Perhaps I'm being paranoid and should assume ignorance rather them malice, but I can't help but wonder if there was significant lobbying from companies providing healthcare software to make these repos closed-source.
I know nothing about the NHS, so I have no idea if this is plausible.
The last things the capitalist powers that be want, is any sort of socialism. Profit > people, rather than People > profit.
Just a reminder - socialism does not necessarily imply communism, and and implementation of communism thus far has been extremely corrupt.
I lived the in the UK for a couple of years in the early 2000's, the NHS was awesome. It's now a shallow shell of its former self.
Australia where I'm from is trying to imitate the privitisation of health, but my state-local for-profit hospital just went tits up and has been acquired by the government. Partially because a baby needlessly died because profit > caring about human lives, but it wasn't accountable and used tax havens etc. etc.
Fuckin' mess.
I feel for the the UK, because at their best, they probably had the best socialised healthcare system in the world (partly because their population size afforeded them access to medical equipment that other similar countries in Scandinavia etc. can't quite afford).
The US profit motive trumps well-being and healthcare tied to your employment just screws with our heads for most reasonable people. The people that need the help the most are denied it, whilst for the rich - it's built in.
Yep, but (a) that isn’t portable Markdown, (b) your editor probably doesn’t support opening the link from the link text in that case, and (c) whenever you want to modify the link text you have to modify all occurrences. A word processor can handle that automatically for you. It can also offer completion (like tab completion) for references that you use repeatedly. It can show as a tooltip what a given link text links to. Conveniences like that is what computers are for, let’s not relapse to the stone age here.
> However, Wu noted, if the inflammation is severe the resulting heart injury can be quite debilitating, leading to hospitalizations; ICU admissions for critically ill patients; and deaths, albeit rarely.
> “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.
I recall hearing about this as a low-probability potential side effect during the pandemic. What do you mean by "swept this under the rug"?
Who, specifically, urged them and what was the exact request? There was plenty of open scientific discussion on this point so it’s not like it was a secret but, as this article also notes, the risk is significantly higher from COVID.
I mean your being a bit obtuse if you don't think there was a stigma around criticizing the vaccine in 2021/22.
Writing a LinkedIn/Facebook post about how the vaccine causes heart problems might result in you losing your job and would definitely cause you to lose a few friends. There was a massive stigma around pointing out flaws in vaccines at that time, it was not a nuanced issue, either you were all in or you were a psycho anti-vax nut.
The problem is that if you're criticizing the vaccine for this, you're at best uninformed, and quite often, doing so in bad faith.
As has been pointed out in the thread you're responding to, it causes these effects at lower rates and lower severities than just getting covid while unvaccinated. It's also just something we've known some flu vaccines to do for decades now. (And just the regular old flu can cause it, too)
I know nothing about the NHS, so I have no idea if this is plausible.
reply