Páll Óskar 50

sem hann fagnaði með megasjói í troðfullum stórsal.

Ég er af annarri kynslóð þannig að ég hef ekki sérlega fylgst með Páli Óskari í gegn um tíðina. En vissi auðvitað að þar færi listamaður.

En þessi þáttur í sjónvarpinu gekk fram af mér. Það er meira en að segja það að setja saman svona sýningu með tugum listafólks og láta allt smella saman  í troðfullu bíói með ljósum og ég veit ekki hvað.

Þvílík frammistaða og úthald  sem drengurinn sýndi og hvernig hann spilaði á salinn. Hann átti pleisið eins og þeir segja.

Þsð sem kom mér einna mest á óvart er hversu mikilvirkur textahöfundur Páll Óskar er. Flesta gerir hann sjálfur sýndist mér sem er áreiðanlega óvenjulegt á Íslandi.

Vegna heyrnardeyfu og elli missti ég af miklu í músíkinni enda kannski ekki í mínum stíl. En ég kann að meta snilld þegar ég sé hana.

Til hamingju Páll Óskar með þetta kvöld. Þetta var þess virði að horfa á til enda hjá þér svona ungum og hressum á 50 ára afmælinu.

Þú ert sannur listamaður og þjóðarsómi fimmtugur. 

 

Tveir eins

Zelenskyy og Putin?

Báðir víst búnir að taka sér alræðisvöld og banna alla andspyrnu.

Þarf heila rússneska borg og tugþúsundir látinna í stíl við Mariupol til að rússneskur almenningur vakni?

Skelfilegir eru svona Gosar fyrir mannkynið með of mikil völd. 

Síamstvíburar

andlegir eru þeir Hitler og Pútin þegar maður les gagnmerka grein Þorsteins Siglaugssonar frá því í vor:.

Þessir menn hugsa eins og eru báðir jafn ófyrirleitmnir.

Þorsteinns skrifar:

hollow propaganda, a weak and flimsy justification for the invasion.

An article this week by Timofei Sergeitsev, translated from RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, sheds new light on the proposed denazification and what it really means. Reading this, one is simply at loss for words.

The article is titled “What Russia Should Do with Ukraine” and the author starts by claiming the denazification of Ukraine is inevitable and has now moved to “the practical level”. He says a significant part of the population, and probably the majority, have become Nazis. He then goes on to lay out the plan. First, Nazis must be destroyed on the battlefield, and the author makes no distinction between the Ukrainian army and independent armed groups – all are Nazis. Next comes the punishment of “active Nazis”, and remember this includes the whole Ukrainian military, and the punishment should be “exemplary” and “demonstrable”; thinking about what that might mean sends a chill down one‘s spine.

But this is not all. Sergeitsev claims a large portion of the population are “passive Nazis”. What should be done with them then? The methods proposed are “re-education, which is achieved by ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and severe censorship: not only in the political sphere, but necessarily also in the sphere of culture and education”. Even the country‘s name must be eradicated. This is expected to take a generation.

The article claims Ukraine is “impossible as a nation-state” for it will always descend into Nazism. Furthermore, denazification essentially means de-Europeanisation. In other words, Europeans in general are Nazis.

There is something about the kind of claims made in this article that reminds one of the propaganda against European Jews in the 19th and early 20th century – the smearing of an entire people via vague and crass generalisations. One can only wonder what would happen to those who would not yield to the “re-education” and “ideological repression”. We all know what happened to the Jews and other undesirable groups in Europe in the 1940s, to the Bosnian Muslims and the Tutsi of Rwanda in the early 1990s, just to name a few examples of where our ever-present inclination towards branding and exclusion, based on nationality, race, culture or beliefs, can lead.

Since the start of the war, I have been very sceptical of the more radical claims regarding Putin‘s intentions in Ukraine. But in the context of his speeches, the way the war has played out, and the fact this article has been published by a state-owned news agency, it is difficult not to conclude the views expressed are at least not contrary to the views of the authorities. And if so, events such as the destruction of Mariupol and the massacre in Bucha are easier to understand.

It can be seen from the comments on the original article that about two thirds of the commenters disapprove of Sergeitsev‘s article while a third approve. This might be an indication of the acceptance of the author‘s views. If a third of Russians approve of not only invading a neighbouring country, but eradicating it; ruining its culture, heritage and even its name, this tells us things are much worse than one would have suspected. I have sought reactions from friends in Russia and with ties to Russia in order to better understand how popular this view is. I will finish by quoting of one of them: “Russia is not a monolith. But yes, there are enough Russians who believe Ukraine doesn’t deserve to exist as a state.”

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his blog.

By Thorsteinn Siglaugsson  /  6 April 2022 • 08.00

 

 

Mér finnst þetta góð greining á hugarheimi þessara tveggja manna manna sem aðeins sjá eina hlið á málunum :

 

Sima hlið.

 

Engin málamiðlun er möguleg nema með ofbeldi.

Adolf Hitler og Vladimir Pútín eru andlegir Símamstvíburar og hljóta því sömu örlög því þeir sigra ekki sameinaðsn heiminn.

Ekkert vit í Úkraínu

er að hafa ef  maður horfir á atburðina.

Er einhver von til þess að Pútín hagnist á þessu stríði? Hagnast aðrir?

Ég finn ekki þá aðla.

Það er engin skynssemi í þessari eyðileggingu og manndrápum?

Af hverju má ég þá ekki skrifa eitthvað bull um lausnir?

Ég ætla bara að gera það.

Ég legg til að hernaðaraðgerðum verði hætt í dag og allir herir settir í biðstöðu.

Rússum verði boðin aðild að NATO um leið og Svíum og Finnum.

Við verðum öll bandamenn en ekki óvinir. Allt menn en ekki skepnur.

Ræðum ekkert um hverjir bera ábyrgðina á þessu öllu. Pútín ekki frekar en aðrir.

Það getur annars byrjað kjarnorkustríð daginn sem Baltneskar þjóðir sækja um NATO-aðild.

Öllum héröðum sem vilja í austur Úkraínu verði boðin sjálfsstjórn og atkvæðagreiðsla um hvort þau vilji vera rússnesk, úkraínsk  eða hlutlaus í hæfilegum stærðum, frá Krímskaga austur úr.

NATO taki að sér að borga stríðsskaðann og endurbyggingu borganna. NATO varðveitir friðinn í austurátt eftirleiðis.

Það verður einfaldara landakerfi í austur Úkraínu.Einfaldara ef einverjir hlutar Úkraínu vilja vera Rússar frekar en Úkraínumenn. Það hlýtur að vera hægt að semja um eðlilegar skiptingar héraða og menn geti sætt sig við að vera Rússar eða ekki Rússar hér eða þar.

Það er ekkert vit í Úkraínustríðinu að finna hvort sem er.

Hvað hefst út úr keppni um hver getur skotið mest og eyðilagt fleiri tól og stríðsvagna?

Af hverju ekki frið frekar en stríð sem enginn er að vinna?

Þarf þetta að vera vitlausara en annað?

 

 

Helvítis kallinn hann Hitler

sagði hún Maja vinkona mín á 67 í stríðinu. Hún var hálfþýsk, dóttir dr. Odds Guðjónssonar. Hún var seinna yfirmanneskja í Hamorg hjá Loftleiðum mikil yndælis manneskja.

 "Ef hann væri kominn hérna skyldi ég sko aldeilis berja hann."

Er einhver leið að spá fyrir hvert áframhald stefnu Pútíns muni leiða?

Hvað hugsa venjulegir Rússar?

Finnland næst?

Páll Vilhjálmsson segir að:

"Bill Clinton fyrrum forseti Bandaríkjanna skrifar tímaritsgrein og staðhæfir að Rússum hafi verið boðin aðild að Nató um aldamótin en þeir hafnað. Úkraínustríðið snýst um hvort Úkraína fari í Nató og ógni þar með öryggi Rússlands.

Clinton var forseti Bandaríkjanna 1993-2001, á meðan Rússland var í sárum eftir fall Sovétríkjanna. Forsetinn fyrrverandi skrifar tímaritsgrein í Atlantic fyrir fimm dögum og ræðir ástæður stríðsins í Úkraínu. Þar segir um tilboðið til Rússa:

Throughout it all, we left the door open for Russia’s eventual membership in NATO, something I made clear to Yeltsin and later confirmed to his successor, Vladimir Putin.

Tíminn sem Clinton er að ræða er aldamótin, þegar Jeltsin færði Pútín völdin. Þetta eru stórmerkilegar fréttir. En Rússar segja að tilboðið hafi aldrei verið á borðinu.

Dmitry Peskov talsmaður Pútín þvertekur fyrir það að Rússum hafi verið boðin Nató-aðild.

Annar tveggja, Bill Clinton eða talsmaður Pútín, fer ekki rétt með."

Stöðugt verða þær raddir háværari sem tala í alvöru um Nato aðild Finna og Svía.

Hafa Rússar getu til að ráðast á þessi lönd, annaðhvort eða bæði strax eftir umsókn? Varla geta þeir beðið eftir fullgildri inngöngu?

Verða Finnar fyrri til en Svíar?

 

Enginn þjónar tveimur Herrum?

Just 20 fossil fuel firms including Shell and BP are projected to spend $932 billion (£715 bn) on new oil and gas fields by 2030, according to new research shared exclusively with Sky News.

All the oil majors have pledged support for the Paris Agreement, which commits to limiting global warming to ideally 1.5C above pre-industrial levels - firms who hadn't were discounted from the list.

Ætlar Katrín að gera eitthvað í þessu?

Enginn friður í augsýn?

í Úkraínu.

Þýskaland getur ekki farið í gasbindindi.

Efnahagsaðgerðirnar eru ekki í alvöru gegn Rússlandi. Peningagræðgin hefur yfirhöndina.

Því er enginn friður víst í augsýn.

Hvar er grein Þódísar Lóu?

um hlutfallslegan fjárhagsstyrk Reykjavíkurborgar gagnvart öðrum sveitarfélögum á höfuðborgarsvæðinu.

Þar setti frúin fram tölur sem sýndi þvert á það sem haldið hefur verið fram, að Reykjavík stæði illa.Skuldaði liðugt hundrað prósent og minna en Seltjarnarnes.

Þetta voru þvílíkar nýjar upplýsingar að menn vildu fá að ramma þetta inn. Enn frúin hefur látið þetta hverfa af netinu.

Það stendur eftir að það er til fyrir Borgarlínu og ríflega það.

En er ástæða til að fela grein Þórdísar Lóu?

Loksins?

viðast menn ná árangri gegn Covid19.

Áðu var búið að heyrast um nafnið Remdesivir. En það vantaði hitt lyfið,baricitinib .

CCN segir frá:

Combining an anti-inflammatory drug with an antiviral drug reduces recovery time and accelerates improvement for COVID-19 patients, a national study co-authored by UF Health researchers has found.

Patients treated with a combination of the anti-inflammatory drug baricitinib and the antiviral drug remdesivir while they were receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation had a recovery time of 10 days, compared with 18 days for patients in a remdesivir-only control group.

Researchers also found fewer adverse events in patients receiving the combination treatment, and the 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group versus 7.8% in the control group.

The study, supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was co-authored by Nicole M. Iovine, M.D., Ph.D., UF Health chief epidemiologist, and Marie-Carmelle Elie, M.D., from UF Health’s Department of Emergency Medicine, along with a number of researchers across the country. The study was published in December in The New England Journal of Medicine.

It was the second iteration of a National Institutes of Health, or NIH, study protocol to evaluate therapeutics for those hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2.

The first trial of the study began in May and established remdesivir as a successful treatment for hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Remdesivir works against the disease by preventing the virus from multiplying, but substantial morbidity and mortality remained. Emerging data led researchers to hypothesize that the severity of the novel coronavirus may be due, in part, to an abnormal inflammatory response.

“What we’ve learned about COVID this year is that a subpopulation of people infected with the virus had an overly exuberant inflammatory response,” Iovine said. “Exhibiting a response to fight off infection is a good thing, but for some people, it’s way too much. Our goal was to stave off that hyper-inflammatory response triggered by cytokines.”

Enter baricitinib. Baricitinib is commonly used as an anti-inflammatory treatment for those affected by rheumatoid arthritis.

“There was a precedent for trying baricitinib,” Iovine said. “We use powerful anti-inflammatory drugs all the time for a number of other infections. A major theme of adaptive treatment trials is to find useful therapeutic agents quickly. The drugs chosen need to be ones that have already been studied, like remdesivir as a treatment for Ebola. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.”

Baricitinib blocks the activity of certain proteins and enzymes and interferes with the pathway leading to inflammation.

“Because baricitinib was already in use for rheumatoid arthritis, we knew its safety profile and dosing regimens,” Iovine said. “We know very clearly how it works on a molecular level to reduce inflammatory cytokines associated with severe COVID-19.”

This second iteration of the clinical trial included 30 UF Health patients enrolled by Iovine and Elie. It evaluated more than 1,000 COVID-19 hospitalized adults across the country through 28 days of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 515 adults received the baricitinib-remdesivir combination treatment, while 518 received remdesivir and a placebo.

Study results revealed that baricitinib plus remdesivir led to better patient outcomes than remdesivir alone.

Those patients receiving the combination treatment with baricitinib had a median recovery time of one day sooner than those in the control group; recovery in the study was defined as the participant being well enough for discharge, therefore no longer requiring supplemental oxygen or medical care.

More impressively, COVID-19 patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation had a recovery time of 10 days with the combination treatment, compared with 18 days for those receiving remdesivir and a placebo.

Researchers also evaluated patients’ clinical status at day 15 of treatment and found that patients receiving baricitinib with remdesivir had a 30% higher chance of improvement in clinical status, gauged on an ordinal eight-point scale ranging from fully recovered to death.

As positive results of the clinical trials began emerging, on Nov. 19 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir for adults and pediatric COVID-19 patients 2 years of age and older requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

While remdesivir plus baricitinib has shown favorable results, so has another anti-inflammatory drug that is being simultaneously studied and utilized routinely with a similar population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients — the steroid dexamethasone, Iovine said. Dexamethasone is a steroid medication that also modulates the immune system’s response to inflammation. 

Thus, the next iteration of the adaptive study will evaluate the results of dexamethasone paired with remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment, and compare those with results of the remdesivir and baricitinib study.

Iovine and Elie recently enrolled UF Health’s first patient in this trial as research continues to evaluate the best therapeutic treatments for those hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2.

Media contact: Ken Garcia at [e-mail] or 352-273-9799.

 

 Kannski er loksins að finnast lausn á vandamálinu?