The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the only thing that ironically we have going for us which isn't a sense of sad commentary there are a lot less at-risk people living in low-income countries sakes they already died they're not able to be around 280 with long term renal disease they died a long time ago and that's the sad commentary but in a sense may do better and case fatality rates overall than we do because they're not gonna have that high risk
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.