Riobard

You can get the Miss Vickie’s anywhere in Canada ... just about any flavour. Probably including hickory-smoked alfalfa brussels chanterelles pig’s feet. Retailers are just too dense to stock the regular reduced fat one. @RockHardNYC, you may need to squirrel away the new discovery in your jockstrap/thong/thing drawer.

It is hard to weigh in because the agenda distinction between regular hookups and sex trade is not clear. You may as well have asked: Hey fellow gay guys out there, should I bother to deviate from my plans to exclusively visit Montreal and Toronto during the CoV pandemic, as I met a hot guy online but he lives in Ottawa? The only possible answer: Follow your heart regarding goiânia to the ends of the earth; circle back to us about the guy’s 0-10 unicorn scale rating.

Canada’s basic equivalent, at least for the lipids content, is Miss Vickie’s Original Recipe ‘reduced fat’ (40% less). The improbability of finding it in most retail stores is more of a problem that not having updated its slightly misogynistic name. I buy as many bags as possible when I see them stocked, and then alert the supply manager. Hummus is my preferred dip for these chips. FullSizeRender.mov

Rio de Janeiro, the city with among the highest HIV rates in Latin America, has initiated teleconsultation procedures enabling online digital interactions that can yield delivery of up to a 4-month supply of PrEP (free obviously) and a few rapid-test home kits, all in one go. This may, indeed, have expanded to other areas; PrEP organizational systems tend to be nationally centralized there. If this program takes hold more permanently it may lead to more uptake for those with embarrassment-based hesitancy. (Just have to possibly explain to relatives at home what’s in the package ... a substantial portion of a year’s employment income worth of tablets) The idea of Montreal being this organized this quickly is laughable. “Sorry, we’re closed for PrEP services”, has been the position of community health centres. Otherwise, If you are fortunate, you may have found a primary care practitioner who is also willing to organize your regular lab work and PrEP prescriptions. Many gay men are on a wait list for a regular doctor. Sometimes, along with legalization of affordable trade, Brazil gets it right. [Correction: I think that Brazil rejected Gilead’s patent monopoly a few years ago, thus enabling generic versions. However, I do not know if Gilead’s Truvada is the only version utilized there. Since PrEP is free of charge, it is not very relevant at the consumer level. ]

IMO, the ‘ativo’ garotos de programa that identify as straight, even if they tolerate protected receptive anal, tend to be less informed about HIV pharmacological exposure prophylaxis and the risks of insertive anal without a condom. Moreover, unless things have changed since I last investigated, PrEP is issued to males without cost if they declare their risk-group status ... MSM, commercial sex work, etc. Some of the fellows would never suck up the sense of stigma regarding attendance at dispensing centres and the requirement of regular testing for HIV, kidney function, etc. Personally, I always assume that each of them has an STD that I don’t want transmitted. The more expensive Gilead’s Truvada is the sole product, generics not having yet made their way into Brazil uptake. It is estimated that about 30,000 of brasileiros consume it, slowly upticking to the goal of 50,000 by end of 2022 that was set end of 2017 when 5,000 was the target. Assuming, say, 5% of the adult male population age 16-65 have sex with males, only about one in 100 are likely taking PrEP. Even if those demographics are inaccurate by a considerable margin, the story is fairly clear.

Non-Bolsominions’ pots’n’pans ... FullSizeRender.mov

Curfew adaptation (20 seconds) ... FullSizeRender.mov

My experience of this particular replica’s original down my throat dates back to Rio, November 2016. Built, buff, seemingly on the branco side. Ironically, going for about 150 reais. Does this transitional object evoke memories of the actual for others? Perhaps draw on pharyngeal muscle memory.

As Anvisa meets this weekend to begin to decide the near-term fate of the vaccines CoronaVac and Covishield, the state of Amazonas is in crisis with an apparent very worrisome coronavirus variant that may be more infectious and may have mutations that ‘escape’ previous natural immunity as well as current vaccine candidates. As patients from Manaus are desperately transferred to other regions due to lack of ICU & oxygen capacity, with gravediggers on alert for an upswing of tasking, the new variant might be expected to spread nationally. I don’t know how up to speed the genetic sequencing is. Britain has shut down travel from South America, including Brazilian transit through Portugal. There seem to be actually two variants of concern out of Brazil. One might expect travellers/visitors that are In Brazil, or their flights, to be restricted from returning to their countries of origin in spite of negative PCR tests. If a variant in Brazil is truly a superbug, the rest of the world will want to fortify boundaries.

The CoV new case incidence for LRD has increased by about 50% over the second week of the revised curfew. As this trend will likely be interpreted as an indicator of alarming rates that would have otherwise occurred, I would not expect a relaxation of measures for some time to come.

Use the search function here and enter Bangu, or Boate Casa Grande, to find posts on it, assuming is the same venue.

I want to try to be fair and unbiased in my critique. As an afterthought, it may be that the infection rates among all study participants exceeded national general population background figures because the study cohort would have been followed systematically ... less missed diagnoses. The trial results generally suggest that individuals vaccinated with CoronaVac have reduced infection probability to about one-third relative to the case incidence norm. In contrast, Pfizer and Moderna reduce probability to between one-tenth and one-twentieth of non-vaccination. The 95% probability of CoronaVac efficacy (confidence interval bounds) is about 35% to 62%. The lower interval bounds of other approved vaccines is much higher than the upper bound for CoronaVac. The Butantan presenter indicated a theoretical projection, based on an ascertainment correction for the typical rate of undetected cases, that about 12% people of those vaccinated with CoronaVac would be expected in absolute terms to nevertheless acquire SARS-CoV-2. ——- And now I am off in the cold for a blood draw three days following my first dose of experimental vaccine (or placebo).

I forgot to also mention that the CoronaVac researchers removed 26% of the overall study sample to report the comprehensive analysis of 50% efficacy that they think Anvisa would be foolish to reject. Quelle horseshit. Why would they think nobody would notice. It is easy to track these inconsistencies as media releases roll out. Red flags all round.

Unfortunately, the standard of releasing to the public domain the detailed briefing of study results, such as what Pfizer and Moderna did leading up to FDA review, is not apparently done in Brazil. We need to see Brazil’s Butantan Institute and the CoronaVac research sponsor, China -based Sinovac, transparently revealing the exact infection numerators and subsample denominators to yield efficacy metrics. It is more and more apparent that they are mining the data and stratifying disease severity in such a way as to spin the data in the best possible light. When researchers try to quickly analyze results with an agenda, mistakes are made in the manipulation. There have already been glaring errors and this has naturally resulted in distrust by the public that is already quite pronounced. Butantan had initially focused on the vaccine trial results suggesting a prevention of severe COVID cases. When pressed to equivalize the analysis with the conventional inclusion of all bona fide cases of infection, they seem to be scrambling to reach and exceed the 50% efficacy standard to no less than 50.1%, thinking that the crisis of community infection rates will help put the application ‘in the bag’, hoping that the reality of poor vaccine performance overall doing little to stem the tide of transmission will be overlooked. Sinovac is also pushing to jab the deltoids of Turks and Indonesians with CoronaVac based on their large sample Brazilian study results along with efficacy data that appear promising in those two countries but that have very small sample sizes reducing statistical analytical power.

“Damn, shoulda gone with the dove grey and heels ...” FullSizeRender.mov

For comparison, other recent vaccine arms in research showed much lower breakthrough CoV infection over similar study duration compared to the 2.0% rate for CoronaVac: Pfizer/BioNTech .044% Moderna .036% AstraZeneca .52% Additionally, even if the CoronaVac data submitted by Butantan to Anvisa are to be believed, the 50.4% efficacy, coincidentally the metric just placed at the threshold for consideration for approval [hmmmm], would nevertheless have a 95% confidence interval whose lower bracket would be well below 50%.

The ex pence of this Vogue piece is a few days premature, though expense was spared in hemming those ‘pretty in pink’ drapes.

PS: Or you might be aware of being recently infected but are an outlier showing positive test results for a few weeks after being non-contagious.

Personally, I would not chance it the same day. I would take the time to have it done a day or two ahead of departure at the Guarulhos T3 or the Mooca Shopping location. Probably by train. That’s me. If connecting at GRU, given the chances of a delay getting there ... for example, I have been stressed in the past due to my incoming flight being late ... that would put you under pressure at the test location ... it makes sense to have the testing done locally in the last place you are visiting. This brings us back to the idea of when to get tested in your home country ahead of travelling. If you reside in a region with high CoV prevalence you may want to get tested a week or two prior to your formal departure test, as residual but inactive viral particles might trigger a positive PCR result though you were asymptomatic following infection outside of awareness. That would give you time to organize documentation of recovery and non-infectious status, eg neutralizing antibodies. Similarly, when leaving Brazil you would have on hand the same documentation, having known of your past infection, in the event your inbound test is also positive. That’s me; bred to be thorough. I assume that, by now, boarding gate employees are able to interpret a positive test accompanied by verification of non-transmissibility.

No, not required ... maybe for some countries, but there has been no recent change. Perhaps the word Anvisa is confusing. It is the name of the authority for public health decisions. One of its functions is similar to the Food & Drug Administration in USA.

Oh, the plot thickens and it’s a fucking mess in Brazil. The data for CoronaVac were reviewed and submitted to Anvisa, with a corrected efficacy of 50%, that is, 2:1 infection ratio placebo:vaccine. However, I calculated the infection incidence against the backdrop of epidemiological data of new cases over the exact same dates. The infection rate over the 4 months of the study for the vaccinated group is 2.0%, no better than the general population proportion that were reported to be new cases over the same time period ... 1.9% !!!

The Heroine’s Tidbit FullSizeRender.mov

It does not have an end date or defined review date. Same as for entering Canada. Some mitigation measures do have a time frame, after which they are optionally extended. Those tend to be more burdensome within the country and imply that easing the measures will hinge on what the public is willing to do responsibly to impact transmission. They are also state-specific. Agreeing to not import infection, to verify same, and to follow pandemic guidelines is not such a big ‘ask’. Better to leave the requirement open-ended. Consider how challenging it is for visitors to get up to speed every time there is a new regulation introduced, amended, rescinded, re-imposed, what have you.

Brazil’s lower global rank in CoV vaccine hesitancy, higher rates of vaccination intention, may have spilled over into the buff garotos. Any excuse for an additional tatt.

OK, I actually found the government ordinance. The online Health Declaration and Agreement to Health Measures form that you complete for Anvisa, Brazil’s Regulatory Health Authority, can be submitted by you for your boarding in printed format (ie, you print the personalized document that is produced for you online after you have filled out all of the sections), OR it can be shown in digital format (ie, the same document) on your smartphone. This Declaration resets 15 days following completion, that is, you will not be able to pull it up on your device. Therefore, the rule of thumb seems to be that you would complete it close to your departure date, but give yourself enough lead time to make sure you can enter data such as passport number, etc. The negative CoV test must be submitted as a ‘document’. The advisory does not specify format. I suspect it can be a digital version on your smartphone. Others recently through the process are able to weigh in should they choose. It would be silly to reject the report in digital format since it is much easier to forge a printed version.