Generally the portrayal of historic or traditional black characters, by white actors is now firmly frowned-upon. Jesus is treated as a special exception. This is probably because there are just so many portrayals of him as white that it has normalized if for most Christians. It is worth considering whether its time for this to change in new portrayals. Religion should not be immune to advances n morality.

> Nelson Mandela is a modern historical figure, we literally have pictures of likeness to go off of, living memory of him, his ethnicity is an undeniable part of his identity, we dont know anything about Jesus other than an accounts by authors after the fact compiling his teachings from oral to written accounts.

That does occur to me, but we have a pretty good idea what Jesus should look like, and he is often portrayed in a way which we know cannot be accurate. In the past when people did not travel as easily some mis-representation is understandable. It makes sense for people in the UK, say, to portray the fruit from the Adam and Eve story as an apple, as the audience wouldn't know what a fig, or many of the other candidate fruits looked like.

I do think, in all seriousness, it is time we stopped making new portrayals of Jesus as a white man. He wasn't a white man. It really shouldn't cause any problems to show him as a middle Eastern Jew.

>I shit you not Cesare Borgia.

TIL thanks.

> Well, that's also a character where his ethnicity is a main point of his story.

The Jewishness of Jesus is a very important aspect of his story though. That is erased by the typical European portrayal of him.

> Well sure it would be pretty offense to have a white Nelson Mandela, but people seemed cool with a black Alexander Hamilton. Turns out, context matters.

As you might be aware its not the practice of cross-racial portrayal that is problematic in itself. It's not quite the same when a black actor plays a white person, as when a white actor plays a black person. The difference is that 'blackface' alludes to the systematic oppression of black people, and 'minstrel' performing. There is not the same connotation when it is the other way around.

In the case of Jesus, there is some attempt at erasure going on, certainly historically. It seems white Christians often don't like the prospect of being saved by a middle-Eastern Jew so they tend to obscure the fact in Christian art. (or at least that is a valid uncharitable interpretation) . In contrast we would not find it acceptable to present an alternate history of South Africa in which universal suffrage was obtained using the lifelong activism and sacrifice of a white man.

> is that it's perfectly acceptable to make them whatever race, whatever style clothing, time period, etc. if done in a respectful matter.

Hmm. It does make one wonder about the prospect of other black historical figures portrayed by white actors, and so on. We wouldn't accept a white Nelson Mandela.

It might have just meant abstaining from exertion for some days after vaccination. That's speculation though.

Yes fitness affects covid prognoses. So does the vaccine. What this study looks at is do these effects interract with each other?

I'll just invent some numbers for illustration. Let's say that the vaccine makes you 10% safer, and exercise also makes you 10% safer. You might expect both to make you 20% safer. But what is that number? It might be 15%. This study indicates that the whole is greater than the sum, so call it 25% in my example.

This is useful to know as we could give advice to patients to either take exercise or rest up after having the vaccine. We don't know the true effect until we look carefully at the numbers.

Not quite. We knew that both exercise and vaccines affect covid prognoses separately and likely too that they have overlapping effects. This study makes that point in the introduction.

However it is also the case that exercise increases antibody production after vaccination and that reduces hospitalisation rates. We didn't know that without looking specifically for it in the stats. It was entirely possible for exercise to reduce antibody production, or reduce the effectiveness of the antibodies. We would not necessarily know that, if the overall effect was beneficial.

It had been observed that exercise makes the vaccine produce more antibodies. That's different and separate from fitness reducing symptoms in the infected. This study seems to be about the rate of hospitalisation, following that.

Sorry was just making the point that the paper acknowledges that fitness affects covid prognosis, and so does the vaccine.

The question is does exercise affect the vaccine? It's not inconceivable that it could reduce its value.

Imagine if exercise degraded the vaccines effectiveness. That would be worth knowing.

Imagine if it transpired that exercise degraded the vaccine though. That would be worth knowing.

But more interestingly, it seems that exercise makes the vaccine interact with our immune systems differently, and more effectively.

Faaackin hell. Nearly every comment is the same The paper is about whether exercise affects the value of the vaccine, as well as affecting Covid directly.

I think the paper is trying to tell us that exercise makes the vaccine more effective, as well as being generally beneficial and reducing covid risk in and of itself.

Maybe not any disease. i seem to recall that Spanish Flu affected younger, healthy people more seriously than less healthy.

In any case, this is about the effect of exercise on the vaccine

Just everybody seems to be jumping to this conclusion. Is it common sense though?

Why should exercise affect the value of the vaccine? It affects the risk of covid, we know that. That's a different question though.

I could imagine the paper concluding that exercise affects covid, and that vaccinations affect Covid, but that exercise does not affect the vaccine's effect on covid. The vaccine acts directly on the immune system. It could easily be the same without the exercise.

Yes. However, will it influence the effectiveness of the vaccine?

The title of this study is clearer than the title of this submission:

>Association between regular physical activity and the protective effect of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a South African case–control study

I mean, the study seems to be specifically about that question. Is there mere correlation, or causation? There seems to be causation.

Everyone knew exercise makes you healthier.

The question here is different though, Does exercise enhance the effectiveness of the covid vaccine?

The point of the jab is that it reduces the risk of severe symptoms and of transmission.

We already knew that physical fitness makes a person less likely to have severe symptoms. This study seems to be about whether exercise enhances the vaccine, which is a different question.

Has the world been screaming that exercise enhances the vaccination? I think I missed that. Or perhaps I couldn't hear over all the people yelling that healthy people don't die of Covid.

The study does directly propose the matter of non-causal correlation in the introduction. The purpose seems to be to test whether its that, or is it that exercise enhances the vaccine.

>Background Both vaccination and physical activity have been shown to independently decrease the likelihood of severe COVID-19 infection.

>Objective To assess the association between regular physical activity and vaccination against COVID-19 among healthcare workers.