關於 arbitrary unit ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

➥【過去有無感染過SARS-CoV-2的mRNA疫苗接種者之血清抗體反應分析】
　
■摘要
過去曾感染過SARS-CoV-2的民眾是否需要或何時應接種新冠肺炎疫苗目前尚不清楚。此文為義大利研究團隊針對過去有無感染過SARS-CoV-2的mRNA疫苗接種者所進行的血清抗體反應分析。
　
■方法
1.受試者：
100位接種mRNA疫苗(BNT162b2，Pfizer–BioNTech)的醫護人員，包括38位曾感染SARS-CoV-2的染疫組(平均年齡35.1歲)及62位未曾染疫的未染疫組(平均年齡44.7歲)。
　
染疫組再依染疫與疫苗接種的時間間隔分成三組，分別為間隔1-2個月(8位受試者)、2-3個月(17位)及＞3個月(12位)三組，其中一位未產生抗S蛋白IgG的受試者未納入分析。　
　
2.血清抗體檢測：
染疫組在接種第一劑疫苗後10天、未染疫組在接種第二劑疫苗後10天檢測其血清抗S蛋白IgG及血清中和抗體(neutralizing antibodies) 。
　
■結果
1.染疫組與未染疫組兩組間的血清抗S蛋白IgG濃度沒有顯著差異(平均值：20,120 vs. 22,639 arbitrary unit/ml)。
　
2.染疫組的血清中和抗體濃度顯著高於未染疫組(幾何平均值：569 vs. 118)。
　
3.於染疫組中，染疫與疫苗接種間隔1-2個月、2-3個月及＞3個月三組受試者的血清抗S蛋白IgG濃度平均值分別為：15,837、21,450及21,090 arbitrary unit/ml；間隔2-3個月組濃度顯著高於間隔1-2個月組，但和＞3個月組相比並沒有顯著差異。
　
4.於染疫組中，間隔1-2個月、2-3個月及＞3個月三組的血清中和抗體濃度幾何平均值分別為：437、559 及694，以＞3個月組為最高，三組間具顯著差異。
　
■討論與結論
於曾染疫者，此研究發現染疫與疫苗接種間隔2-3個月和＞3個月的組別具較高的血清抗S蛋白IgG及間隔＞3個月才接種疫苗的組別具最高的血清中和抗體，但因個案數都不多，所以仍不清楚染疫後多久才是接種疫苗的最佳時機。
　
不過比較確定的是...完整轉譯文章，詳連結：http://forum.nhri.org.tw/covid19/virus/j_translate/j2622/ ( 財團法人國家衛生研究院 吳綺容醫師摘要整理)
　　
📋 The New England Journal of Medicine - 2021-04-14
SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response in Persons with Past Natural Infection
■ Author：Gabriele Anichini, Chiara Terrosi, Claudia Gandolfo, et al.
■ Link：https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=featured_home
　　
〈 國家衛生研究院-論壇 〉
➥ COVID-19學術資源-轉譯文章 - 2021/05/11
衛生福利部
疾病管制署 - 1922防疫達人
疾病管制署

Another great response to Shrey Bhargava's self righteous pity party. Every minority is invited to join! Come, let's blame the majority race for everything that's wrong in our lives, it is never our fault, it is because we are oppressed! Wow, so convenient!

Shrey has written another post boohooing about how racism (yawn), how minorities don't get roles easily in singapore, and how the Chinese are blind because we have privileged.

Cut your crap. If a Chinese director wants to make a movie about Chinese NS men, that's his fucking prerogative. If it features Indians or Malays as token characters, that's also his freedom and right. Why? You think every local movie needs to have an Indian main character then it's not considered racist is it?

In that case I ask... why are Bollywood movies full of only Indians? Why aren't one of the leads in 3 Idiots any race other than Indian?!!! Such an atrocity and blatant racism. Sure, Bollywood shows are in Tamil, but hey I don't care, this is as racist as The Voice asking for Chinese speakers! I don't care, include a Chinese mute character please, and he must not be a token role! Otherwise the director is racist! 🙄

Obviously like Donovan said there are privileges to being a majority race, a majority anything. That much is undeniable. While the Chinese in singapore should be mindful of consideration for all the other ethnic groups and always be respectful, but the automatic assumption that jobs be not only handed to you, but CREATED FOR you purely for the sake of your race isn't one of them.

Singapore is built on meritocracy.

Keep up your self victimizing charade and keep blaming society for your failures in life - you will find that soon nobody respects you.

And unlike the white liberals who have been indoctrinated with white guilt since their school days and think they have to pay for their ancestors' crime, you will find Singaporeans way less susceptible to your guilt tripping. Asians, including Indians and Chinese alike, don't subscribe to victim-playing. We work hard and succeed despite the odds - I suggest you get on with the program. Nobody owes you or your race a level playing field. Your whining rings hollow, since you exist in one of the most racially harmonious countries in the world, where the govt has taken careful steps to ensure equality for all the 4 main races.

Dear Shrey Bhargava,

As far as I can tell from your post, there was nothing racist about your Ah Boys to Men audition and I'll be kind enough to tell you and the 3000-odd people whom have shared your post why.

You were tasked to perform the role of a 'full blown Indian' and you have interpreted that as having to 'portray a caricature of my race' and being 'reduced to my accent'.

The casters were not racist and the element of racism here is non-existent because that was the role that is being demanded of you here, whether it was that of a Singaporean Indian, North Indian, British Indian or Red Indian.

Suppose Samuel L. Jackson had tried to audition for the role of Jack Dawson in Titanic, a part that really went to Leonardo DiCaprio. It is obvious that he would have been turned down because he was black. Now, is this not a clear-cut case of racial discrimination? Surely no one (maybe except that crazy Sangeetha) would be absurd enough to claim that the directors or scriptwriters of Titanic were racist and had "reduced" Jackson down to his skin colour?

That is because the role of Jack Dawson (may he rest in peace at the bottom of the Atlantic) is one of a white man.

Why is it somehow more 'wrong' for you to portray the role of a stereotypical Indian from India, than for Wang Wei Liang to portray the stereotypical Chinese gangster, or for Maxi Lim to portray the role of a stereotypical bootlicking yes-man recruit, or for Tosh Zhang to portray a stereotypical authoritative army Sergeant?

If Wang Wei Liang were to drop out of the Lobang King role right now and I be in line to audition for the role, I'd be similarly asked by the casting director to play the role of a 'full blown ah beng'.

That would mean me summoning out to the best of my abilities the most vicious, stereotypical characteristics of a Chinese 'ah beng'. I'd have to speak in subpar broken English, exercise a liberal use of dialect profanities and demonstrate an aptitude for violence in the face of problems.

I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of the ones whom are throwing support behind you right now would not similarly rally and call to arms in the same righteous manner for me because I had to depict a caricature of the stereotypical Chinese hooligan.

Yet what is the difference? Certainly not all Chinese 'ah bengs' are characterised with the same rebellious, malingering characteristics like that of Wang Wei Liang's character. I have done my National Service alongside some of them (in a god-forsaken rifleman unit no less), and most of them in fact are some of the most patriotic men I have ever seen.

Why is a racial stereotype anymore of a grievous injustice than the stereotype of an occupation, a cultural identity or any other form of stereotype? It is not.

If your objection is with being pigeonholed into a simplified, hackneyed image of a particular person, then you must similarly condemn all forms of stereotypes in film - not just stereotypes that are played along racial lines. And it is unnecessary for me to point out that stereotypes in the arts are ubiquitous in any and all forms.

In your follow-up post, you ramp up your distinct brand of illogic. You claim that it is wrong for the minority character to be of insignificance because this is a film that is a "SINGAPOREAN story".

But this begs the question. What defines being 'Singaporean'? Given that 40% of our population are comprised of foreigners and non-residents, isn't it just as wrong that these Filipinos, Indonesians, Japanese and Koreans are utterly unrepresented in Ah Boys to Men? Is it fair to stick to the 'Chinese, Malay, Indian' categorisation that in the first place, is a categorisation formulated on arbitrary standards by our government?

Is there any reason why your standard of what is 'Singaporean' should take priority over mine, or over the casting director's?

Yes, actors need jobs and it is certainly true that a racial minority would not enjoy the luxury of roles to pick from in comparison to one in the racial majority. But it is not clear WHY this is unfair, which is what you seem to me implying by "Minority actors do not have the privilege to pick and choose what to audition for".

Of course majorities benefit. The same can be said for people whom are right-handed, whom are tall, whom are lucky enough to be born with our five senses. When you lament that "Minority actors do not have the privilege to pick and choose what to audition for", you are no longer making an argument against racism, rather, you are making an argument against reality i.e., the racial proportion of our population.

I have observed this for some time among the young Singaporeans who are most active on social media. One of the most troubling cultural trends as of late is this idiotic penchant to leap at every slightest opportunity they get to call out racism, from the Toggle blackface issue and the Kiss92 incident to a Smartlocal video from last year.

Of course racism exists in Singapore (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), but reducing any and all issues down to race is not very helpful. There are far more productive ways to tackle discrimination. And that begins with changing the institutional framework of our society, such as the freedom of our press and media, so racial minorities are empowered to best represent their own unique cultures. Nit-picking on little details in the media is not one of them.

Like the Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I commend your well-intentioned attempt to speak out against what you have perceived is 'racism', but your analysis is incorrect and your methods are in fact entirely retrogressive.

P.S. It was quite interesting to see how that Vimeo video on your wall provided a most comical caricature of Arabs being equated with bombs/terrorism. It appears that it is just your own racial identity that is most fragile, and that the rest of us must tread precariously around. I wonder if it was only I who cringed so hard?