Queue three documents into the unsorted file

At least two of them are almost certainly deserving of ending up into the main list, and maybe the Washington Post leak should be in News with or without the PDF linked directly (probably without), but I should read them more carefully for describing their contents
ljl-covid · Jul 30, 2021 · 7cb7069 · 7cb7069
1 parent 4934c15
commit 7cb7069
Showing 1 changed file with 6 additions and 0 deletions.
diff --git a/unsorted.txt b/unsorted.txt
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+July 2021: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x is a pretty comprehensive thing on vaccination and the types of immune responses that may or may not be created, how they last, how they impact the virus... but today is not the day I'll be reading it all
+https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021  awfully unsettling first scenario out of three, but aside from the scenarioes, the "Background" contains a lot of information some of which is kind of FAQ-answering, like about how "the virus will become milder" is possible in the long term but not at all certain and unlikely in the short term, which keeps coming up, or that re-infection does happen... unfortunately it doesn't provide references for any of these things, so it'll only be good for people who trust the UK government's SAGE group
+https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 "Scent of a vaccine" is de-facto's favorite topic of nasal/mucosal vaccines, and if the article is good it may be a good introduction to it
+https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/  or https://archive.is/AcvHU (thanks nixonix)  CDC is subtly changing guidance after an internal document, which was leaked and the article contains as a PDF, says that "the war has changed" with Delta
+
+
 April 2021: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1068 has UK data on vaccine efficacy for the first shot (and second but only for BNT) on around 400000 people. I originally read about it on https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56844220 but the bmj link cites two preprints about it, which I should try to understand because I'm not quite clear on whether the percentages given represent efficacy.
 Meanwhile Scotland has something similar at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00677-2/fulltext and/or https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3789264 (ugh look at which is more recent, or if they are the same, too much stuff in my brain now) which I should check whether it's the continuation of the same study I have in the links from a couple months ago.