snowyco

If you plan to turn in a ballot at the Consulate. There's a bit of time left ... yet, it depends what state you live in. Many of the harshest US states require that ballots arrive by 10 days before election day - which is Oct. 29 this year. The US Consulates aggregate ballots, and ship them to the US Embassy in Mex. City. The US Embassy in Mex. City aggregates ballots, and ships them by diplomatic pouch to the State Dept offices in Kansas City. Then the State Dept offices in KC use the US mail to send your ballot to your particular state ... Since US mail is taking 7 days to many locations around the USA, then adding in the Consulate / Embassy / State Dept loops, adds another week ... pointing to getting your ballot to a US Consulate no later than Oct 21 ... or sooner. Check your state requirements here: https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot-deadlines/ Check Absentee Voting Abroad Options here: https://www.votefromabroad.org/?fbclid=IwAR1RUPEe1nwQIiHuFhqrbqv_wNdWjbvRfqdw2y1Apy00-YITeetEmc6zF38

It's easy - without contacting the FBU at the US embassy. Just download the SSA's pdf form for SSA–7162, https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms/images/SSA7/G-SSA-7162-OCR-SM-1.pdf print a copy, complete the form, and mail it back to the USA using registered Mexican mail, to: Social Security Administration P.O. Box 7162 Wikes Barre PA 18767-7162 USA Cheers!

https://yucalandia.com/2022/08/19/annual-filing-requirments-for-continuing-us-social-security-benefits-when-living-abroad/ Generally, the US Social Security system requires all people living abroad*, receiving Social Security benefits, to file a form SSA–7162 every year, but those policies have been offficially suspended this past 2 years due to COVID issues with overseas mailing. It’s a simple form that certifies our current address, and certifies that the SS benefits recipient is still alive. https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms/images/SSA7/G-SSA-7162-OCR-SM-1.pdf *Who is required to file? All people receiving Social Security benefits, who have foreign addresses registered with the SSA. It does not matter if your check is deposited in the USA or to a foreign bank account, because it’s all about the mailing address you have on file with the SSA. *2022 Updates: The SSA typically mails the forms out in May each year, with a 60 day due date for returning the form after the day your receive it … Yet the program was suspended due to COVID mailing problems, and this year, the notices were not sent out until June 2022, A follow up notice is sent in October and December if the completed questionnaire has not been received. https://es.usembassy.gov/foreign-enforcement-questionnaire/ SSA Official Due Dates for Filing in 2022: Per the SSA: “The Social Security Administration will resume mailing the forms SSA-7161 and SSA-7162 in late June 2022.” https://form-ssa-ocr-7162.pdffiller.com/ and https://www.ssa.gov/foreign/ We personally got our 2022 SSA notices requiring us to file Form SSA-7162, delivered to our Mexican address on July 17, 2022 - filing within the 60 day limit after receipt. = = = = = = = For USA-nians on Social Security abroad who have not received their notice in the mail, just download the SSA's pdf form for SSA–7162, https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms/images/SSA7/G-SSA-7162-OCR-SM-1.pdf print a copy, complete the form, and mail it back to the USA using registered Mexican mail, to: Social Security Administration P.O. Box 7162 Wikes Barre PA 18767-7162 USA Cheers!

We live in Yucatan, not far from Campeche. We got Sinovac in Campeche. ... Both of us are Mex. citizens, over age 60. Merida is doing Oxford-AstraZenica at some sites and Sinovac at others. In the north Yucatan beach coast areas they used only Pfizer's vaccine.

?? We got our first Sinovac vaccination 26 days ago, and we got our text message - scheduling us to get our second Sinovac jab on Saturday. Everyone we know who have gotten a 1'st jab here in Mexico, have been called back for their second shot.

Here's the Brazilians "10,000 person study", that has only 85 vaccinated patients in the key COVID Treatment group used to calculate the Sinovac's %Efficacy ... and just 168 unvaccinated patients in the key Control COVID group used to report Sinovac's %Efficacy report of"50.7%" Efficacy. https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf Compare that way-too-small Brazilian study with just 86 vaccinated patients used to report %Efficacy, versus the larger Sinovac trials in Turkey that got 84% Efficacy for Sinovac's "Coronavac". https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P

The latest results for the Brazilian "Phase III" trial results for Sinovac's "Coronavac" are in ... and the results reveal a poorly conducted study with only a tiny group of just " 85 COVID cases ... in the vaccine group" and a trivial "168 COVID cases" in the placebo-Control group. Who believes a study that has just 85 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) and a paltry 168 patients in the Control group for the key %Efficacy report ? Seriously ... Why believe the NY Times and AP and other Big Media source talking heads who only repeat the HEADLINE of "50.7% Low Efficacy for Chinese Sinovac " when they don't even bother to read the study to find the key %Efficacy calculation-conclusion was based on just 88 TOTAL Vaccinated patients... ? => An invalid result, due to too small of a group of patients. Notice that the big Sinovac study in Turkey shows 84% efficacy versus the tiny Brazilian study's "50.7%" . Here's the actual research report that exposes the NY Times, AP et al's sloppy, lazy reporting https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf

The latest results for the Brazilian "Phase III" trial results for Sinovac's "Coronavac" are in ... and the results reveal a poorly conducted study with only a tiny group of just " 85 COVID cases ... in the vaccine group" and a trivial "168 COVID cases" in the placebo-Control group. Who believes a study that has just 85 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) and a paltry 168 patients in the Control group for the key %Efficacy report ? Seriously ... Why believe the NY Times and AP and other Big Media source talking heads who only repeat the HEADLINE of "50.7% Low Efficacy for Chinese Sinovac " when they don't even bother to read the study to find the key %Efficacy calculation-conclusion was based on just 88 TOTAL Vaccinated patients... ? => An invalid result, due to too small of a group of patients. Notice that the big Sinovac study in Turkey shows 84% efficacy versus the tiny Brazilian study's "50.7%" . Here's the actual research report that exposes the NY Times, AP et al's sloppy, lazy reporting https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf

Notice that when the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 22% of vaccinated people with COVID infections had "severe COVID disease" ... with up to 45% of them being hospitalized after 2 doses of Pfizer vaccine, THIS IS A NEW FINDING... not reported by Pfizer. Notice that when up to 12% of vaccinated patients GOT COVID ... "at 7 or more days after the second dose" ... it means the vaccine did not work up to 12% of the time. As such, the New England Journal of Medicine report results are NOT for your claimed supposed "21 days " or less after the 2'nd dose. Cheers! No

So... AndyPanda trusts a Brazilian study, that had just 88 vaccinated patients in the Vaccine's %Efficacy group? Why? ... Because "the NY Times says so" ... ? Think about it for a moment: 88 patients is simply too small to provide a valid result for a vaccine efficacy trial.

Believe the scientific posts out of the New England Journal of Medicine instead. Believe the scientific reports for the 10,000 patient Sinovac study performed in Turkey that reported 84% efficacy for the Sinovac. Why would anyone believe a Brazilian study of just "50% efficacy", that had just 88 vaccinated patients in the Treatment Group for calculating the vaccine % efficacy? ... Just because the NY Times & AP guys repeat it? Why would anyone believe a Brazilian study of just "50% efficacy", that had just 175 unvaccinated patients in the Control Group for calculating the vaccine % efficacy? ... Just because the NY Times & AP guys repeat it? Journalists don't know how to interpret, nor what to look for in scientific report. ... The NY Times & AP news staff have been slashed over the years, gutting their research & fact checking departments. Why believe me? I'm a Doctor of Public Health, with 44 yrs of professional experience, who was also a staff editor for 7 years of a BioMedical journal, reviewing & editing years of medical research reports. I've worked on successful Public Health clean-up programs at all of the USA's biggest DOD & DOE sites. I was a professional scientific expert witness for both the US Dept of Justice & the US DOE. I've worked on 2 big virus-transmission control studies of over $2 million for the US NIH & the Gates Foundation. I've personally managed over $37 million of very successful Public Health & Environmental Health programs.

The NY Times and AP are not scientific journals. The "50%" was not quoted from a Chinese Medican official, the "50%" value comes from a very small unreliable Brazilian study. Sadly, the NY Times & AP are unable to read & interpret scientific studies, unable to tell the difference between a good valid study versus a poor small study. The bigger 10,000 patient Turkish study showed Sinovac 83.5% efficacy, and Sinovac was 100% effective in stopping severe illness & hospitalization. ... and there were no significant side effects. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P In contrast, the small Brazilian study's "50.38%" Efficacy reported by NY Times & LA is not valid. ... The Brazilian 'study' of Sinovac was so small that there were just 88 total vaccinated patients who were counted in the %Efficacy calculation and just 175 total unvaccinated (Control Group) patients with COVID, used to calculate that "50%" value that the NY Times & AP keep repeating. Does anyone really trust a study that has just 88 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients)? Sadly even the NY Times & AP don't actually read the primary source material of their news reports, they just repeat things they read from other sources on science & medical issues. The NY Times & AP editors dropped the ball, badly on this one. For comparison: Notice that 83.5% Sinovac efficacy is 10% smaller than Pfizer or Moderna - which troubles the 1 regional Chinese official complaining**, but it is 10% larger than Oxford AstraZenica, and 30% larger than JnJ. **When we read the whole press release by the 1 regional Chinese official, we find he is complaining that China is not allowing the highest efficiency m-RNA vaccines, and he wants to combine those highest-efficiency vaccines with the Chinese vaccines in mixing different jabs of different vaccines.

Note the "50% efficacy " research report that the NY Times quotes & that the AP site quotes HAS ONLY 88 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) with COVID ... and just 175 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Control Group (unvaccinated patients) with COVID. No good scientist anywhere trusts tiny-study results that have just 88 Treatment (vaccinated) patients ... and 175 Control (unvaccinated) patients in their study from Brazil. The "50% " report is scientifically invalid ... and medically invalid ... because the study was so small. The bigger 10,000 patient Sinovac study showed 84% protection. Cheers!

By definition, Medians have alway been averages. Read a basic dictionary: "The median is another form of an average." https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/#:~:text=What is the median%3F,when it's ordered by rank. But that is not the point. The minor point, Bisbeegal, is that when human data sets are very large (like the Israeli data for over 1 million patients), and when they are normal distributions, then, with 95% Confidence: ½ the people in the big study have results below the "Average" (arithmatic mean) and ½ the people in the big study have results above the "Average". The bigger point is that the Pfizer vaccine has gaps in protection up to 12% being unprotected. Cheers!

Think back to normal distributions and the Central Limit Theorem for very large data sets of over 1 million individuals. You are quoting a High School level math oversimplified definition, which ignores what a 1.6% RSD means for a symmetrical normal distribution. Readers can note that ALL Medians are "Average" values... just as ALL Means are "Average" values. "Average" is the overall umbrella term, that literally means 'central value' or 'central tendency' ... which can be either a Mean or a Median.... With over 1 million patients, and a tiny 1.6% RSD, and a symmetrical 88% - 95% distribution, then half the patients got less than 92% average protection, and ½ the patients got more than 92% average protection. Readers can also note that the up to 12% gap in "effective protection from COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccine is real - especially because it comes from a 1.2 million patient study ... Which means to stay safe, we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks and socially distancing for the months to come. The 16% average gap in Sinovac protection, average 24% gap in Oxford AstraZenica vaccine protection, and average 34% gap in JnJ vaccine protection means we get some protection from vaccines, but we still need to keep masking-up & socially distancing. Cheers!