Very interesting. I got this vaccine (needs to be taken twice) last year. Since then my back pain linked to possible beginning bechterews, which I have had for about a year, is gone and has stayed away for 2 months now. Could be unrelated, but it is so pronounced that I have been looking for an explanation. Very happy with it.
I think one reason it's discouraged is that it's not completely clear how long it lasts, and getting it early may result in less protection later in life. Also it's only been tested in that age group. (At least, this is what I heard when I researched getting it early a while ago).
> I think one reason it's discouraged is that it's not completely clear how long it lasts, and getting it early may result in less protection later in life.
Can't one just take boosters later, like, one every decade?
Ironically, I caught it just a few weeks before I turned 50.
If you do catch it, it is important that you get antiviral medication as soon as possible to avoid long-term pain afterwards.
I had waited three days to see a a doctor because symptoms breaking out at the start of a weekend, and that was close.
You can absolutely get shingles at any time. Please keep looking to find a doctor that will listen to you. The fact that medicine holds onto this idea that it only affects old people is absurd.
Just anecdotes, but I know two people who got it in their 40s, and one of them has some minor facial paralysis that he believes is probably permanent. I got the vaccine when I turned 50.
In countries where vaccines are paid for by the state (partially or fully) doctors won't prescribe them unless there's a statistically significant benefit across the entire population. If it's generally accepted that shingles is more common/risky over 50, guidelines will prevent doctors from offering the vaccine before that age, essentially not to "waste" public money.
In the UK everyone turning 65 is offered the vaccine on the NHS.
The problem is that long term effectiveness generally drops in vaccine. Although we haven't had Shingrix long enough to give great estimates long term evidence of this we have this:
> No Shingrix vaccine booster is currently available.
So if you get it when you are 50, it will be less effective when you are 80 and more vulnerable to shingles. It has nothing to do with "being state funded" and everything to do with giving it to people when they need it rather than wasting it on people who don't, who then can't have it when they actually do need it.
You might want to check with your doctor about that, as that is not what the NCOA is implying.
I would really like to be wrong, as the shingles vaccine is less than £500 privately in the UK for both shots, and that would be worth it to not get shingles.
My feedback regarding the presentation is that I think there should be slightly more focus on why one would choose rqlite over say sqlite. That probably means more info on the distributed part.
I happen to know raft and the kind of problem it solves, but the average reader might not. A practical demonstration of the problems it solves might be in order.
So that also means describing for whicj applications rqlite is more wellsuited (and for which it might be worse) than other databases.
The same (pros use less, consumers pay for more) goes for internet connectivity. A techie knows he will never need or saturate more than, say, 200mbps. While a consumer will see the "200/500/1G" offer and opt for the middle.
Lol no. Faster speeds are quite useful when you need to download something in a pinch and a single 4K video stream alone can easily eat up more than a quarter of your 200 Mbps. Consumer internet prices also do not scale linearly with bandwith because the provider knows that the average usage does not scale linearly.
Also, a pro would know that it's Mbps (megabits per second) and not mpbps (millibits per second).
In nutiteq mobile maps SDK (later Carto, now abandonware) we used specifically compressed bitmap to represent 'water' and 'empty land' tilemasks to cover these two special cases. We provided planet-scale mobile embedded mbtiles package in 30GB if I remember well. This tile mask (quite instant bitmap index) concept should work well for server case also.
The Linux kernel's filesystem cache is actually really efficient at doing this. I doubt we could come up with a nginx scripting solution which could be equally efficient.
This 20kg figure sounds wildly inaccurate. Fish feed is in general 75% plantbased. It is also very efficient (in terms of conversion rate to growth). Could this 20kg figure be decades old?
Also the non plant parts of it could be fairly efficient too. e.g see black soldier fly farming for fish feed. Not that that is a 100% answer for all feed for seafood farming, but interesting options abound.
Personally though, Octopi are too smart for me to eat. I'll always pass on it now.
This seems to be a very generalized statement when there is a lot of variation to consider. There are 33,000 fish species, some being specialized feeders of algae, to 100% live fish, all designed for processing each food differently. Are you speaking on a specific fish that is commonly "farmed"?
I could see Salmon needing this 20kg and not even contain the quality fats they get in the wild, resulting in a lower quality food on top of being more impactful to the environment.
I was thinking along similar lines: sildenafil (the active compound in viagra) was originally researched as a hypertension medication. The link between hypertension and dementia is well-established, and hypertension is also extremely common and relatively underdiagnosed.
The problem with a lot modern science is that you're dealing with a virtually infinite numbers of variables both environmentally, behaviourally and genetically.
Short of having a thousand identical twins locked up in a room from birth you're swimming against a very strong tide. Long gone are the days when science was as simple as castrating a rooster and grafting his balls back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Adolph_Berthold
> Wouldn't taking these kind of factors into account be quite basic part of the analysis?
They acknowledge that they are just looking at the number of prescriptions and that the research doesn't show that the drugs themselves were reducing people's risk.
It could equally be the amount of sex that is reducing the risk.
