Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, there's a reason forWhat Is a Stimulus Check? Definition, How It Works, and Criticism
A stimulus check is money sent to a taxpayer by the U.S. government to stimulate the economy by providing consumers with some spending money.www.investopedia.com
You might want to reread my post: I said, "When a nation sends out stimulus checks for two reasons, it is to help the people who are suffering from some kind of catastrophe and help stabilize the economy." There is always a cause for a problem with the economy.....could be war, could be a plague, could be an environmental catastrophe.......and if you've done any extensive reading, or listened to Trump talk, then it has a secondary purpose.....to help those who are in trouble financially.What Is a Stimulus Check? Definition, How It Works, and Criticism
A stimulus check is money sent to a taxpayer by the U.S. government to stimulate the economy by providing consumers with some spending money.www.investopedia.com
(((hug @brat17)))Mrs Spock, thank you for the encouragement and the hug...(((hug)))) back at you . I really appreciate all you share here. Im even feeling a bit better today.
Facts are really important with this topic.Bad news here. Vaccines failing. Not high enough efficacy. AstraZeneca might have less than 10% efficacy for the elderly at 1.40-2:00.
I'm sorry, I dismiss everything Trump says as self serving. I was just noting why I believed the check was to stimulate the economy.listened to Trump talk
You are completely right about this.Facts are really important with this topic.
So it will be interesting to see how this plays out with what Australian/world experts saying AstraZeneca has serious issues in terms of not good enough efficacy and the company itself, releasing it's statements. I am happy to be wrong about this, very happy indeed.This "info" started with a couple of German news outlets where the vaccine is being rolled out. AstraZeneca has released a statement in response (which isn't as catchy a news title as "vaccine failing") saying the statement is completely false.
The context of vaccines and politicians who have invested in the companies that are producing the vaccines is an issue with AstraZeneca, along with it's lower efficacy. Australia has so much corruption in our political class from sportsrorts to... it's extensive. That one of our politicians has investments in the company that produces AstraZeneca, and that party is known for it's corruption, well there's going to be questions and doubt.The problem is in the trial processing. For the AstraZeneca trials, the first stage of the trial was initially to people only under the age of 55. Older participants were included in later stages of the trials. So, there is less data about its efficacy on older people because there were less older participants.
All the above professionals cite the Lancet and are published in the Lancet. They also have access to pre-press articles as they are often part of the peer reviewing process of the Lancet. They provide professional development for their peers and students. Prof Raina MacIntyre puts the professional development that she provides on YouTube, which is why I get to watch it. She wants as many medical professionals to get access to the information as possible.For the best information about the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine? There haven't been any new releases of information from the Oxford Lamcet since early December. That's the space to watch.
You are correct. That was sensationalist reporting.A similar issue came up past week with reports out of Norway that around 30 people in aged care facilities who had received the Pfizer vaccine had subsequently died.
You are totally right. It was misleading, as it hadn't been confirmed that the vaccine was the obvious cause or even a contributing cause of death.However, those 2 statements, though reported as if the vaccine was the obvious cause of death, were misleading.
You are on the money. It hasn't been linked by any reliable primary source of data. That is most likely incorrect information. Some of the vaccines were given to the terminally ill and folks too fragile to be given injections. This information has not penetrated through the disinformation and misinformation of the media. I had a rash of elderly people ring me to ask would I take the Pfizer vaccination? (Yes!) and is it safe? (Yes millions of people have had it now - for what we know at this time.) Every individual has to consult their doctor over their specific circumstances. I am not a doctor and cannot say. But generally yes!In that particular week, less aged care residents died than in any average given week in the country, and I'm not aware of the causes of death in those cases having been linked to the virus by any reliable primary source of data.
Unfortunately @Sideways you are right. I wish I could disagree.There's a lot of news stories out there, all competing for the 'big story'.
As I have previously stated Laurie Garrett, is an expert, who publishes in the Lancet. She is not given to hyperbole. I wasn't panicking by a long shot. I was concerned as Laurie is concerned.But accurate reporting, reporting that doesn't mislead the public, is super important. If in doubt, or if any given news article causes you to suddenly panic?
I hope the above sources and links illustrate that I am indeed looking at primary sources of data, and also the experts that create that data, or intellectual property, individually or in collaboration with their expert peers, these are some of the professionals that I follow closely. These professionals are part of the "peer" in peer reviewed for journals such as the Lancet. It is true though, that I unless I can listen to an non English speaking expert in English or with subtitles that I am relying on other expert's analysis of their works. It is most fortunate that many of the interviews have subtitles. I am most grateful to have access to the information that I have access to.Go check out the primary sources of data;)
Just to be clear: Not all of the content in Lancet is peer reviewed. Here's a cheat sheet for what is/is not peer reviewed.These professionals are part of the "peer" in peer reviewed for journals such as the Lancet.