Gam of Thrones Tourn your own - Dubrovnik Forum - Tripadvisor

По результатам честного голосования большинство голосов ушло в ответ "за" обновление. В теме на форуме вы можете убедиться, что не было подкручиваний голосов на момент скринов был голос, из которых 81 "да", 20 - "нет". Поэтому мы принимаем решение о дальнейшем обновлении сервера Phoenix с версии 4.

Процесс подготовки к апгрейду займет примерно Примерная дата обновления запланирована на середину декабря. Moreover, more than one billion doses from it have reportedly been already demanded. Thank you. This is not a big deal. Natureium talk , 11 August UTC Natureium : As far as I know, they plan to introduce a vaccine with mediocre efficacy in order to replace other drugs that are typically used as a remedy and, at the same time, proceed with the research on developing a better vaccine that would replace the previous one.

After several iterations, the process would end with the optimal vaccine. Even the name of the vaccine, "Sputnik" is already propaganda. But if it physically exists and has been widely debated in secondary RS, then the info about it should be included, I think. On the other hand, do we have strong MEDRS publications describing this vaccine and results of its testing?

If we do not, then anyone can reasonably argue this is just a propaganda stunt and therefore belongs to page Russian propaganda. It is important for ensuring the accuracy of our medical-related content that the standards set in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources medicine are met in all edits. This is Putin giving medical information which he is not qualified to do.

As it is, the quote box is pretty much a medical anecdote about his daughter. What do you mean by "a medical anecdote"? Anecdotes are not appropriate sources for medical claims in Wikipedia. On the contrary, President Putin said that his daughter had side effects and that "The main thing is to ensure unconditional safety and effectiveness of this vaccine in the future".

Moreover, to my opinion, this quotation is of encyclopedic interest. What do you think? We simply cannot extrapolate one report of minor side-effects to state that a particular intervention is safe, nor can we use a bland statement unqualified because we know there was considerable reaction to it.

I hope that makes sense. Duly noted. It may well turn out to be so, but without solid data reported in quality secondary sources, we may be misleading our readership by implication, if we use the unqualified term "vaccine" right now. What distinguishes Gam-COVID-Vac from other as-yet-unproven vaccines is that Russia has approved it for use, and that certainly is a significant point that should be discussed and put into context.

Zefr talk , 11 August UTC If the vaccine is fully consistent with the legislative requirements of Russia and even is being produced, then why is it called a vaccine candidate? If you want to mention that the vaccine is not licensed by WHO then what is the problem?

If a vaccine is licensed in only one country without international acceptance of safety and efficacy , it is unproven to - and unlicensed by - the world scientific community and by the WHO which is the coordinator for assessing vaccine performance against specific diseases in pandemics. Wikipedia likes the latter, and rejects the former. Please explain in more detail.

Basically this is a fringe theory "this vaccine is only being criticised because other countries are envious of Russian supremacy" and would need some context before being aired on Wikipedia. A more neutral look at the dangers of this might be appropriate to use.

We are not an echo-chamber for political propaganda. So why then Bloomberg cites this "political propaganda" and lots of other outlets? Is Bloomberg a Russian propaganda edition in the US?

В теме на форуме вы можете убедиться, что не было подкручиваний голосов на момент скринов был голос, из которых 81 "да", 20 - "нет". Поэтому мы принимаем решение о дальнейшем обновлении сервера Phoenix с версии 4. Процесс подготовки к апгрейду займет примерно Примерная дата обновления запланирована на середину декабря.

Все временные рамки предварительные и не окончательные. What distinguishes Gam-COVID-Vac from other as-yet-unproven vaccines is that Russia has approved it for use, and that certainly is a significant point that should be discussed and put into context.

Zefr talk , 11 August UTC If the vaccine is fully consistent with the legislative requirements of Russia and even is being produced, then why is it called a vaccine candidate? If you want to mention that the vaccine is not licensed by WHO then what is the problem? If a vaccine is licensed in only one country without international acceptance of safety and efficacy , it is unproven to - and unlicensed by - the world scientific community and by the WHO which is the coordinator for assessing vaccine performance against specific diseases in pandemics.

Wikipedia likes the latter, and rejects the former. Please explain in more detail. Basically this is a fringe theory "this vaccine is only being criticised because other countries are envious of Russian supremacy" and would need some context before being aired on Wikipedia. A more neutral look at the dangers of this might be appropriate to use. We are not an echo-chamber for political propaganda. So why then Bloomberg cites this "political propaganda" and lots of other outlets?

Is Bloomberg a Russian propaganda edition in the US? I have nothing more to say. We are meant to base our article on secondary sources in any case. An unreliable source does not suddenly become reliable in general by being quoted in a reliable source. I see Alright, see you in a week. Alexbrn talk , 12 August UTC I believe you actually were asced to openly list, if the vaccide is undertested etc.

Prove me otherwise" flashcard. Oh, and by the way. He called himself "Guinea pig"? If not, this violates NPOV. While the source does not specify "guinea pig", the source quotes Mr. Duerte as saying When the vaccine arrives, I will have myself injected in public. To claim he will be "experimented on" and that would happen "first" is a meaning of "guinea pig" in English. Nevertheless, I agree that it is very unclear so I have edited it.

You apparently are not familiar with the common American epithet. To quote the Guinea pig article: "Biological experimentation on domestic guinea pigs has been carried out since the 17th century. The animals were used so frequently as model organisms in the 19th and 20th centuries that the epithet guinea pig came into use to describe a human test subject. I can see how it may be considered editorializing to extrapolate agreeing to be injected first to agreeing to be experimented on.

Hence my edit. The expression is not currently used in the article at the time I posted this, — Paleo Neonate — , 14 August UTC PaleoNeonate : I honestly thought that in English Wikipedia, editors are more demanding of a neutral point of view -- Александр Мотин talk , 14 August UTC The way we ensure NPOV is by insisting on using only the highest quality secondary sources for our medical content.

This is surreal.