1/ An excellent new paper from Denmark that tracks every vaccination given to nursing home residents there shows an 40% RISE in infections immediately after the first @pfizer dose and no efficacy at any point. Protection in this population after “full” vaccination is 64%...

Source: https://t.co/RtyNiWlfXL
More from Category c19
Let's talk about MASKS!
Thread 1:
Masks increase mortality because breathing through them nebulizes aerosols into smaller ones which bypass mucosal immunity & reach all the way into the alveoli, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
"Aerosols..within the most breathable size range between 0.5 & 5 μm, can carry SARS-CoV-2 deep to the terminal alveoli..if this transmission pathway does exist, it would bypass the mucociliary clearance & incubation period of the virus in the upper
The filtration material itself of N95's average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm does not block finer aerosol laden with virions penetration, not to mention surgical masks.

Thread 1:
If you study the field you will see viral nebulization is a technique used to get higher infectivity of viruses. This is used with ventilator patients suffering from pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Nebulize bacteriaphage to get deep into the lungs and kill bacteria. pic.twitter.com/82lNRMrXl4
— Kevin McKernan \U0001f642 (@Kevin_McKernan) October 24, 2020
Masks increase mortality because breathing through them nebulizes aerosols into smaller ones which bypass mucosal immunity & reach all the way into the alveoli, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

"Aerosols..within the most breathable size range between 0.5 & 5 μm, can carry SARS-CoV-2 deep to the terminal alveoli..if this transmission pathway does exist, it would bypass the mucociliary clearance & incubation period of the virus in the upper
The filtration material itself of N95's average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm does not block finer aerosol laden with virions penetration, not to mention surgical masks.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x