CharonY

Well, black being one of the imperative word here. Hypocrisy being the other.

Keep safe, I hope you remain negative. The numbers in Canada are currently (and recently) rather awful.

Well, let's see if the riot police actually starts shooting rubber bullets as they did last times when protestors defied curfew...

The only thing it really means is that the GOP cannot just block everything without consideration. The issue with the Dems is that at least in the past they did not vote en bloc as the GOP did (see the Obama years). Perhaps things are shifting, though during the impeachment proceedigns several House Dems voted against or abstained.

Haha, good one.

Well, now Trump supporters have stormed the capitol after all the incitement from the President and the backing from the GOP. Perfect example of what you have been describing.

I am not sure I understand the question is- in a standard PCR you obviously amplify both strands of your cDNA. So generally you would just create suitable forward and reverse primers with the tags you need. Or is the question more about primer design in general. I will add that typically you should talk to your supervisor about the project. Often there are standard practices in place that one should adhere to.

But I take your point that for politicians it can be quite difficult to enforce the right thing, in the face of political propaganda. I suspect that many powerful folks (either private sector or politics) are used to be able to replace reality with make-belief. However, under crises such as the pandemic it shows that nature does not care much for that attitude. The real issue is of course that the typically it is the powerless that suffer more. I always assumed that such failures would be sanctioned by voters, but in the world that we live in (regardless which country) it does not seem to be that straightforward.

Nope. But I have been involved in method development for surveillance and I do look at methods and approaches in various countries. I am not a big fan of re-inventing the wheel multiple times or assuming exceptionalism if there is no real indication for it.

Well, technically they are playing for the same team. They are only interested to cover their own arse, but have not intention to potentially harm another player on the same team.

I am not sure how it changes the essence, if we take the highest threshold (i.e. who won), which could be considered the epitome of crazy, it is already 52% of Trump voters. Only 26% accept reality. I do not think that this is due to the GOP, it seems that the Dems have massively increased their turnout. It would take some more analyses, but so far I have not seen anything that suggest a fracturing. My sinking feeling is that effectively the crazies have won (as the tea party before them) and that if they are folks disgruntled now, they are not enough to matter.

First, that is a very incomplete reading of how SARS-CoV-2 affects our bodies. Damages are not exclusively to cytokine storms, and there has been some discussions whether it is really relevant to the observed damages. There seems to be an association with severity but then there is also the question of the triggers. That being said, there are always interactions with the immune system in vivo but it is not the sole source of damage. What is known is that the virus attacks several organs, including the brain stem and at in vitro studies show that cellular damages also occur. Moreover, there have been immunomodulating therapies which in some cases improve outcome, but as it turns out, it only works for a fraction of the folks. Others still die under that treatment (or get secondary infections and die from that). And very obvious examples are immunocomprised folks that die from COVID-19. In fact, they can also suffer severe consequences from otherwise fairly harmlesss viruses, so no, making the immune system blind to a virus is generally not a great idea. In addition, the viruses that we carry and which do not make us sick anymore often have mutations that reduces their virulence- our immune system has not changed in that regard (and again, except for inactive ones, they are generally only harmless if your immune system still works). As such an one-sided view that viruses do not harm us only our own immune system is simply wrong or at best misleading. It is like saying electricity does not kill us, it is the heart failure. Or the fall is harmless, just the landing happens to be lethal. To be clear, SARS-CoV-2 can be lethal for many folks and let it roam through your body without an immune system to keep it in check is pretty certainly deadly. There is no evidence that rapidly proliferating viruses in your bloodstream, organs and nervous system are in fact harmless. Moreover, the immune system is easily one of the most complex regulatory system in our body. All mechanisms to modulate our immune system are blunt instrument, including vaccines. While many, many folks are working on it, precision modulation of the immune system is still science fiction. It is probably also the closest to a panacea that we could get, if we get it. As you mentioned, this is not the time for high-flying dreams. If folks are unable to the simple things to keep each other safe, a vaccine is really our only option. We (i.e. most countries and their population) failed to take it seriously and since this is not a movie, there won't be a sudden miracle cure delivered by Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, if we had taken it more seriously we would not have needed a vaccine. But obviously that was too much to ask. Folks are dying, and if folks would just keep their friggen distance instead of dreaming about sunshine, bleach or magic we would not be here. Edit: if that sounds angry, it is because I am. A good friend lost a parent. I am afraid for my parents and things go exactly as everyone said it would if we are complacent and mess up. And now some folks are surprised and some are protesting the need to do the absolute minimum to protect your neighbour and community. Plus there are students that do not care because they are effing young and do not care that they potentially kill folks around them.

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count. So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

I second Sensei's comment on books. Without any background perhaps start with a good highschool or first-semester level textbook and perhaps a good popular science book (best if written from an actual expert in the topic). For starters these provide more background and context that allows you to become familiar with terms and concepts and generally provide more context. It still requires interest and work, of course. If what you read is not in any way interesting to you, you will quickly forget. Learning is an active process that is driven by self-motivation.

I think it is fair to say that so far there are not viable alternatives to abiogenesis. It is less of a theory but more of a theoretical framework that exist due to what we know about the chemical composition of organisms. I.e. we know that something simpler than cells must have existed at some point, we roughly have an idea what chemicals are more or less likely and so on. Moreover are hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of abiogenesis, how potential candidate molecule could have occurred and so on. It is really not my field so I am not sure of the current progress in that area. With regard to evolution, as Phi pointed out, the term describes the observable process (i.e. fact) that gene pools change over time. The theory of evolution describes all the bits and pieces that explain and quantify those changes.

Even before NZ and Australia, China has shown the way. And then some other countries demonstrated what could work instead of a total shutdown. And way before that we have history lessons about the efficacy of quarantine. It is just depressing that apparently most countries (which includes Australia, which first tried a flattening strategy before going for a burnout) decided that they need to experience that lesson themselves and likely forget if the next pandemic arrives too far into the future. The only other alternative to lockdown seem to be high compliance coupled with massive contact tracing. The lesson this time around is that half hearted approaches do, in fact, not work.

Oh gosh, yes food, that alone could kill it. I mean, in the bigger city it is possible to get stuff you need/want, but the average supermarket is going to be a shock for many.

It is a bit complicated and I have not looked at it too deeply. However, one model is that the the inflammation might, similar to e.g. autoimmune diseases cause an activation of the complement cascade. This system is part of the immune system, but it interacts with the coagulation cascade (which does the clotting). There is evidence from other diseases that both system can enhance each other, and there is evidence that in COVID-19 patients that might lead to hypercoagulation and thrombosis (especially high D-dimer values, which are a produced by degradation of blood clots have been associated with poor outcomes). So the short version is, there is evidence for increased blood clotting in certain patients. I should add that I with disruption I do not mean that the system is dysfunctional, rather that its normal functions are distorted.

Or he showed a blueprint that an actual competent autocrat could use to seize power. Also note that a significant proportion of the US population that are part of the GOP or are GOP voters do not consider that crazy (70-80% believe that the elections were not legitimate, for example). Not sure if it considers wrecking, rather a long slide from the right into fantasy country. But I assume they will recover if Democrats will finally be nice to them.

I am not sure how to call it, but it is a somewhat self-centered perspective that no only fails to take the ramifications into account, but also neglects that the folks in Hong Kong are humans with their own agenda and not that just bodies that can be easily shuffled around.

I doubt that folks in the field have firm ideas on how to cure the disease at best there are treatment options to improve outcome. Also the cure for pandemic has been the same as forever: reducing spread by isolation and other means, a measure that many failed to take, btw. The virus seems to wreck havoc on several levels, disruption of the coagulation cascades seems to be one of them. There seems to be two questions here, one whether blood thinner can reduce or prevent deaths and the second whether it can prevent symptoms. The latter is highly unlikely (to my knowledge) as many symptoms are unrelated to blood clotting in the first place (or rather, hyperactivation of the complement cascade, which might cause the coagulation, is one of the downstream effects of a virus-induced dysfunction). The former, however, is far more likely. There have been a number of studies looking at that. In best cases, treatment with anticoagulants improved survival (in cohort studies roughly 20% higher survival rate). In others only the most severely sick ill people seemed to benefit (though they also reported major bleeding in some patients). None of these are randomized trials so evidence level is somewhat low. It is possible that stronger treatments could improve the outcome further, and there are ongoing trials. Fundamentally it appears that some folks do benefit from it more than others. If the assumption is whether folks taking blood thinners will not get sick at all then all I can say is there is zero evidence nor mechanism for that.

Has anyone asked them whether they want to resettle? Some folks are likely trying to, many others will prefer to stay. Quite a few want to fight for their rights in the face of an oppressive regime.

King Tut has been banned for being sockpuppet of Delberty, Brahms, Tunnel and others (also obvious trolling).

Actually I asked the same friend regarding starch and he mentioned that typically coconut flour should be virtually starch free. Based on the EU definitions, virtually any oligo and polysaccharides would fall under that category (though many of them would also fall under fibre).

Oh I think I know where the issue is. You are referring to the ingredient list, which actually has its own set of rules. I was referring to the nutritional labelling indicated by OP, which follows other rules and is mostly an indicator of nutrients. That part (i.e. the quantitative elements) are very superficial nutrient information in the outlined format above. With regard to blood glucose, the EU definition of sugars are mono or di-saccharides but excluding polyols. So polysaccharides such as starch, as Studiot pointed out, would fall outside that category. I know that in some countries dietary are included into carbohydrate section (e.g. Canada/USA) and others it is not. I am not sure how it is in the EU, but since the labelling indicates a separate category it seems that all fibres are excluded from that group, although most chemically are carbohydrates. Edit: I overlooked the part where tim.tdj actually said that the fibres are counted separately. I will say that the ratio from fibres and sugars seems to be bit off in the listed product. I was under the impression (i.e. friend with celiac disease told me) that coconut flour was fairly low on sugars (usually around 1:5 ratio).