This is the dream, but outside of government intervention I don't think it will ever be realized. There's no effective standards body, and the big players have little interest in sharing their data in any robust way. There's so many devils in the details of these specifications.
This is a great idea, and a welcome addition to the space. Fitness data standards are exceptionally poor and there's very little alignment between the major data collectors. This has resulted in the creation of a small army of syncing apps, developed to move data around between the most popular platforms, but as far as I know no ones attempted anything like this.
Having spent nearly a decade trying to extract data from the various walled gardens in the fitness space, I think something like this has really only been possible in the last few years as some of those walls have come down just a bit. That said, there are still some enormous hurdles to overcome. From the documentation it's not clear how OAuth is implemented. The authentication standards for many of these platforms are very diverse and often unfriendly in terms of the API agreements, rate limits, and various OAuth standards.
I'm assuming since it would be a violation of most API terms to pass data to a 3rd party, that the consumer of Terra must first acquire their own API key and then Terra uses that on their behalf? Although, if that's the case, OAuth implementations must be very tricky, especially for APIs like Garmin's which uses OAuth1a.
Nevertheless this can only be good news for the cause of open data. If it's successful, hopefully it'll create some pressure for these companies to expand their capabilities and relax their terms of service.
Thanks for this - there is indeed a serious complexity in this space.
a) there is no standard in data structure, and hence every wearable company uses their own.
b) The documentation quality is really lacking.
c) most of those companies are updating very often, with little communication. hence if you are a developer in this space, you really struggle.
d) more and more wearables are coming to the market
Hence we solve the above with robust docs, a standard data model, and a widget, to make it super easy. We of course are constantly learning, and improve the fastest way possible
Vaccine requirements have been in place for decades.
For pre-K in NYC kids need shots for PCV and Hib.
For kindergarten they need more shots: Hep B, Polio, Chickenpox, and Measles, Mumps and Rubella.
Going to middle school? Then you'll need more shots, the TDAP and meningococcal conjugate.
These are all vaccine requirements. Is it an invasion or privacy to demand children's records? Is it the nanny state? We could go down that road, but who wants to live in a world where we lose herd immunity to all of those diseases because 30-40% of people choose to opt their children out?
Honestly, I think a lot of people here without kids have absolutely no idea that you need to prove immunization in order to attend school.
What’s funnier still to me is men (it always seems to be men) outraged that they might need to prove vaccination in order to send their kids back to school, publicly admitting that they’ve been fobbing that work off on their spouse.
People know. They know, if anything, because you need to be vaccinated to attend colleges.
The issue is that this vaccine is not FDA approved. A vaccine that provides for only a year is hardly the same as a booster shot which is good for 10 iirc.
> For emergency authorization, the FDA required two months of safety data versus six months for full approval, he explains.
> Pfizer submitted its application on May 7 and was granted special priority review status on July 16. In a press release, the company said the decision whether to fully approve the vaccine should come by January 2022. Other reports suggest Pfizer’s approval will likely be sooner, possibly as early as the start of the school year.
> As you might expect, clinical trial data is scrutinized, but the process involves more than just experts reading data. The FDA also inspects manufacturing facilities and meets many times with company executives.
> "I think a lot of us are baffled why the FDA is taking so long.” - Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health
> To that end, the agency has reportedly expedited the process, even deprioritizing other projects in order to accelerate the timeline.
That last sentence struck me strangely, seeming to imply reprioritizing other projects was a big deal. We're still in a global pandemic, people are still dying here in the USA, and the economic realities still actively happening... yeah, I think deprioritizing other things is about the least surprising thing imaginable.
It’s time to move these vaccines up into regular approval, for a variety of reasons. This is probably the most scrutinized vaccine ever, keeping it in emergency use is mistake.
> A vaccine that provides for only a year is hardly the same as a booster shot which is good for 10 iirc.
As compared to the flu shot? The one that I’ve been given for free in every school and workplace I’ve attended in the past twenty years?
Logistically, yearly shots are nbd. Maybe we should make flu shots mandatory for education just like the MMR shot, given the number of kids killed by the flu every year.
See these peer-reviewed papers for some insight into the second and third order evolutionary dynamics that we face with the current spike protein focused mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 [1][2].
These are serious long-term concerns, which may not manifest overnight, but they are certainly on the radar of many experts in the field.
On websites where covid vax hesitancy is rampant, I often see posts discussing antibody mediated enhancement, vascular damage caused by circulating spike protein increasing vascular damage and causing death from heart attack and stroke in a few years, prion disease development from misfolded protein propagation, and fertility issues. For most of these issues, long term data is needed to rule them out.
Isn’t this just an argument for nihilism? Over a long time anything is possible, but that’s not an excuse to ignore the data that we have right here and now. Never mind that there will never be a point where there isn’t a “long period of time” in front of us, which becomes a convenient excuse for permanent inaction.
Also, anything being possible is not the same as anything being probable. The vaccine might make me grow a third arm too, after all anything is possible in the long run, but you would laugh if I said that I wasn’t getting a vaccine for the fear of my tailoring bill.
The vaccines have full approval here in the EU. Thats why we got the vaccines 2 months later than the US.
It is also not clear, how long the vaccines protect. Some part of the immune response is considered to be quite long-term, only the antibody-count falls quicker. The thing is: we lack precise data here and we have an ongoing pandemic. Once the pandemic is over, it is much safer to explore how long we can set the interval for booster shots.
Is it required or can you just sign a waiver and get out of it for religious/personal/health without a doctor reasons? Or is the documentation required easily forgeable?
Depends on the state. My college’s policies were set by state law. A doctor has to sign a record for a religious exemption, which probably reduced the number of people taking it significantly.
Early (i.e. existing) Covid vaccines are NON-STERILIZING, unlike almost every vaccine given to kids. There are sterilizing Covid vaccines in development, e,g. delivered nasally directly to the upper respiratory tract, but none have yet reached the market.
> To be sterilizing a vaccine must prevent infection. Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it. If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock. Among commonly-used sterilizing vaccines are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others. The only time that such a vaccine fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.) This is extremely rare and the protection from such vaccines tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.
> A vaccine that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others. Technically it is not a vaccine at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy. Such a "vaccine" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease. You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick. You don't go to the hospital and you don't die. Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others. All of the current Covid jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio vaccine -- the original Salk discovery.)
> During the original vaccine trials in the summer and fall of 2020 they deliberately did not test any of the recipients for asymptomatic infections. Only a person who developed a significant illness was tested. This has continued post roll-out with the CDC specifying that a close contact of a known case who was vaccinated did not need to quarantine or be tested until and unless they became symptomatic. They knew damn well, in other words, that the jabs were not sterilizing but did not want that data up for public debate because then those who have read history would be likely to make the connection to the present day and thus they did their level best to hide it. That has now blown up in their face with it being conclusively known that jabbed people in fact not only get infected but spread the virus to others.
> ... natural infection with Covid-19 is sterilizing. Being infected and recovering conserves the nasal and respiratory mucosal response which is where the virus enters the body.
I find it hard to believe they “didn’t want the public to know” when one of the earliest studies the CDC did on vaccines, with a March 2021 publish date, was a study that tested weekly regardless of symptoms to see if it prevented infection outright. Maybe not perfect sterilizing immunity but it does prevent asymptomatic.
I agree they didn’t get into the nuances of sterilizing vs. non sterilizing but for the general public that’s deep in the weeds, anyone who followed the details knew this was the case early on.
> “One of this study’s strengths is its design: participants self-collected nasal swabs each week for RT-PCR laboratory testing, regardless of whether they had developed symptoms of illness. Researchers were able to look for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of symptoms. A small number (10.7 percent) of infections in this study were asymptomatic (i.e., did not result in symptoms). However, the majority of infections (58 percent) occurred among people whose infections were identified by testing before they developed symptoms or knew they were infected. The study demonstrates that these two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections.
This is important because preventing both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections among health care workers and other essential workers through vaccination can help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to those they care for or serve. Findings from this study complement earlier reports that these two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can reduce both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.“
If the amount of taking vaccines, drugs, and paying medical services determine our good health, people in the US would be the healthiest ones, and they are not... Is it because they don't take many or much enough?
11% of Americans don't have government-issued ID. Not "don't have the ability" to get ID but don't have ID. They can get it with ease. Once we hit 89% vaccination rate then we can worry about that.
> based on Israel, the vaccine is also losing efficacy after 3-6 months so they are giving a 3rd shot now
A study[0] released last week shows that the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness is still in the high 80s/low 90s after 6 months, and still 97% effective at preventing severe symptoms and hospitalizations.
When compared to the annual flu vaccine, where the VE typically falls in the 30s and 40s, this vaccine is remarkably effective, even after 6 months.
Interesting. That seems to go against what Israel is reporting (one of the most vaccinated population if I remember right). And they are also using Pfizer & Moderna.
> Recent data released by the Health Ministry shows that those who were first to receive their two doses of the Pfizer COVID vaccine are more likely now to be infected, as the vaccine appears to lose protection potency over time. Data released by the Health Ministry last week suggested that people vaccinated in January have just 16% protection against infection now, while in those vaccinated in April, the effectiveness was at 75%.
Your last point about "When compared to the annual flu vaccine, where the VE typically falls in the 30s and 40s, this vaccine is remarkably effective, even after 6 months." proves my point. We don't mandate flu shots. And they are seasonal and very few people take them. This is exactly what I am saying - mandated vaccines like polio, chickenpox, measles etc last a lifetime or at least a few decades. That's not the case with these COVID vaccines, nor flu shots.
You can't catch polio twice. And chicken pox is pretty similar to covid actually. It has a similar R value, and adults who catch it can be hospitalized, but for children it's usually not as serious. And once you've had chicken pox you have strong immunity, although you can still get some of the symptoms if exposed.
As for comparing restaurant and school. Schools are publicly funded and mandated by the state. No one has to go to a restaurant.
The vulnerable populations aren't vaccinated. The vaccination rate in Brooklyn for people 65+ is just a bit over 50% (51% white/54% African American).
If cases keep rising I don't see any reason why hospitalizations and deaths won't follow. Unless the delta variant is less dangerous or treatments have improved tremendously.
So, the options are 1)Stop indoor dining 2)Accept the public health implications or 3) Require vaccinations for high risk activities. I feel like option 3 imposes the least harm.
> The vulnerable populations aren't vaccinated. The vaccination rate in Brooklyn for people 65+ is just a bit over 50% (51% white/54% African American).
Yes, they are. In NYC, 73% of adults over 65 are fully vaccinated, and 77% have had at least one dose:
It's the local demographics that matter. I live in Brooklyn. I don't care what the vaccination rate is in the entire US, or NY state, and I'm hardly ever in Manhattan. I don't dine indoors because the vaccination rate in my neighborhood is 39%. And, while I'm probably not going to the hospital knowing that I might put one of my unvaccinated neighbors in there matters to me.
The local demographics don't matter unless there's a serious impact on the hospitals. That's why we started down this road, remember? It wasn't to eliminate death.
> I don't dine indoors because the vaccination rate in my neighborhood is 39%.
Are you vaccinated? If you are, you're worrying about something that is irrelevant to you. Avoiding restaurants because other people made a different choice is silly.
> And, while I'm probably not going to the hospital knowing that I might put one of my unvaccinated neighbors in there matters to me.
Ever had a head cold or the flu? You've put an elderly person at risk. Sorry, but it's true.
You can never eliminate this kind of risk. If your standard is "I must never present a risk to anyone else, ever" then you're going to have a really difficult life. You can live that way if you like, but don't force it on me.
> If cases keep rising I don't see any reason why hospitalizations and deaths won't follow.
They already have. Hospitalization rates have multiplied by a factor of nearly 4x from the 12,000 COVID hospitalizations in early July to the 40,000 COVID hospitalizations today in early August.
Or you know, let people decide if they want to take a risk. What do I care if someone doesnt want to get vaccinated and put themselves at risk? Thats on them. Just like they can go bungee jump or drive a race car.
Primarily because of the threat to our healthcare system, but also because of those with high risk of breakthrough infection and those who cannot be vaccinated. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone who has lived through this pandemic does not understand this.
Vaccinated people do not spread the virus nearly as effectively as unvaccinated people.
And you did not address the threat to our hospital system, which has been the number one concern for a year and a half. Surgeries are already being halted in multiple states... again. You might view it differently if it was your hospital that postponed your surgery because unvaccinated people had filled all their beds because of a preventable illness.
There was a study upthread (from the Lancet?) that literally pointed out that there are the same level of virus load on nasal pathways for vaxxed and unvaxxed. I believe the study was linked by user timr
This was the underlying logic for the cdc to require masks once again
Yeah, we need a lot more data points than one tiny study. Almost all data to date shows vaccinated people do not spread the virus as effectively as unvaccinated people, and that vaccinated people are far more likely to have asymptomatic (not pre-symptomatic) infections, and most data points to those types of infections having a very low rate of transmission. One chunk of leaked data does not negate all previous research.
It's an infectious disease. This isn't an issue of "you can risk your own life and health" - unvaccinated people are risking the lives of many others in their communities.
You can't kill your neighbor's grandmother by bungee jumping.
Interesting to note that unleaded gas also has lead about 0.05g per gallon which is a lot when you consider how much gas is burned in a typical big city everyday. Aviation gas has 2 grams per gallon, so if you live near an airport you're probably getting a pretty steady diet of lead.
AvGas is only used by small, piston powered aircraft.
Jets fly on Jet-A which is basically high-grade kerosene and AFAIK, lead free.
The only airports that could be giving off lead would be very busy, general aviation airports like Van Nuys, not commercial airports like LAX or JFK. Even then, the effect is barely detectable.
And a lot of those are getting converted to turbodiesel now which means they can run on Jet-A1 too. Avgas is really expensive and hard to get these days.
The actual amount of gallons of gas burned in planes using AVGas is extremely small compared to the gallons of gas burned by cars or by planes using jet fuel. Unless you were on the tarmac with prop planes running, I doubt you'd smell the lead.
What about the ground water near popular general aviation airports? Granted, there aren't nearly as many airplanes as cars, but over years, contamination can accumulate.
I remember a small lake in San Francisco that had to be decontaminated due to lead pollution from cars:
"Lead from car emissions seeped into the water for decades until leaded gasoline was phased out beginning in the 1970s. The lead combined with pesticides flowing in from the golf course to form a toxic stew."
Gas in the US (aviation or automotive) is always sold in gallons, but quantity of chemicals (outside of cooking) usually done in grams/kilograms. Thus, grams per gallon is fairly intuitive in context.
The EPA limits unleaded gasoline to 0.5 g/gal, but that doesn't mean your gasoline actually contains that much. The regs are meant to forgive some amount of cross-contamination from facilities that also handle avgas. I don't have any information on what values are typically encountered.
The async server response doesn't contain the data. It contains a link to retrieve the data. So make a request and then wait to for a link to be sent to your server that you can use to retrieve the data for a limited time.
The responses sent to the server don't correspond one to one to the requests. One response may contain data for many requests, and many responses may contain data for one request. Each response contains data for many UATs.
This reminds me of the time I was dealing with a REST API that exposed an image thumbnail.. except the response contained a file path, and the response completed before the file was actually written to disk.
They were paying me to work with this, yet they couldn't be bothered to fix this on their end.
I would think a user token level limit would prevent this, although I could imagine a case where a bug simultaneous affected all user tokens, but I'd imagine you'd set that app level limit pretty high because otherwise you'd be making life very difficult for legitimate use cases.
Right. I think when you're dealing with massive traffic and you want to create a highly scalable API this is one technique. But then if everything is hitting a queue why have an application level rate limit? Adding items to the queue costs essentially 0, and you get to it when you get to it. If you think an app is abusing your API, then change the rate you process the queue for that app, or you know reach out to the app developer and ask them to stop.
The queue has to be stored somewhere and that takes either memory and disk or memory. That's not finite and prone to spikes (e.g. from another service suddenly waking up and calling you)
That's true. And really, of all the things the app level rate limit is perhaps the least worth mentioning. Not wanting to get into the weeds, what I didn't say is that there's no way of returning the extent of the data for a given user. So, the recommended approach by the support team is to always request all data. This easily maxes out the rate limit. Feedback that this lack of transparency is problem for both consumer and provider alike, fell on deaf ears.
I don't think I realized this was a thing. Are other developers mocking API endpoints, to test the code their as they develop and maintain it? It seems like a tremendous amount of work - recreating a service that will make an async call back to your endpoint as a means of testing. I've thought about it, but the fact that it seemed like so much additional work and that I'd be mocking a moving target just made me thing that would be a visit crazy town.
I avoid writing automated tests that hit an external API - especially one out of my control - because I don't want my CI runs to ever fail because someone else's service wasn't responding. I want CI to be a completely closed box, such that any failures mean there's a bug in my code.
If I want to test external APIs I'll do that in a separate set of integration tests which are run as part of a separate system, not as part of my CI for every code commit to my repo.
I mostly use Python, and the APIs I talk to are mostly accessed via the requests or httpx libraries - both of which have excellent libraries for productive mocking:
We did this at my previous company. What our app did was get data from a queue, enrich it with the API, then send it off to another queue. They provided test data and a test environment, but it was horrible, changed unpredictably and data frequently went missing. We recorded all endpoints hit during our integration tests, saved them to files and mocked their API (mostly GETs with no state so backed by a simple rest service with a hashmap).
The API team was an internal team to the company and there was absolutely no communication possible with them, so we kinda had no choice.
It depends on a lot of things, but let's say (for concreteness) you are using Java or something similar. I'd write classes to represent the request and response models, call them A and B. Then I'd write a interface/class with a method from A to Future<B>. That method would be mocked everywhere, and most of your code doesn't deal with the API nonsense. (B is the data you want not the link to get the data.)
I may or may not actually test the implementation of that method.
The startup costs are high, but once you're in the flow of doing it, it's not so bad.
I usually have a switch in our tests: default is to run against local mocks, but the test data also works against the third party sandbox environment. Periodically we revalidate our mocks against the sandbox responses to make sure the other API hasn't drifted.
CI always runs against local mocks, for speed and reliability.
It totally depends on the API and how critical of a code path you're writing tests for. For simple GET/POST calls, it's usually pretty easy to do this and I think you get a lot of value out of it. I've used an in-process HTTP server to mock such calls for a unit test, or you can add a layer to the nginx docker image to have a composable mock of the service.
Rate limits are of course fine. I think token level limits make more sense, because application level limits force the consumer to either to track a rate window across asynchronous processes or make the calls synchronously. But, I mean, that's fine too. Think it's just like OAuth1a, fine in itself but add enough of these things on top of one another, and you've created a technical hurdle that's just too difficult to leap.
