 benchmark, for example, does show M3 Pro numbers by default.

You can add other M3 models for some of the efficiency benchmarks. The headline still holds true when comparing to M3 Pro models (though the exact efficiency diff depends quite a bit on the exact M3 Pro model/core count).

I'm perfectly happy with the performance of my iPhone SE (2020), and it's still receiving software updates, but the battery is severely degraded. The same was true for my first-generation iPhone SE; I was able to get a cheap replacement back then due to Apple's battery replacement program related to batterygate.

Access to cheap replacement batteries would definitely have an impact when deciding whether I should replace my phone or not. I believe Apple even mentioned the battery replacement program being a factor contributing to lower-than-expected sales a few years ago (sorry, can't find the source).

It's very common for discussions on this topic to only look at one particular factor and use it to fit some narrative one believes to be correct. Mentioning the difference in population age while ignoring things like population density or different climates is a good example of this.

They put a lot of money into long-term bonds before the latest interest rate hikes. These bonds now sell at a discount, so they can no longer cover all deposits by selling them.

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (that is, vaccines using virus copies that have been killed - live vaccines would be ones where the virus has been weakened) have been a thing for some time. IIRC China used a lot of them.

My understanding is that they're not quite as good as mRNA in terms of efficacy (though I haven't looked this up in some time.)

Also, Hep C, HIV and herpes have no vaccine, so unclear what your statement is referring to anyway?

OP is talking about more vaccines as possible future mitigations - more vaccines as in new vaccines, not more vaccinations using existing ones (though that wouldn't hurt either.)

It would typically happen maybe once a month at most, but it was almost always on a Sunday.

Do you recall if you slept in on those days? I tend to get a specific kind of headache if I sleep for too long.

This also happens if I take a nap during the day. I don't really take any naps because of that, but I remember hating being forced to nap in Kindergarten (at least during the first two years or so), probably for the same reason.

Let's look at some studies:

Participants washed their gloved hands with a suspension of MS2 bacteriophage and hands were dried with one of the three hand-drying devices. [...] Over a height range of 0·15–1·65 m, the JAD [jet air dryer] dispersed an average of >60 and >1300-fold more plaque-forming units (PFU) compared to the WAD [warm air dryer] and PT [paper towels] (P < 0·0001), respectively.[1]

Okay, but I'm sure just-washed hands aren't all that dirty, right?

This observational study was conducted to evaluate [...] hand hygiene practices among college students. [...] Overall, 72.9% of students washed their hands, 58.3% practiced hand hygiene (using either soap or hand sanitizer), and 26.1% washed their hands adequately.[2]

I couldn't find any epidemiological studies, but this feels like good enough of a reason to stick to other options considering these things are a solution in search of a problem anyway.

[1] https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jam...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18538703/

That's correct. Sberbank Europe is registered as an Austrian bank, so the Austrian equivalent of the FDIC has to cover deposits of up to 100K per client.

There's no mention of encryption at rest using your own key. To quote the ruling:

If the second respondent (Google) subsequently refers to encryption technologies - such as the encryption of "data at rest" in the data centers - he must again be countered with recommendations 01/2020 of the EDSA. Namely, it states that a data importer (such as the Second Respondent) who is subject to 50 US Code § 1881a (“FISA 702”) has a direct obligation with regard to the imported data that is in his possession, custody or control to grant access to or release them. This obligation can expressly also apply to the cryptographic key without which the data cannot be read (ibid. margin no. 76).

As long as the second respondent has the opportunity to access data in the Plain text access, the technical measures taken cannot be regarded as effective in the sense of the above considerations.

The last paragraph suggests true end-to-end encryption may be acceptable, but that's not how Google Analytics works.

I've had this issue before - some combination of relaunching System Preferences, toggling the "iCloud Mail" checkbox and smashing "OK" repeatedly eventually made it work.

My understanding is that existing inactivated (whole-virus) vaccines perform worse than mRNA-based spike-targeting vaccines when it comes to neutralization. Here's a small study comparing BNT162b2 and Coronavac[1].

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.13.21267668v...

I've found [1] to be a good resource for this.

[1] https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/vaccines/

There are plenty of countries where the vaccination rate is too low to effectively prevent the healthcare system from being overrun. In Austria, we were in another lockdown due to this just a month ago, with a vaccination rate of about 70% at the time (IIRC). This is in a country with a relatively high number of unoccupied ICU beds, and we still peaked at a level just short of where doctors would have to triage patients (and well where the quality of care could be kept at its usual level due to i.e. fewer nurses and doctors per patient.)

So no, the unvaccinated aren't solely at risk personally, they could also prevent vaccinated people from getting treated at the standard of care that they would normally expect. I'm not okay with that, so mandatory vaccination with fines for non-compliance seems like the lesser evil to me.

This study[1] shows 70% effectiveness against hospitalization for the Pfizer vaccine (based on a two-dose regime; the level of protection would likely be significantly higher for boosted populations).

I'll leave it to you to do the math on what this would mean for the healthcare system if we take current daily infections and remove that effect.

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119270

Public health authorities regularly perform that kind of risk-benefit analysis. Here's one by the FDA looking at the 5-11 age group: https://www.fda.gov/media/153507/download

My understanding is that this analysis assumed the observed myocarditis risk of the 12-15 age group would also apply here, but IIRC more recent data shows no myocarditis cases at all for the younger group.

There's a theory that links the occurrence of myocarditis to high testosterone levels, but that hasn't been proven yet. Existing data shows that the increased myocarditis risk (more or less) only applies to boys/young males.

Do we know how large this effect is for the unvaccinated? I'm still not sure if the numbers we're seeing from countries with relatively high seroprevalence through either vaccination, infection, or both can easily be applied to other countries.

This UK report[1] does show a corrected Hazard Ratio of 0.76 relative to Delta, but more than half of this group seems to have had a previous infection. Not sure what it would look like if you exclude them.

[1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/m...

1:100000 was in reference to the "males < 40" age bucket in the UK study linked by OP. The myocarditis risk from infection for the 12-17 age group appears to be significantly higher according to this study[1] (1:1141), which gets us quite close to the Hong Kong study incidence if we assume two shots after the first dose.

In any case, the risks are not directly comparable unless you assume 100% PCR-confirmed infection risk over six months, which is of course unrealistic.

I do wonder how unrealistic it is with Omicron, but maybe we'll get lucky and Omicron's less likely to cause myocarditis.

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...

We're talking about ~1:10000 odds for one specific vaccine when vaccinating young males, which is why many countries are no longer using that vaccine for this demographic. Other vaccines are closer to 1:100000, which isn't far from the myocarditis risk of an infection with COVID-19.

The study also shows that there was practically no increase in risk for the third shot (though with a fairly wide CI), so it's possible the risk may just depend on whether someone is immunonaive or not.

Current variants are significantly more infectious (R0 used to be around 2.5-3.0 for the ancestral strain, Delta was 5+, Omicron estimates go up to 10). Vaccine efficacy is also reduced for these variants. We've also scaled back non-pharmaceutical interventions in many places.

I've been using LastPass for work since mid-2018 as well as uBlock origin for Chrome; no blocked login notification so far.

The likely higher transmissibility in combination with a generally more elderly population and vaccination gaps among older individuals in some European countries (e.g. Germany) could still spell trouble.

That quote is slightly misleading. It only looks at the SAR of vaccinated index cases. That makes sense because the letter is about the epidemiological relevance of vaccinated people, but it's incorrect to say vaccines had no effect on SAR: The study those figures were taken from also states that "The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals."

A study based on data from Singapore found a similar effect[1].

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...

We'll have to do it as long as there's a risk that the healthcare system would get overloaded to a degree that significantly affects the population as a whole, due to delayed treatment of things like cancer or ICU beds not being available in the event of a medical emergency.

Beyond that, a lockdown is not the only non-pharmaceutical intervention that's available to us. It's just that many governments have failed to use other tools at the right time and in a way that's actually effective, often only implementing them right before the peak of a wave when it's way too late.

I'm really not sure if we're on the same page on the conclusion of the study, so I'll repeat it just in case:

Scenario 1: A vaccinated household member (the index case) is COVID-positive. The study finds that other household members are just as likely to get infected regardless of the vaccination status of the index case. There is no reduction of spread.

Scenario 2: Some household member (regardless of vaccination status) is COVID-positive. The study finds that other vaccinated household members are less likely to get infected. Spread is reduced.

That's basically what the WHO is saying - we may have had the positive impact of scenario 1 prior to Delta, but that's mostly gone. Scenario 2 still shows some effect on spread. It may be lower now, but it's still significant.

The article also states that "Vaccinating school-aged children may help minimize school disruptions by reducing the number of infections at school" and "there are benefits of vaccinating children and adolescents that go beyond the direct health benefits. Vaccination that decreases COVID transmission in this age group may reduce transmission from children and adolescents to older adults".

You're going to have to dumb it down for me as to how this doesn't refer to spread.

Vaccinated index cases infecting others in the same household are only one scenario, and in that particular scenario, the study found no impact on spread. The study did find that vaccinated household members were less likely to be infected (SAR 25% vs. 38%) and that vaccinated cases had a faster rate of viral load decline - both of these findings (especially the first one) also relate to spread.

(It's arguably a bit surprising that the faster rate of viral load decline did not have an impact on the SAR for vaccinated index cases - one could make a (hopefully) reasonable hypothesis that this would matter more outside of household settings and thus still have an overall impact on spread, but that's not backed by any data from this study.)

There's also a world of difference between not "ignor[ing] the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission" and saying that it doesn't stop spread to any significant degree. It's not binary.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the articles you linked.

The first study finds that "The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals" and "Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections." (The study did not determine a meaningful impact on peak viral load and on the SAR in households when the index case was vaccinated.)

The second link is a letter that reiterates the fact that vaccinated index cases are just as likely to infect other household members and concludes with "It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures", which makes sense, but does not mean spread

When you say "which is evident just by looking around what's going on everywhere", it's important to point out that we're now dealing with a variant that is significantly more transmissible than previous ones, so we can't compare the numbers like-for-like.

It does not seem unlikely to me that the group of health workers that made up most of the vaccinated group prior to April generally has a lower death rate than the unvaccinated group, which would have contained most aged 50+ at the time (vaccine uptake was <6% for the 50-59 group at the end of March).

More importantly, COVID also accounted for more than 30% of deaths in the "10-59 + Unvaccinated" group between January and April (2,761 of 8,665), as this was around the time the third wave peaked. As one would expect, this didn't really affect deaths in the vaccinated group.

I don't think anyone should attempt to draw conclusions from such a small group that is not at all representative of the whole population (in general and within the 10-59 age group).