Kretinsky

Of course if you're a 40 years old women, you can try, but I wouldn't tell a woman that "she can have babies after 40", since it's a very risky gamble, aside from the complications of birthing and pregnancy, and illnesses such as Down's syndrome, which are much more prevalent when the mother is older.

40 is older than 20. You then don't have the same resistance to stress, lack of sleep, muscles regenerate slower, and you often start to have health problems. Believe me, most parents have back problems at some point, especially if you're not sending your child to daycare.

No wonder, armies around the world won't hire a 40 years old, and prefer youngsters in their early 20's: their body is still intact.

This message really reads like the Idiocracy trailer. Time and effort that you'll put in helping and educating your children is much more important than them going to a top 5% school.

After 40, it gets much harder, as almost all women are subfertile at 40 and half of them are already sterile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility#/medi...

Good luck lifting 50 times a day a 12kg todler while being in non-ergonomic positions and waking up 3-4 times during the night while having a productive work when you're in your 40's.

And then, when they grow up, to keep up with them during physical activities, to teach and show them the way. It's possible, but it's much easier when you're in your 20's.

I see people saying "it's just water that made the rock crack, nothing is goign to happen".

While I understand this point of view, I personnaly think religion, mythology and beliefs such as this one give much more flavor and diversity to the world than what rational thought will ever produce. Religious people made magnificent temples, cathedrals, songs, paintings and so on : what if this way of thought was in fact beneficial for societies, in some aspects?

> US citizens are eternally out of scope for Army psychological operations

When did you quit the force? Targeting US citizens has been allowed for almost 10 years, now.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offic...

If Mexico signed a military alliance with Russia and accepted to have russian military bases on its soil, what would be the reaction of the US? Of course, Russia is never going to invade a country twice bigger in terms of population than it.

It's a matter of threat management. Even if you know that the guy who's pointing the gun at your head isn't going to fire it, you'd prefer him to stop, or at least throw his gun. Once NATO will have cornered Russia with ultrasonic missiles, then the NATO's ultimatums will have much more power.

I'm against war, and I don't think personally that opting for an aggressive behavior toward our neighbors will wage peace. The US has a very long history of bombing every possible threat on the globe, either economical or military, so I guess your question is quite moot if you think a bit more about it.

Covid death by age in Switzerland:

0-50 years old (cumulative): 60

50-59 years old : 215

60-69 years old : 712

70-79 years old : 2125

80+ years old : 7389

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1110092/coronavirus-covi...

As we can see, the risk is clearly minimal if you're young, and we're not even controling for comorbidities.

Where I live (France), you'll get no compensation from the state (most H1N1 narcolepsies haven't still been compensated) , any lawsuit against big pharma would be quite risky and not compensated well anyway.

"Also it's still likely that if you get covid a third time that you will get a worse outcome. " > do you have facts backing this affirmation?

I understand that covid is infectious, however, for the people at risk for whom the risk-benefit balance is clearly in favor of benefit, then they can get vaccinated, right?

Trust is acquired on the logn run, and can be broken easily. Would you mind if Union Carbide openned a chemical facility near your house? Well, they had the Bhopal disasted[0], but they can be trusted again, right? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

I highly doubt this explaination. Masks have been known for a very long time to be a good way to prevent the transmission of an airborne disease, especially like Covid, which involves generally a lot of coughing.

Here, a picture taken 100 years ago, about people wearing masks during the spanish flu. Mind the sign "wear a mask or go to jail!" https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/may/03/the-big...

1) It's quite worrying since having a high antibody count can imply an increased risk of side effects. This is why we don't give 2 shots to people that have already had covid in the last 6 months.

2) You've got to agree that 6-9 months is a pretty short window of immunity for a traditionnal vaccine. We may maybe rather call it "prophylaxy" then, just like the dewormer you put on your cat every 3 months.

3) Do you have a source? This could be a very interesting pro-vaccine point.

Who is "they"? All of them? Please do not take Alex Jones for the whole.

My government (France) ordered pregnant women to get vaccinated while it wasn't tested for this kind of population. Kind of funny when basically 99% of medications are usually forbidden for child-bearing people.

There's a thing called conditionnal probability.

If you're very old, you're likely to dies from covid (but also from all sorts of things - this is what old age is about). Not if you're young. So the cost-benefit analysis is different per user, and this is why some people think twice about it.

Let's remind ourselves that many, many people are not at risk of covid[0]. It's just like asking everyone to wear hip airbags because falls can cause death when you're 90+.

[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...

I have an honest question to all of the honest people recommanding their relatives to get vaccinated:

I've had covid twice, with very mild effects (stay in bed for one day or two). I'm young, no comorbidity, not obese etc. Clearly I won't die of covid, as experimental science goes.

I'm the only provider for my family (wife, kid). If I take the vaccine and get crippled, meaning I can't work anymore, will the pro-vaccine people that recommend it pay my family a pension to compensate the financial loss caused by their advice?

I've had the covid twice in 2 years, with nothing more than having to stay in bed, feeling a bit dizzy and play Skyrim for a day before I was able to work again (wfm). Second time was much milder. I'm pretty confident I can handle a third infection without dying nor getting vaccinated.

Please stop fearmongering people, if you're under 50 and have no comorbidity, you're not at risk.

On the opposite side, the waiter from the coffee shop where I use to sit and read my newspaper on sunday has got a sight impairment since he got vaccinated: he now sees double. His doctor refuses to believe him. Unfortunately, the pro-vax people won't help him get a new job, nor compensate for his financial loss. Deal with it, plebs.

I've had the covid twice in 2 years, with nothing more than having to stay in bed, feeling a bit dizzy and play Skyrim for a day before I was able to work again (wfm). Second time was much milder. I'm pretty confident I can handle a third infection without dying nor getting vaccinated.

Please stop fearmongering people, if you're under 50 and have no comorbidity, you're not at risk.

On the opposite side, the waiter from the coffee shop where I use to sit and read my newspaper on sunday has got a

As a non-american, it's always interesting to see the point of view of the major military power. Why is China "America's top adversary"?

Aside from the OPSEC issue, which is understandable, why does the author - and I guess it's a widespread view - considers China as America's utmost adversary? Can't there exist two rich and prosperous countries? Why does the author uses such jingoist terms? How should other countries consider America, then?

Since most major wind electricity project needs a complementary natural gas power plant to secure profitable long-term supply contracts, the smart move for the natural gas industry is to lobby hard for renewable.

This may explain why, for instance, in Europe, a Czech fossil-energy magnate buys[1] important shares of western european media (such as the liberal-left leaning Le Monde in France, for instance) while investing[2] in coal and gas.

[1] https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/medias/daniel-kretinsky-... [2] https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/energie/pourquoi-...