Hello everyone! I was thinking about how we all know (or some of us have gone though it ourselfs) people who got tired of playing a certain way. That’s why I’d like to make a list -not ranked- of different playing styles, for those who may need some ideas. List of ideas -in alphabetical order-:
Bounty hunter
Bounty slots provider
Broker
Bug swatter
Busting/Bailing
Chainer/war oriented
City samaritan
City Scavenger
Company oriented
Crime oriented
Dumpster Diver
Escape seller
Estate agent
Events/Competitions oriented
Faction leader
Flipper
Forum spammer
Forum admin
Gambler
Geek (love making guides and test mechanism)
Giveaway maker
Graphic designer
Helper / new player assister
Hunter
Importer/merchant
Information trader
Investor
Item collector
Karma farmer
Land Lord
Losses seller
Market Manipulator
Member of Committee
Mercenary
Merit achieving oriented
Mission oriented
Mugger
Newspaper reporter
OC oriented
Racer
Reporter
Reviving
Scammer
Speedrunners
Spy/work service provider
Staff
Stat Whore (One or more stats left behind)
Stat Balanced (No stat left behind)
Trader
Volunteer
Weapon Experience Leveler
Did I miss any? Feel free to comment it. Thanks for your feedback!
They played a chess game(3' blitz) in the Grand Final of Got Talent Spain, a tv program. It's nice to be able to watch that level of chess on television broadcast. Have you seen it? What do you think about that game?
Hi, I've read a bit of that site and I'll try to explain why, in my opinion, it's not (or at least the articles that I've read) a valid data source from a scientific point of view:
After reading two pages of articles on that site, I've found: - Articles only based on personal opinions/perceptions on people’s declarations (or using a declaration to jump into conclusions with no further evidence). - Articles where health issues are related to vaccines without providing scientific or medical evidence (or link to those). - Articles about issolated clinical cases, relating them to vaccination only based on personal opinions/perceptions without providing scientific or medical evidence (or link to those). - Articles extrapolating, generalizing and jumping into conclusions from issolated and unproven clinical cases and without providing evidence or references. - Article “providing” annonymous professional’s declarations without providing the source (a link to a main page is fishy, why not linking right to the source?) - Articles taking politicians and their decisions as if they do and are exactly what science suggest. - Article about a scientist’s declarations without providing a single source or reference to defend his affirmations.
It's like if a site starts publishing articles on people involved in car crashes worldwide and jump into the conclusion, without giving prove or statistical analysis, that if you drive you'll end up in a car crash.
So, not impartial/objective presentation of the information, clickbait headlines, lack of providing references and data sources, appealing to the emotions of the reader(instead of reason and logic), making statements/conclusions and making connections between and with unproven factors and facts....
Not a source for me.
About the pharmaceutical companies and their liability... They are private companies that work and provide products to make money, if they are allowed to get that privilege, they'll take it. Do I agree with that? Not at all.
A confrontation between pharmaceutical private interest (fear of legal conflict and economic loss) against a public health matter(aside from the human rights and consideration of the refugees, they also can involuntarily become a source of infection and spread-as any other member of the society- if infected)... Which one is more important and should prevail over the other?
I understand. There are many interests involved, interacting and colliding from all sides to act like a sheep. It's important to try to keep and maintain a critical approach and examine all data sources, watching out for biases of each info provider.
I guess it's talking about the Australian IN DEVELOPMENT vaccine that has been STOPPED?
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]11 DEC 2020, article in Science:[/background]
"The backers of Australia's homegrown COVID-19 vaccine candidate today announced a halt to its further development, after some of the first people to receive the vaccine in a safety trial generated antibodies to an unintended target, the AIDS virus. A small fragment of an HIV protein is a component of the vaccine used to add stability to the intended antibody target, the spike protein of the pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
Although the added component didn't represent an actual infection with HIV, the vaccine developers and the Australian government concluded a widespread rollout of the candidate would interfere with HIV diagnostic tests and decided not to proceed to larger clinical trials that would have measured its protection against COVID-19. Given the strong efficacy shown by several recent COVID-19 vaccines, it's likely that other candidates still in development will now have a higher bar to clear to move forward."
In a Public Health matter, yes, a 1,1 of 10.000 (0.011%) ratio of severe adverse effect is quite acceptable. The alternative ratio(a population not vaccinated with the virus spreading with its morbimortality) is higher. Yes, I've read that and other reports. Have you read it? P.S.: Nope, link still broken.
The manufacturers must legally advise of ALL the known possible adverse effects (regardless of its statistical incidence) to avoid and protect themselves from legal consequences and litigations.
Here, an article in Circulation (a medical journal of the American Heart Association) where diverse studies and cases reports are analysed on the myocarditis associated with Covid m-RNA vaccination...
To not copy-paste too much text of it, and as a quick summary, I'd mention this: "According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, myocarditis/pericarditis rates are ≈12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine among individuals 12 to 39 years of age."
Hi, About Canada's data... Summary: Cases: Between November 27, 2021 and December 14, 2020, 79.9% of cases were unvaccinated, [background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]Vaccines: A total of 61,495,494 vaccine doses have been administered in Canada as of December 3, 2021. Adverse events (side effects) have been reported by 28,825 people. That’s about 5 people out of every 10,000 people vaccinated who have reported 1 or more adverse events. [/background] Of the 28,825 individual reports, 22,244 were considered non-serious (0.036% of all doses administered) and 6,581 were considered serious (0.011% of all doses administered). Oh, by the way, your link is broken
Fragments and source's links: [...] Cases following vaccination
Data extracted on December 13, 2021 for cases from December 14, 2020 up until November 27, 2021. While the COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective, a percentage of the population who are vaccinated may become infected with COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it. This means that even with high vaccine effectiveness, a percentage of people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick and some may be hospitalized or die. It is also possible that a person could be infected just before or just after vaccination and still get sick. It typically takes about two weeks for the body to build protection after vaccination, so a person could get sick if the vaccine has not had enough time to provide protection.
Cases reported since the start of the vaccination campaign, as of November 27, 2021 Since the start of the vaccination campaign on December 14, 2020, PHAC received case-level vaccine history data for 79.5% (n=882,988) of COVID-19 cases aged 12 years or older. Of these cases:
705,725 (79.9%) were unvaccinated at the time of their episode date
43,022 (4.9%) were not yet protected by the vaccine, as their episode date occurred less than 14 days after their first dose
51,728 (5.9%) were only partially vaccinated, as their episode date occurred either 14 days or more after their first dose or less than 14 days after their second dose
82,513 (9.3%) were fully vaccinated, as their episode date occurred 14 days or more after their second dose
[caption]Characteristics and severe outcomes associated unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated confirmed cases reported to PHAC, as of November 27, 2021[/caption]
Status
Cases
Hospitalizations
Deaths
Unvaccinated
79.9%
80.4%
76.1%
Cases not yet protected
4.9%
6.0%
7.3%
Partially vaccinated
5.9%
6.6%
7.1%
Fully vaccinated
9.3%
7.1%
9.5%
Among the twelve jurisdictions that have reported case-level vaccine history data to PHAC, a total of 23.3 million people have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as of November 27, 2021. Of these people:
23.1 million achieved partial vaccination status, of which 51,728 (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 while partially vaccinated
22.1 million achieved full vaccination status, of which 82,513 (0.37%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 while fully vaccinated
Based on detailed case information reported to PHAC from provinces and territories, cases following vaccination were reported more frequently among females and those aged 60 years and older (Table 2). This may be the result of higher vaccination coverage in Canada among females and those aged 60 years and older due to the prioritization of older age groups and healthcare workers as part of the vaccine rollout.
Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada Summary of this week's report updated December 10, 2021
A total of 61,495,494 vaccine doses have been administered in Canada as of December 3, 2021. Adverse events (side effects) have been reported by 28,825 people. That’s about 5 people out of every 10,000 people vaccinated who have reported 1 or more adverse events.
Of the 28,825 individual reports, 22,244 were considered non-serious (0.036% of all doses administered) and 6,581 were considered serious (0.011% of all doses administered).
Most adverse events are mild and include soreness at the site of injection or a slight fever.
Serious adverse events are rare, but do occur. They include anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction), which has been reported 683 times for all COVID-19 vaccines across Canada. That’s why you need to wait for a period of time after you receive a vaccination so that you can receive treatment in case of an allergic reaction.
All serious events undergo medical review to see if there are any safety issues needing further action. These processes include meeting regularly to review the data with provincial and territorial partners, the regulator, research networks and medical advisors to ensure there are no safety issues that require action. Any unexpected safety concerns are detected quickly and acted upon immediately.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada continue to closely monitor Canadian and international reports of:
Here I read a lot of bs but no scientific data, real references and scientific evidence against vaccination. It's too easy to talk crap without knowledge and without seing (or not wanting to see) the reality we've been through in the healthcare or how vaccines really work. Show me the data, the scientific studies to defend that. I don't care about opinions and generalist articles.
![[image: i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/p0qD6JR/Bazooka-Squirrel.jpg){kind=link}
![[image: images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61CnuedoN-L.jpg){kind=link}
![[image: static.boredpanda.com]](https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Untitled-2-5c7667ee08f92__700.jpg){kind=link}
![[image: www.parks.ca.gov]](https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/595/images/Monarch%20Cluster.BAER.JPG){kind=link}
![[image: iili.io]](https://iili.io/Yfk7Pp.jpg){kind=link}
![[image: w0.peakpx.com]](https://w0.peakpx.com/wallpaper/236/144/HD-wallpaper-tidal-flats-beach-predators-water-painting-wolves-artwork.jpg){kind=link}