One incident caused by a natural disaster that would never happen in a European country like Germany, the other caused by mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany.
Edit: in response to the large number of people bringing up BER and other infrastructure failures in Germany: yes, BER and others may have been bad, but a completely different kind (and magnitude) of incompetence than that which led to the Chernobyl meltdown. They really aren’t comparable.
This summer a large part of germany was completely flooded. This was a natural disaster, which might happen at higher frequencies nowadays. The alarming systems in place competely failed and around 200 people drowned in Germany. There are so many things which could happen and countries like Germany are not prepared for.
This is ridiculous! The house owners were convinced that there couldn't take place a flooding in that area! Most of them had no insuranced for flooding either. No specialist of any kind has predicted such a scenario...
> This was a natural disaster, which might happen at higher frequencies nowadays.
You don't build nuclear power plants in narrow valleys with known flood events though. I mean, you also don't build wind turbines in swamps and hope they don't fall over, or put solar panels on your roof and don't fasten them.
Jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence is unfortunately quite common once economic pressure makes the correct way of running things untenable.
Everybody starts cutting small corners everywhere, assuming it doesn't matter much as all the other people are still doing their job. One day, a corner too many gets cut, and the slack in the system is too small to catch what should be a minor problem.
Don't trust the public facade and official reports, they have been filtered by PR departments and by people not wishing to report bad news to their managers and peers
>BER has become for Germany not a new source of pride but a symbol of engineering catastrophe. It's what top global infrastructure expert Bent Flyvbjerg calls a "national trauma" and an ideal way "to learn how not to do things".
Accidents will always happen, even in Germany [1]. And don’t forget their WW2 bomb detection isn’t perfect [2]. Nor are they free from corruptive practices [3].
Well nothing is risk-free. But in my opinion in any case the risk of allowing climate change to rampantly continue vastly outweighs the infinitesimal risks of nuclear.
"infinitesimal risk" would be something that is unlikely to happen once in a million years or even the lifetime of the planet which is clearly not the case. It's "acceptable risk" or "justifiable risk" at best.
Floodings are going to be much more frequent than they were in the past. If you want to take a look at where those nuclear reactors are located and explain how they were to be operated safely and cost effectively in the next decade or two I think the Germans would be all ear.
Germany has this right: do it now, and deal with it, rather than to continue to kick the can down the road for later generations to solve the problems, a kind of temporeal externalization.
Yeah, I'm a supporter of Nordstream 2 because cheap gas is better than expensive gas, but I can't understand why Germany is making itself more dependent on gas instead of building out nuclear capacity to be less dependent.
The whole policy really doesn't make a lot of sense, it's not pro-fossil fuel or anti-fossil fuel, it's not pro-Russia or anti-Russia. It's all of the above, which is worse, since it's anti-everything and pro-everything. It suggests German leadership is too incompetent to pursue their own interests and so they are effectively acting randomly.
It is hard to find an explanation for this other than Germany has been co-opted by Russia. Ukraine has been separated from the herd and will surely fall. Putin will be on Germany's border by the end of the decade.
One reason amongst many others is the risk of a vaccine-resistant strain emerging. There’d be a pretty enormous evolutionary pressure for that outcome under those circumstances.
I would point out fear of resistance is not a good reason to withhold vaccination or withhold care. Resistance will always eventually happen through evolution. What's important is that care is given when indicated.
Still, given the small size of Nim community and even smaller size of the genomics nim subcommunity, I would say it is not that odd that is not included in the benchmark. The existing nim genomics library might not even cover the functionalities required by the benchmark.
Nim is not really 'pythonic'. It does have some superficial similarity with Python (being whitespace sensitive) but it begins to diverge pretty soon. This is not really a criticism of Nim. I quite like many of the choices in Nim.
Seq claims that vast majority of python programs would work as is. I have not validated that claim, but Nim can absolutely not make that claim. Any python library would require substantial porting effort to be translated to nim.
Calling Nim Python is like calling OCaml or Scala Python, it's not really true. The main reason people use Python is because it is Python, not because of an extractable list of things.
Pros vs cons of taking natural immunity into account:
Pros:
- An extremely small number of people who would get side effects now wouldn’t
Cons:
- Logistics: you now need to perform a blood test on every single person in the country, process the results, send out vaccine invites based on the results, and set up some system where people can prove their blood test results. None of the aforementioned components currently exist. You also need to come up with some arbitrary threshold for “enough” antibodies.
- Cost: the blood test costs 4x as much as the vaccine, from what I see in other comments
- Incentives: you risk incentivising vaccine skeptics to deliberately contract COVID
>- An extremely small number of people who would get side effects now wouldn’t
What is an 'extremely small' number? The CDC[0] states that [Headache..., Fever, Nausea] are "common." Sadly 'common' is not defined, but with >100,000,000 folks with natural immunity it's hard to imagine a definition of 'common' that squares with any reasonable definition of 'extremely small'.
>Cons:
>- Logistics: you now need to perform a blood test on every single person in the country,
For a large chunk of the population you have past positive test results. For the rest, you just need to offer the option of taking a blood test. Furthermore, the majority of the US is already vaccinated. So in just a few steps you go from "every single person" to, if you allow me to guesstimate, somewhere in the single digit percentages.
Also a missing pro:
You have a government whose vaccine policies are grounded in proper science and medical ethics, reducing the number of vaccine hesitant individuals.
I suspect that using past positive tests would make things even more complicated. It’s very easy to underestimate how difficult things are at the “tens of millions of people” scale, particularly for governments.
> You have a government whose vaccine policies are grounded in proper science and medical ethics, reducing the number of vaccine hesitant individuals
Circular argument, no? This point is only relevant to whether natural immunity should be correct if you accept that your own position (natural immunity should be taken into account) is correct.
We've already don't plenty of covid tests on people throughout the past year or so. Why not start with giving anyone who has a previous positive test a card saying they have the best possible protection.
And walking around after that still spreading the virus because you wouldn't feel the symptoms. The vaccinated people look to be the main source of infection these days.
Vaccinated people are way less likely to get infected.
And I don’t think there’s any evidence that vaccinated people have higher viral loads with less symptoms - that would be extremely surprising if true. I understand that vaccinated people can have high viral loads in breakout cases, but presumably in those cases they’re symptomatic - I don’t recall seeing any analysis of this.
The chances of infection for unvaccinated is 4 times of that for vaccinated. They have the same load - Wisconsin study for example, without control for symptoms. They have less symptoms - that is being tought by everybody everywhere. Putting these facts together is obvious.
When people appeal to morals it is an immediate big red sign for me as their appeal most probably have no backing or even goes directly against the facts, just like back in the USSR.
I think you severely underestimate how hard it would be to organise every single person in the country having a blood test, and then sending out invites etc based on the results of those tests.
Edit: in response to the large number of people bringing up BER and other infrastructure failures in Germany: yes, BER and others may have been bad, but a completely different kind (and magnitude) of incompetence than that which led to the Chernobyl meltdown. They really aren’t comparable.