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.
if we don't have a sense of how prevalent those diseases in asymptomatic people then every one of these models becomes foolish we really don't know what the R naught is we really don't know what the transmission looks like from symptomatic de santé Matic people I mean we just don't know anything and if you don't know anything you're putting kind of garbage assumptions into models and you're getting garbage outputs that are all over the place
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.