A few thoughts on the B.1.617 variant, first seen in India in late 2020, recently seen in >100 cases in the UK, and very much in the news here. TLDR: we should watch carefully, but I don't think any of our best lines of evidence on variants are yet cause for concern.

check out this obscure math theorem. only a few know about this.

One year ago today: A medRxiv preprint of a study in California suggests a seroprevalence of 2.5% to 4.2%, 50 to 85 times more than confirmed cases would suggest, though sample bias and test specificity may affect the results. In a Boston hot spot, a separate study measures 32%.

Canada’s vaccine shortage: Covid-19 cases per capita pass U.S. rate as doctors plead for more vaccines @paulanewtonCNN reports

10.1073/pnas.1821204116

We use data on police-involved deaths to estimate how the risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States varies across social groups. We estimate the lifetime and age-specific risks of being killed by police by race and sex. We also provide estimates of the proportion of all deaths accounted for by police use of force. We find that African American men and women, American Indian/Alaska Native men and women, and Latino men face higher lifetime risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. We find that Latina women and Asian/Pacific Islander men and women face lower risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. The average lifetime odds of being killed by police are about 1 in 2,000 for men and about 1 in 33,000 for women. Risk peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for all groups. For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.

Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex

*This thread was brought to you by mild procrastination

Final points: - If you are paid to analyze data, this is what professionalism looks like. - If the work you do matters, take it seriously. Good science requires meticulous technique, not just genius ideas. - You can't learn all of this at once. But you can learn it, no doubt.

- This is something that is often used by programmers (I am not one of those), but I think the ideas translate very nicely to analysis scripts. https://r-pkgs.org/tests.html

- Or every time your code doesn't work and you eventually figure out why, write a little test to check for the underlying problem first.

- A simple example: You have 100 patients in your study. That means your dataset probably has 100 rows. So insert a bit of code that checks that this is true before running a model with those data.

Step 7: Write tests into your script - This is the step I am trying to learn more about. - It is often true that you computer will happily give you the "wrong" results if you give it the wrong inputs. - So build tests into your code to check that those inputs are correct.

- Save those little functions is a separate scripts that you might use across many different analysis projects. - It's easier than you think!

Step 6: Aspire to never repeat yourself (NRY). - Every new keystroke is an opportunity to make an error. - When you find yourself writing the same block of code over and over, write a little program (function) that does it with a few key strokes.

Step 5: Make your code *sharable* - and maybe even share it! - You've written all that nice code. It would be a shame not to let other people look. They probably won't, but the very "threat" of it can be a powerful motivator to use best practices.

- So when the data changes (and the data *will* change) you just re-run the report. No re-cutting-and-pasting. Fewer chances for mistakes.

- Use "literate programming" tools like R Markdown to generate (and re-regnerate) reports that include your "final" plots, tables, and text. https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com

Step 4: Generate finished outputs, not just numbers. - You need to try to eliminate (or greatly reduce) the amount of cutting and pasting results, plots, tables into other documents, like Word.

- Calculate differences between things (including dates and times) and look at those. - If you transform something, plot it against the original. - Don't just plot though - think about what the data *should* look like.

Step 3: "Look" at everything. - Visualize the variables you use. Plot raw values, summaries, and distributions. - Plot how variables relate to one another. - Plots dates and times to see if they are ordered as you would expect.

...even if that means writing more lines of code (gasp!) - Use a consistent style guide. http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Style.html - Remember, a good script is a love letter to yourself in 6 months time. It needs to be *written*. Clear. Concise. Complete.

Step 2: Once you are nice and comfy with scripting, try to write nicer scripts. - Scripts should be human-readable, not just machine readable. - Use annotations to explain yourself and the code. - Make the machine-readable bits as human-readable as possible...

A progression: Step 1: Script everything. No point and click, ever. This is by far the most important step. I like R and @rstudio. You can do it. https://rstudio.cloud/learn/primers ||

I know this is obvious, but you can't find the errors in your data and analysis if you don't actively look for them.

Inspired by @eliaskrainski's vaccine uptake pyramid for Brazil, here's one for England:

Analysis of the paper identified several biases ‘which may give the false impression that smoking is protective in Covid-19’

Scientific paper claiming smokers less likely to acquire Covid retracted over tobacco industry links

With vaccination >80% for people 65+, the group to focus on to reduce the most deaths are those aged 50-64. Is reaching them more important than vaccinating the young transmitters? I'd say yes. We can do both, but the middle aged are crucial They're how we get deaths down.

Below are the current vaccination rates by age group. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends

@Bob_Wachter has an excellent piece outlining why vaccination is key, given local officials unwillingness to give up relaxing mitigation measures. But who should be the focus of vaccination efforts?

Here's the change in distribution of COVID deaths by age. - In Dec, 63% of all deaths were in ages 75+. - In Mar, most deaths were UNDER age 75, The flattening of COVID deaths according to age is extraordinary. https://cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm…

COVID deaths in nursing homes are down massively. - In Dec 2020, these accounted for 32% of all COVID deaths. - In Mar 2021, thanks to vaccination, they accounted for just 4%. So who are the remaining 96%? https://data.cms.gov/stories/s/COVID-19-Nursing-Home-Data/bkwz-xpvg/

US COVID-19 deaths remain upwards of 700 deaths a day. Who are these people who are dying?

I have tremendous news about Prince Rupert. In March, the B.C. city of 12,000 had the highest #COVID19 transmission rate in the province. Every adult was offered the chance to be vaccinated. At the peak, there were more than 100 weekly cases. Last week, there were 3.

10.1136/bmj.n1040

The UK government is facing legal action over a £102.6m (€119m; $143m) contract for FFP3 respirators to be worn by healthcare staff treating covid-19 patients, which was granted without competition last July.The claim is the latest by the Good Law Project to challenge the lawfulness of government action in procuring personal protective equipment (PPE) during the covid-19 pandemic.

Covid-19: Government faces legal action over £102m contract for FFP3 masks

10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00762-5

By mid March, 2021, vaccination against COVID-19 using the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine from Oxford–AstraZeneca1Ramasamy MN Minassian AM Ewer KJ et al.Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.Lancet. 2021; 396: 1979-1993Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar,  2Voysey M Costa Clemens SA Madhi SA et al.Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.Lancet. 2021; 397: 881-891Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar was paused in a number of European countries due to reports of thromboembolic events in vaccinated individuals.3Wise J Covid-19: European countries suspend use of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of blood clots.BMJ. 2021; 372: n699Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 cases of thromboembolic events (predominantly venous) had been reported by March 10, 2021, among the approximately 5 million recipients of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in the European Economic Area.3Wise J Covid-19: European countries suspend use of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of blood clots.BMJ. 2021; 372: n699Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar The EMA subsequently stated that “The number of thromboembolic events in vaccinated people is no higher than the number seen in the general population”.4European Medicines AgencyCOVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: PRAC investigating cases of thromboembolic events - vaccine's benefits currently still outweigh risks - update.https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-prac-investigating-cases-thromboembolic-events-vaccines-benefitsDate: March 11, 2021Date accessed: March 22, 2021Google Scholar To inform the ongoing discussion on the safety of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, we analysed nationwide population-based data from Denmark to estimate the natural incidence of venous thromboembolism.5

Thromboembolism and the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: side-effect or coincidence?

10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00080-1

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, rheumatologists have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients about whether their rheumatic disease, or the drugs they use to treat them, might increase their risk of COVID-19. With COVID-19 vaccination programmes now underway in many countries, patients' concerns have shifted toward questions about the vaccines and whether they are safe for them to receive. The short answer is yes.

Communication combats hesitancy

10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00054-2

In this issue of The Lancet Public Health, a series of papers present different aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. In their nationwide epidemiological study, Jean Gaudart and colleagues analysed COVID-19 incidence, morbidity, mortality, and factors potentially associated with the first wave of infections in France. For Gaudart and colleagues, the country “could absorb the shock, thanks to a strong hospital system and a national lockdown”. In another study, Thomas Roederer and colleagues focused their analysis on one of the most vulnerable groups in society and assessed seroprevalence and risk factors in homeless people relocated to emergency shelters. They noted high exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and high asymptomatic seroprevalence. Living in crowded conditions was the strongest factor associated with exposure, underscoring the importance of providing safe, uncrowded accommodation, alongside adequate testing and public health information to this vulnerable population. The study by Michaël Schwarzinger and colleagues investigated COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its determinants, such as vaccine characteristics or place of vaccination. Although most determinants were hypothetical at the time the study was done (July, 2020), such analyses are particularly important in a country where vaccine confidence has been persistently low. They estimated that 30% of adults were likely to refuse vaccination outright. Latest data from the CoviPrev survey suggest that this proportion has decreased from 32% in December, 2020, to 21% in February, 2021.

COVID-19 in France: challenges and opportunities

The UK’s tabloid press was having a field day. “NO, EU CAN’T HAVE OUR JABS” said the Daily Mail, a message echoed by the Daily Express with “WAIT YOUR TURN! SELFISH EU WANTS OUR VACCINES”. These headlines reflected a combination of triumphalism about the UK’s success in what, by common agreement, has been a remarkably successful vaccine rollout—especially when compared to the slower progress in the EU—anger that the decisions by certain national regulators a few days previously to suspend use of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine were somehow a punishment for Brexit, and indignation that these foreigners were trying to steal “our” vaccines. Inevitably, the reality is a little more complex.

Covid-19 vaccine wars: developing the AstraZeneca vaccine was a triumph, but then things went wrong

Sage says majority were likely infected shortly before or soon after jab, before immunity had time to develop

One in 25 people hospitalised with Covid in UK since December have had vaccine

More than 500 million doses of vaccines have been given around the world as of Friday, according to an AFP tally.In a sign of how the pace is picking up, it took two months for the first 100 million people to get a shot, but just eight days for the last 100 million people. By Friday at 0900 GMT more than 508.3 million doses had been administered in at least 164 countries worldwide.

Half billion vaccine jabs given: AFP

10.31234/osf.io/f4qbz

Cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust among strangers in the provision of public goods may be key to understanding how societies are managing the COVID-19 pandemic. We report a survey conducted across 41 societies between March and May 2020 (N = 34,526), and test pre-registered hypotheses about how cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust relate to prosocial COVID-19 responses (e.g., social distancing), stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations (e.g., mandatory quarantine). We further tested whether cross-societal variation in institutions and ecologies theorized to impact cooperation were associated with prosocial COVID-19 responses, including institutional quality, religiosity, and historical prevalence of pathogens. We found substantial variation across societies in prosocial COVID-19 responses, stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulation. However, we found no consistent evidence to support the idea that cross-societal variation in cooperation and trust among strangers is associated with these outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These results were replicated with another independent cross-cultural COVID-19 dataset (N = 112,136), and in both snowball and representative samples. We discuss implications of our results, including challenging the assumption that managing the COVID-19 pandemic across societies is best modelled as a public goods dilemma.

Cooperation and Trust Across Societies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

10.31234/osf.io/mzasw

This study explored the impact of COVID-19 on the play of 3- to 10-year-old children. A survey of 67 parents of 79 children and interviews with 37 of those children revealed a few prominent trends in how the pandemic has affected play. First, children’s outdoor play increased in frequency from before the pandemic to the time spent in quarantine, and levels of outdoor play remained significantly higher in the fall months following quarantine. Similarly, the amount of unstructured, free play that children engaged in increased during quarantine, and remained significantly more common after quarantine than it was before the pandemic. Finally, screen time levels skyrocketed during quarantine, and remained higher in the fall months than they were pre-pandemic. These findings have implications for both parents and teachers in terms of assessing the impact of COVID-19 – both short-term and long-term – on the health and well-being of their children.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Play of 3- to 10-year-old Children

10.31234/osf.io/jvspx

What explains differences in attitudes towards wearing protective face masks to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus? We investigated potential drivers of attitudes about mask wearing as part of a longitudinal study during the COVID-19 pandemic (N-participants = 711, N-countries = 36), focusing on people’s perceptions and feelings about seeing others in their local communities wearing masks. We found that both stress about COVID-19 and the local incidence rate of COVID-19 predicted these attitudes, but perceived risk of infection did not. We also found that older and politically right-leaning respondents tended to have more negative attitudes towards wearing masks, while those with more concern for future consequences have more positive attitudes. Individuals with a greater vulnerability to COVID-19 as well as those with increased disease-related stress reported inconsistent emotional reactions to seeing people wear masks in public. For example, older participants were likely to either strongly agree or strongly disagree that seeing others wear masks led to feelings of anxiety, and some individuals with high disease-related stress reported greater feelings of anxiety, whereas others reported increased feelings of safety, when seeing people wear masks in public. These findings highlight some of the demographic, psychological, and environmental factors that were associated with respondents’ attitudes toward face masks and will be of use to health policy efforts aiming to increase mask wearing and other protective behaviors.

What predicts attitudes about mask wearing?

yes, we all make mistakes, but a responsible actor also factors the kinds of mistakes she is prone to making into decisions on what actions to take: I'm not that great with my hands, so I never contemplated being a neuro-surgeon. not everyone should be a public voice on COVID

There is nothing wrong with making an error. But if your beliefs are based on a tenfold underestimation of risk they should change when that underestimation is corrected.

A while back I queried the wisdom of reputable academics publishing on the Toby Young created website http://lockdownsceptics.org. This tweet this morning by its creator, I feel, sheds further light on that issueQuote Tweet

The map is not the territory. And the mapmakers are not the map.

OBVIOUSLY by “science’s truths”, I meant the truths about the real world that science aspires to find, NOT scientists’ beliefs during any particular historical era – phlogiston, etc. My point was only that there’s such a thing as objective reality – denied by postmodern pseuds.

Science is not a social construct. Science’s truths were true before there were societies; will still be true after all philosophers are dead; were true before any philosophers were born; were true before there were any minds, even trilobite or dinosaur minds, to notice them.

The COVID crisis has turned the world upside down. It has revealed societies’ fissures and pressure points as it has mercilessly revealed any lurking weaknesses in our existing systems and structures. The public and scientists have witnessed an explosion of scientific research across all disciplines –much it of understanding the nature of the virus itself—in addition to a well-spring of data science, meta-science and science communication, some of it drawing on state-of-the-art AI and machine learning tools designed to help scientists and non-scientists keep current on the explosion of knowledge. The pandemic has brought into sharp focus questions surrounding the development, discussion, and diffusion of research. The wider issues they raise as they pertain to the ways science is and could be conducted in online information environments, whether this is among scientists themselves, in the interaction between scientists and policy-makers, or in interaction with the general public. This special track will consider what we have learned as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.  What are the tools, systems, data governance models and types of experts that we need to foster science and help maximize its societal benefits well beyond the pandemic context? We will pay special attention to the role of media in the dissemination of new scientific findings alongside misinformation: expediency, if nothing else, during the pandemic has necessitated the use of extant social media platforms for science-to-science, science-to-policy, and science-to-public discourse.

Arguments, algorithms and tools: what do we need to shape policy and confront misinformation post-pandemic?

25 March deadline for submissions to our "special track" https://dataforpolicy.org/data-fof-policy-2021/special-track-3/… at Data for Policy conference, 14-16 September at UCL. Please consider submitting @SciBeh @stefanmherzog @Sander_vdLinden

Testing works. I test daily. Insist on HOME testing. @michaelmina_lab @JoeBiden Research suggests B.1.526 needs to be closely watched “for its ability to evade both monoclonal antibody and, to a certain extent, the vaccine-induced antibody,” said Fauci

Thursday-Saturday air traffic numbers are up 6.5% vs last week, which were up 5% from the prior week:

AS cases of coronavirus rise in the UK and around the world, Sun readers will understandably be concerned.

DR JENNY HARRIES The UK is a world leader in preparing for serious disease outbreaks like coronavirus

Early and strict governmental intervention is a key factor in reducing the spread of COVID-19 cases. That’s the conclusion reached by a team of researchers comparing outbreaks of the novel coronavirus between the Chinese province of Hunan and Italy in a new paper published in Frontiers in Medicine.

Early government intervention is key to reducing the spread of COVID-19

10.3389/fsoc.2020.579991

Covid-19 is an inherently social disease, with exposure, illness, care, and outcomes stratified along familiar social, economic, and racial lines. However, interventions from public health and clinical medicine have focused primarily on the scale-up of technical and biomedical solutions that fail to address the social contexts driving its distribution and burden. Fused with a moment of reckoning with racial injustice and economic inequality in the U.S. and across the world, these disparities charge policy leaders to develop, study, and share a response grounded in social medicine. As a yardstick for formulating, evaluating, and implementing health policy and care delivery, social medicine recommends at least three things: integrating health, social, and economic responses; bringing care to the points of greatest need; and focusing on broad equity-driven reforms in the pandemic's wake. With these tools, Covid-19 presents us with an opportunity to address the inequities that the disease highlights, exploits, and may otherwise entrench.

Covid-19 Requires a Social Medicine Response

Planning continues under the assumption that no vaccine will be available https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904538/S0641_COVID-19_compared_with_NSRA_2019_Pandemic_Influenza_planning_assumptions.pdf… 5/5

Government behavioural scientists raise the risk of "public concern if interventions that are perceived to be effective [in other countries] are not applied" in the UK, and are divided on the likely public reaction to a policy of only partial isolation https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887574/04-spi-b-insights-on-combined-behavioural-and-social-interventions.pdf…

Modelling assumes that suppression measures can be sustained for a maximum of 3-4 months, so introducing early 'lockdown'-style measures to stop the disease is judged likely to lead only to a more deadly resurgence later on when they are lifted https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891855/S0039_SAGE13_MRC_Imperial_Timing_and_Triggering_of_NPIs.pdf…

5 March 2020 The UK 'optimal policy' is shown in red: avoid strong measures to suppress the virus early on, allowing infections to develop over the summer months while suppressing the peak to 4,500 deaths/day, and reaching herd immunity by September. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891855/S0039_SAGE13_MRC_Imperial_Timing_and_Triggering_of_NPIs.pdf…

5 Mar 2020 Today's SAGE papers reveal the emergence of what would come to be known as the UK's "herd immunity" strategy: allowing healthier people to gradually catch the virus and develop immunity, while 'cocooning' those more likely to die if infected https://gov.uk/government/collections/sage-meetings-march-2020#meeting-13,-5-march-2020…

"It's still a little bit sci-fi, but you can see how we're beginning to build towards it." "The speed of technology is a thing that gives me hope." @mr_dudders on Artificial Intelligence and the future of automated fact checking. Listen http://pod.fo/e/a8daa

Covid kills, but do we overestimate the risk?

Join Sabin & @UNICEF for the final webinar of our three-part series on Vaccination Misinformation Control & Prevention! This webinar will focus on insights for #ImmunizationProfessionals on inoculation against harmful vaccine #misinformation. Registerhttps://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QnXkgTxBSyW-k9Ov8mgSQw

Authors: @mathModInf @sangeeta0312 TaraMangal @EttieUnwin NatsukoImai @ginacd1 @DrCWalters @ElitaJaun HelenaBayley @mara_kont AndriaMousa @lilithwhittles @SRileyIDD @neil_ferguson

UPDATE #COVID19 3.8% of children with COVID19 experience severe or critial symptoms No evidence for difference nr infected asymptomatic children compared to general population Children’s susceptibility & onward transmissibility still unclear https://imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/covid-19-reports/

this is a book that Amazon also sells- seems fascinating enough to me ;-)

You could probably get away with a medical history book titled something like "How Vaccines Saved America / Europe". But, in the end, you would only really be pitching it at the Pro-Science Market.

Are there many pro-vaccine books? It seems such a banal topic to write on ("Yes, vaccines are great. No, they won't hurt you. The end"). Can't see anyone getting a million-dollar advance for that.

It was inevitable, really

.@SciBeh wow--concerning indeed.Quote Tweet

and I don't think 'freedom rights' anywhere guarantee delivery as opposed to a (mere) opportunity to seek out....

interesting idea, but I think not applicable to what was described: certain types of posts are "being demoted" not blocked... - users still have the 'freedom' to seek out that content. They are just not being preferentially *served* that content.

Some might argue the moral dilemma is between choosing what is seen as good for society (limiting spread of disinformation that harms people) and allowing people freedom of choice to say and see what they want. I'm on the side of making good for society decisions.

quite possibly! ;-) ...but they are invested in the idea that correct diagnosis raises the chance of successful intervention..... and, while the leopard might win on this occasion, on average that premise (which seems to me what science is all about) is likely true

"Well it's not a *moral* dilemma!" cry the academics as the leopard eats their faces

indeed, that is the definition I am familiar with. Tobacco/Facebook may face a choice between profits vs. lives/democracy, but that is not a moral dilemma. The reason this is important is because good-faith actors can face agonizing moral dilemmas, but here we have something else

because we're all scientists, and precision matters: "Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. Consider the cases given below." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/… => definition of moral dilemma is a conflict between two moral imperatives

By definition "A moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is torn between right and wrong." In some cases, it can include competing moral virtues (e.g., deontology vs. utilitarianism). But that needn't be the case.

Yeah agree with you on the main point but wouldn't say "moral" is irrelevant here. Presenting the dilemma as such suggests there is no morally-right thing to do, when there is, and thus hands platform a license to maintain the status quo. Prob wasn't the intended point but still.

Seems like you're missing the point of the tweet by focussing on an irrelevant detail. A perverse incentive makes it unlikely for social media companies to act in society's interests, let's focus on that.

Well, it may be a capitalist dilemma but I don't see it as a *moral* dilemma. If my product kills people (e.g. tobacco) it's not a moral "dilemma" whether I deny that to keep pushing it--it's a moral travesty. How is this different?

The dilemma is between prioritizing the self interest of the company and its shareholders vs. society. In many ways, it's a classic social dilemma.

.@jayvanbavel Umm, where is the moral dilemma exactly? @SciBeh @philipplenz6 @AnaSKozyreva @UlliEcker @johnfocook

Here's your guide to #AIMOS2020 Register (for free, if you want): https://aimos.community/2020-membership-and-registration… Find a session you like in our program: https://sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-law-school/news/aimos-conference-schedule-web.pdf… Find its time and the zoom link on our schedule (cross-ref'd by time zone): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10YtGxHU3tciYeyqFeNcj8AWIrHnMirnlu2OuBNniHxs/edit?usp=sharing… Relax (you earned it)!