Vaccina

1. 

   Јова 2024-10-24 22:33:24 +0000

   Dovoljno da neko nemarno hendluje, može se sam zaraziti, može se prosut, može se raspršiti.
   Mislim to je odlično pitanje - jer cilja na to da kritički mislimo - i kad postaviš tako pitanje, stvarno nije lako zamisliti takav scenario "curenja".
   Al s druge strane, poznata mi je činjenica da su te laboratorije jako dobro osiguranje, i da tu tačno postoje nivoi sigurnosti. Znači nije to baš slučajno... Mogućnost curenja nije neka fantazija zaista postoji, i postoje nivoi bezbednosti laboratorija.

   The fact that the lab is in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic's early outbreak took place, and the fact that the research at WIV was being conducted under the less stringent biosafety levels (BSL) 2 and 3, has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. Richard Ebright said one reason that lower-containment BSL-2 laboratories are sometimes used is the cost and inconvenience of high-containment facilities. Australian virologist Danielle Anderson, who was the last foreign scientist to visit the WIV before the pandemic, said the lab "worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab". She also said it had "strict safety protocols".The Huanan Seafood Market may have only served as a jumping off point for a virus that was already circulating in Wuhan, facilitating rapid expansion of the outbreak.

   Znači nisu džaba ovi nivoi biosafety level 2, 3 ili koliko već ih ima...

2. 

   Јова 2024-10-24 22:38:34 +0000

   A evo i kako su neki ranije virusi procurili:

   Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories

   Laboratory leak incidents have occurred in the past. A Soviet research facility in 1979 leaked anthrax and at least 68 people died. The 2007 foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK was caused by a leaky pipe at a high-security laboratory. The SARS virus escaped at least once, and probably twice, from a high-level biocontainment laboratory in China.

   Benign exposures to pathogens (which do not result in an infection) are probably under-reported, given the negative consequences of such events on the reputation of a host institution and low risk for widespread epidemics. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch and bacteriologist Richard Ebright have said that the risk of laboratory-acquired infection (especially with modified pathogens) is greater than widely believed.

   No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus. The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to an epidemic is the 1977 Russian flu which was probably caused by a leaked strain of H1N1 that had circulated naturally until the 1950s.

   Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory. Each of these is now understood to have a natural origin. Anti-biotechnology activists falsely claimed that a plant pathogen of olive trees was the result of scientists' work,despite evidence to the contrary that the pathogen was not a laboratory strain. Studies later showed the origin was long before the workshop that was the subject of the false claims, and a more typical route of introduction by an imported plant.

3. 

   јебач пресретач 2024-10-24 22:51:21 +0000

   Iskreno i dalje ne vidim šta nam jamči da ne postoji prosto neka česma za virus (tečni), pa se gumica izlizala i iskapalo

4. 

   Јова 2024-10-24 23:08:50 +0000

   e sad već troluješ

5. 

   јебач пресретач 2024-10-24 23:13:32 +0000

   Ne, samo nisi argumentovano isključio mogućnost, da ne kažem zavrnuo slavinu

6. 

   Јова 2024-10-24 23:15:30 +0000

   Pa ni ne želim isključiti mogućnost, pogrešno si me skonto. Sve vrijeme govorim da mogućnost curenja itekako postoji, zato sam sve te primjere i naveo.
   Očigledno nesporazum.

7. 

   Cara™ 2024-10-25 10:21:33 +0000

   Jebac ovim prepametnim postovima sve zakomplikuje. I inace je poznato da pise samo visoko inteligentne postove. Smanji malo prijatelju!

8. 

   celt 2024-10-25 11:48:13 +0000

   postoje 2 pristupa bilo kom dogadjaju ili pojavi

   prvi je empirijski. pristupas sa stavom da ne kapiras sta se dogadja, da ostali isto ne kapiraju, da stvari ispadaju iz slucajnosti, gluposti, nekad zlobe, nekad dobre namere nekad kombinacije svega ovoga, i da nakon sto se dese ponekad dobijaju svoj zivot, ne mogu da se kontrolisu niti da se isprave, generalno prihvatas nepredvidivost sveta, i ne plasi te preterano. sa druge strane plasi te pomisao na ovaj neresivi nedostatak kontrole nad stvarima.

   drugi je dogmatski. po pravilu "kapiras i znas" bolje od prvog, koji ocigledno nema pojma i to priznaje. stvari se ne dogadjaju slucajno, ili iz gluposti - uvek je u pitanju namera i korist, i vrlo su kontrolisane sve vreme. sve je po planu. ne prihvatas da su pojave vezane za ljude nepredvidive, i plasi te pomisao da jesu. sa druge strane, osecas mir u tome sto stvari mogu da se rese, ako se samo promeni ili umilostivi covek ili misao koji ih kontrolise.

   sto se tice realnosti, prvi ce biti kao sat koji uvek kasni par minuta. nikad ne pokazuje pravo vreme ali moze da se koristi prakticno. drugi je sat koji stoji. uglavnom je totalno beskoristan i pokazuje nesto sasvim deseto, osim jednom dnevno kad ce da pokaze u nanosekundu tacno vreme, i onda da drvi o tome ostatak dana.

   konsenzus izmedju ova dva tipa ne postoji. razgovor nekad bude zanimljiv.

9. 

   хезно 2024-10-25 12:12:46 +0000

   Ćao celt