CharonY

! Moderator Note Moved to Politics

Eh, if we want to go into details here, the warrant was not wanted for the robbery charges: Now this was a minor point, but social media have been blowing characterizing him as violent robber fleeing from the law, which is a bit of an exaggeration. It is also unclear why he did not appear in court we do not know whether he intention was to actually evade arrest. As iNow mentioned, this is also something regularly happens especially when black men are killed is to find culpability in the subject. The big issue here is that certain sources, such as Fox seemingly are not beyond putting out conjecture as facts (or even pure lies) in order to justify their fate. This is of course on the heels of now released video where a black army officer was pepper-sprayed whilst facing overly aggressive police officers and so on. The issue is that taken together these individual incidences paint an overall picture that is not really pretty.

In addition to what iNow said, I think much of it is also couched in a, I want to say North American way of thinking which I found very different from the view and actions of police in most parts of Western Europe. With that I mean is that non-compliance with police commands has to inevitably result in an escalation of events. But again, that is not the case elsewhere. German law for example does not count fleeing from the police as violent form of resistance against the police. In one case a fleeing driver winged a police officer and it was ruled as an accident rather than a violent action (the reasoning was that the deed had to be aimed directly at the victim rather than an incidental injury). As such, a German police officer would not at any point during traffic control aim their weapons (of whatever kind) at a driver during a regular stop. To provide some more context, in Germany in 2016 weapons were drawn 52 times against people, resulting in a total of 11 deaths and 28 injuries. This is for a police force of at that time 270k officers. In Canada, by contrast has roughly a police force of 70k officers and had a similar number of shooting incidences per year (roughly 60). However, they tend to be far deadlier, the last number for Canada I saw was that 34 out of 55 police shootings resulted in death. In the US, the numbers are, as we all know, far worse. It starts with training which tends to be much longer in Europe and the attitude toward encounters. But perhaps also relevant is a kind of warrior mentality at play in which officers are trained to spot danger in every moment of their interaction and basically flip a switch from casual to deadly encounter. This causes a very stressful situation with the risk of the switch being flipped while not necessary. To me that sounds very different to what I have heard from German police officers, where they are trained to evaluate a situation and then only escalate if the situation becomes life threatening. I.e. proportionality of the response is a key element, where not having a license or number plate would likely lead to violence or even death. There is also a huge emphasis on de-escalation. Another important difference is that there is no qualified immunity or similar mechanism in Germany (not sure about Canada) despite having a strong police union. Though I should, there is a discussion in Germany regarding police violence and racism but most involve non-lethal events. As a whole it seems to me that in the NA system (and especially USA) there is a big onus on the civilian to do make not mistakes to minimize the risk of a potential harmful police encounter, whereas in Germany it is more seen as the responsibility of the police to keep things peacefully. There also seems to be also a cultural gap in that regard. Most Canadian and US-American colleagues kind of understand or even assume that non-compliance is likely to lead to harm and/or death whereas (Western) Europeans tend to focus on the initial event (e.g. non-violent vs violent transgressions).

That is exactly it. Of course many folks see a degree as an entry ticket to a job, but fundamentally that is not their purpose. And before everyone dunks on social sciences, it should be noted that according to 2016 census data from Statistics Canada, men with Bachelor's in Biology make less than their peers in Social sciences (in women it is reversed). The highest paid categories are in Nursing, Engineering Mathematics and Computer sciences. It is perhaps not surprising that more vocational disciplines are associated with higher earnings (with mathematics being an exception, I suspect it may be part of the big data boom), but it is also shows that the there are other indicators that one needs to recognize. Especially research in natural and other sciences is often a parallel stream to higher-paying industrial jobs.

Who got predictions right for this pandemic and then acted accordingly?

There are a couple of papers that describe the theoretical biophysical limitations. See here and most likely follow-ups can illuminate on further details.

I think it would help if you get a basic textbook on viral genetics. But to answer your question, no generally it does not involve looking at them using EM.

You seem to believe that language does not change but anyone talking to someone from a different generation will tell you that it is not the case. One of my favourite (and somewhat outdated) examples is Nimrod, which often refers to an inept person. However, originally it referred to a skillful (biblical) hunter. The change happened because Bugs Bunny (hello Zapatos) referred to Elmer Fudd as a Nimrod in an sarcastic way, but obviously folks did not realize that. Another example meat in old English referred to all kind of foods (hence sweetmeat) but changed to refer specifically to animal flesh along the way. There are tons of more common examples of course, but the main point is that language is very much alive and subject to change.

Check where papers you are citing are published. Also ask your supervisor.

Then universities are an uncivilized way to keep nerds contained and busy.

I think the term "nerd" is very broad which makes such statements really difficult. While the stereotypical nerd tend to be more knowledge-oriented, it does not mean that they are free from the biases that influence how the knowledge is interpreted. Quite a bit of it is simply a matter of competence, i.e. nerds that like to expound on areas that they are limited knowledge in. Gender roles is one of the things where I have met an astonishing number of nerdy folks who like to explain why precisely men are superior in science (granted, the number have reduced over the last few decades, but it still left a lasting impression on me). I think the danger is if you are used to be the smartest person in a room, you might assume that you are it in every room and every topic. I think other underlying personality traits, such as empathy and the ability to view things from a different perspective are important to inclusivity whereas being data-focussed alone could go either way.

Also with type I diabetes, it is not like a disease specifically caused by a virus per se (e.g. a virus that infects and destroys pancreatic cells). Rather, type I diabetes is an autoimmune disorder in which your own bodies starts destroying these cells. The issue is that causes of autoimmune dysfunctions are complex (and the immune system is a highly complicated system) where it is difficult to find simple cause and effect relationships. In addition to genetic factors, epidemiological studies have found a variety of environmental triggers that can cause autoimmune dysfunction, which e.g. includes pollutants (though not generally associated with type I diabetes) or diet. Viruses are just another potential trigger and there are a number of hypotheses how they could trigger autoimmune dysfunction. In some cases, simply early-life exposure (e.g. rubella) seems to somehow overstimulate the immune system with increased risk of type I diabetes later in life. Another hypothesis is that certain body antigens might get confused with viral ones. One example is the Coxsackie B4 virus which has one protein which resembles in part a human enzyme. Once an infection occurs, the immune system may then get primed against the human antigen and then starts turning on itself. In short, while the causes are not fully understood, there is a wealth of information and studies out there that look at various elements with varying levels of support. As most of the research in this area is independently funded, I have a hard time figuring out how those industries are covering things up. In fact, the hypothesis that infant consumption of cow milk might be a risk factor has been around for quite a while and believed to be related to insulin in milk and other proteins which might confuse the immune system. So if there was a cover-up it certainly is not on the research side.

To give a more general take: I always found the concept of sociobiology fascinating, but similar to social sciences (as opposed to biological sciences) the ability to make testable predictions is fairly limited. The controversy and discussion around Wilson and others are less about the whole theoretical framework (I think) as it is well thought-out and in many cases quite a compelling narrative. Where I struggle is ultimately how and whether individual evidence actually fits the biology. It has been quite a while (in fact decades- I was reading most of it during my student days) but I recall vaguely that the argument for existence of sterile castes was fundamentally a kin-selection argument. I.e. that the sterile individuals help their genes survive by supporting relatives (and basically that was extended to the argument of altruistic behaviour- one of the topics I was really interested in). However, over time data showed that insects do show altruistic behaviour without being related (e.g. not all bees in a hive are necessarily related, I believe, memory is a bit fuzzy) and also other cases where high degrees of relationship were not predictive or associated with altruistic behaviour. I think eventually Wilson gave up on that idea (maybe around 2010ish?), which caused a bit of an uproar and I recommend seeking that paper out. The result was a much tighter, narrower framework that shed the inclusive fitness aspects and was closer in line to what we actually observe in social insects. I have not read his later books where he might have speculated about human societies, but it is again important to highlight that the data is almost entirely based on insect studies. As such, they remain extrapolations and speculations and it is not clear whether they have actual scientific value at this juncture.

Fundamentally we do not know how accurate China's current numbers are. That being said, there are at least two reasons to believe that they are doing at least reasonably well. 1) They did a hard lockdown and we know by its very mechanisms that it is an effective way to contain infectious diseases. In addition they did massive testing initiatives whenever they suspected a flare-up. Last year they tested the entirety of Wuhan (11 million folks) and detected 200-300 asymptomatic cases. Again, a measure known to identify and contain spread. 2) They have eased lockdown since then. Even with their propaganda machinery, they would not be able to hide the number of excess deaths if the virus was still spreading. They might be prettyfing numbers, but especially in the larger cities free circulation would result in all hospital beds filled up rapidly (as we see in the US and other parts of the world) that is not something that one can easily hide, dictatorship or not.

Any animal companion is great, IMO, as at minimum the way we interact with them often tells something about us. But on the reverse side, we are also finding out interesting bits about how our companions work. The work from Chijiiwa et al (Animal Behaviour 2015 106:123-127) have shown that dogs are doing so-called social eavesdropping. In short, that is the ability to draw social clues by looking at interactions between others. And what they found is that if dogs see that someone refused to help their owners, they avoid taking food from those non-helpers. So they change their behaviour in reaction to negative interactions towards their owners. So how about cats? Well, they do not care as the same group found out (Chijiiwa et al. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 2021, 8:1 23-25). Either they do not have the ability to read those social clues, or they just don't care so much about their owners.

The thoughts in OP are mostly speculative and do not follow current knowledge (see below), so I am moving it to speculations for now (depending how the discussion develops). The rules for speculative threads can be found here: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/#elForumRules First of all this assertion: That is mostly wrong. Initial life on Earth did not harvest light for energy for about 500 million years. The first (known) means of energy production were likely chemolithotrophs which do not use light. And rather obviously all the microorganisms which dwell in deep sea vents, soil and so on are somewhat decoupled from the primary products of photosynthesis (such as oxygen) though of course they are now connected to the overall carbon cycle. First, this seems a bit like an argument of for irreducible complexity. Some overall information why this argument is flawed can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html I am not sure what you tried to look up, but there is a host of literature out there highlighting the various light-receptors that evolved including those in our ancestors. Eyes have evolved several times independently, but all of them have a basis in using specific light-responsive pigments. This argument does not follow. Mutations are merely changes in the DNA. They are not directed for the most part. There is no sensory feedback how mutations should be. A very simplified way to see it is that, most genes code for proteins which then do something. Mutations in those proteins can then change functions. They can also duplicate, so that you have one copy that does the original function whereas the second one might mutate and slightly change and acquire new functions without compromising cellular health (as the original copy is still doing its job). And the functions can be very different. Our ears use stereocilia (kind of hair-like appendices to detect sound (they are cellular outgrowths and not just a simple protein, though). They are related to another structure, so-called microvilli which are kind of simple cellular structures which effectively increase cell surfaces. The original purpose of stereocilia was simple mechanosensing but has at some point been co-opted to sense sound. Though in principle all they do is still measuring the mechanical force on them. Another example which is often used in the irreducible complexity debate are flagella where it has been shown how accumulation of small changes resulted in different structures with different functions: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html So as a whole there is no reason to assume that there is some hitherto undetected system that somehow takes sensory inputs and then changes the DNA (i.e. causing mutations). The only example that is somewhat related is much more unspecific and is related to stress. Those can result either in higher mutation rates (which are still random). The other element are epigenetic changes (which causes differences in gene expression, but do not change the genetic material on the sequence level per se), however their contribution to evolution are considered to be much less than classic mutations. But again, those are not specifically guided (i.e. sound does not suddenly result in cells creating stereocilia, for example). Rather things like age, but also exposure to toxins and stressors (such as cigarettes) have been shown to change methylation patterns, for example.

Yes, fair enough, it was not part of the study but I am not sure what the hypothesis would be? E.g. that there are specific cultural groups within the racial groups that drive the higher infection rates? What specific groups could one meaningfully build to capture "culture" as a variable? The study ultimately was aimed to see whether the higher death rate in Hispanic and black folks could be explained by higher infection rates (as there has been speculation of a biological basis) and the study indicates that if one simply adjust for being infected in the first place (which does correlate with socioeconomic factors) the survival rate is actually higher. I.e. major driver here seems to be socioeconomics and not race.

Fair enough. Sorry for adding in, I just saw the post and for some reason chimed in. Too much work and not enough coffee...

I am not sure whether I am understanding the situation correctly, and maybe I am just stating the obvious, but public schools in the UK are endowed schools and historically have started as charity schools which were established to provide access to poor students. Now with the presence of an actual public (state) system, they are what would be called private schools elsewhere. However, I think most still enjoy the benefits of having a caritable status (but not sure whether that is still the case).

On top the cooling chain is a bit of a headache.

I assume you mean allelic variants instead of genes, as pretty much every member of a species has the same genes. The only difference are small variations in the genes. But even so we do not expect alleles to be always causing cancer. All cells in an individual carry the same alleles. So if there was an allele causing dysregulation of cellular replication, it is unlikely that a living organism would form. As such, all oncogenes basically increase the likelihood of cancer and/or tumors. For the reverse question, a similar answer applies. One of the causes of cancers are mutations and there is no full protection against it.

I suppose it depends on the precise definition of "firm" orders. But IIRC already last year a couple of contracts were made between the EU and the involved firms pending authorization. This includes about 200 million doses of the J&J vaccine with conditions for further 200 million. Likewise there was an agreement with Moderna for around 80 million (I believe). However, I do not know the details of that deals, especially with regard to the timeline that were negotiated. The companies also ran into production problems in some plants as vaccine production in Europe had been ramping down prior to the pandemic. In addition, certain supply chains and probably additional monetary commitment increased delivery for the US, using production means on US soil, for example.

From what I have heard Canada is technically still on track, though the track has been running until September. I guess when the times draws closer we can see how far we are off. The US has been accelerating instead, which sounds like a great idea.

I wish you the best for your journey and hope that it will at least occasionally lead you back here.

And for the other established vaccine methods, too. Moreover, there is about a decade of research on coronavirus vaccines, but most have not moved into trials (as interest declined rather rapidly). In fact the pure vaccine development is not that long. A critical factor is usually identifying the best candidate, which often is done in pre-clinical studies. That part has been skipped for the most part and folks went into the safety trials (Phase I) pretty soon. Another part that could be considered reduced is the range of different dosages tested in a trial. Often you will have different cohorts with higher or lower concentrations to figure out which gives the best response. Most trials for COVID-19 vaccines had (IIRC) one or two regimens. The risk here is usually that if one is unlucky, the dosages may actually not elicit an immune response. At this part, we kind of got lucky as most vaccines showed very good responses. Typically about 40% of all Phase I and 70% of Phase II trials fail in drug discovery, so again, luck plays a big role here. It could have been possible, for example that phase III showed low efficacy and folks would have had to push another candidate through the pipeline. By then we probably have so many infections that phase III could have done within a few weeks, though....