CharonY

I think so, too. However, you cannot force someone to get a rounded education, it is something you want to have and work for in the first place. Rather unfortunately many students now do not really relish the critical thinking part but are hyperfocussed on grades and optimizing what to learn (i.e. the minimum needed to get the most time efficient grade). They won't even read book chapters on their own anymore as they think it is too inefficient.

There is an interesting side point here. Vocational schools should be boosted more. The training for specific professions has a different philosophy and approach than that of basic higher education. And quite a few folks getting into uni are really looking for more vocational-type training.

Let me contrast that with a situation that is already happening. As in NA higher education is seen mostly through a financial lens, degrees that presumably lead to better jobs (folks actually often misjudge which degrees have higher salaries or higher employment rate, but that is probably another matter). As a consequence we have classes full of pre-meds and other pre-professionals who have zero interest in the subject matter, and do poorly as a result. Basically the only question we get are not about the subject or questions of understanding but "what will be asked in the exam?". Certain ways of teaching do not work any more for these reasons. It is not an either or question, there always be plenty of folks trying to get a more vocational style degree. However, it is detrimental to teaching and learning if the only reason to take them is because they are seen as "useful". As a consequence not only does the degree (should they get one) not necessarily pay off career-wise, they also have likely learned little as the topic was not in their interest in the first place. As faculty we are not well-equipped to weed those folks out, either. The university administration has a vested interest to keep enrolment high. That then leads to a drop in quality of graduates and industry is more hesitant to take fresh graduates in. I would much more prefer a stricter weeding process and have folks succeed in areas where they are actually willing to put time and interest in. If they are good in a given degree, their chance of employment even in what folks may claim to be useless, increases dramatically, as they will have a broad intellectual and soft skill set that can be beneficial in many roles. Conversely, if you are just scraping by in a "popular" degree, you will be quickly outcompeted. Similarly, even having stellar grades does not mean much nowadays, it may just be that you are great in memorizing without really learning (and in the pandemic time cheating has been more rampant than usually). So once it gets to the interview process where one needs to show problem solving skills things fall apart, based on what we hear from industry.

I think that is the crux of the matter. The terms are similar and the to some extent the mechanisms, so it is intuitive to apply individual debts, which folks arguably are more familiar with, to national debts. However, it of course neglects the fact that personal debt is actually not the norm when to think about debts, to some extent it is an exception. There are huge differences between debts and debts that even a small company can and should take on. Or even between low and high income debts. Many folks make the mistake debts for lost money rather than investment opportunity. As long as you are not dependent on debts to sustain minimum operations, it often increases your ability to expand and increase net revenue. There is a reason why companies who do have huge cash reserves and record revenue (like, Apple) still maintain a huge chunk of long-term debt. Even without governmental mechanisms, it is net more profitable to do so. And just to re-iterate, the subprime mortgage crisis was not because household debt was too high, it was more related to how it was distributed.

Just as a minor side note, European systems vary quite significantly and in quite a few charging significant tuition fees (e.g. UK), especially for international students. In almost all postgraduate degrees are significantly cheaper than in North America. However, there are elements that inflate costs in the US and Canada. One that has been mentioned is the public support from states/provinces and feds which forces the universities to compensate with higher tuition. The other part however, is students in North America are used to a much higher level of support. Universities across NA are run like companies with recruiters competing for students (again, due to cuts from public funding). In this model amenities and administrative support (e.g. student support offices) etc. are required to remain competitive, which at least partially inflates prices. Our somewhat smallish faculty has a few full-time recruiters and student support counsellors. Whereas when I studied in Germany the whole counselling for my degree was a 30 minute presentation done by a staff scientist/instructor (who actually gave wrong instructions forcing me to add a semester to complete my degree). But it was fully funded by taxes. It is not the only issue but I think full public funding can actually result in more efficiencies that drive costs down, which runs a bit counter to the assumption that capitalist mechanisms will reduce costs. In that regard higher education is closer to health care.

A couple of other issues from a preliminary skim : the paper uses VAERS reporting which is generally problematic as it vastly overestimates events. The authors tried to address theses issues by filtering according to troponin but there is still significant concerns that overstimates are not fully accounted for. The other issue is only looking at hospitalization as endpoint. Myocarditis after vaccination typically result in mild issues. Conversely, hospitalization from COVID-19 is more frequently associated with severe issues and death.

I think it depends a bit. The Far right in Europe is a bit more obsessed with ethnocentrism rather than the economic identity that has ben assumed by conservatives in NA, but also Australia. Conversely, there have been left-leaning parties who have for a long time supported coal, as miner unions and similar groups were a strong voter base. Fundamentally there are few who want to do outright unpopular measures that could directly affect people's lives in the short term, which is why they try to kick it down the road for as long as possible. Someone will have to do the unpopular thing so (and likely promptly lose the next election). Though if there is enough public pressure some of that can change. In Germany, public opinion for nuclear power went down the drain after Chernobyl (though it was already fairly critical earlier, for a range of different reasons). And although it has taken many years, ultimately the Overton (ha, take this autocorrect) window has shifted enough that it wasn't possible for any party to expand nuclear programs. But you are correct that these changes often take long (say, a generational change) before things start rolling.

So on the one hand you are saying that the rich (such as the royal family) are expected to have great health because of the environment. Yet higher rates of genetic diseases are also caused by the same great environment? How does that work and what is your evidence that genetic diseases among royals are caused by the environment? Edit: crossposted with peterkin.

In addition to Swansont said, not only is there a marked difference in the consumption between fast growing and slow growing nations, there is a significant difference between developed countries, too. Australia, Canada and the United states emit almost double the amount per capita compared to many European countries. For a time in Chine the per capita emission (which is close to European levels) was plateauing and even declining, but seems to have picked up in the recent years (similar to other industrialized countries, so at least it does not seem the still ongoing development in China is also resulting in an equivalent rise in CO2 emission). So even if countries with high fertility catch up to some developed countries, there is a huge range where they possibly could end up to (as long as they do not emulate the Gulf States or Northern America, for example).

The question regarding right and wrong is not a moral one, not a scientific one. As others already mentioned, it is well-documented and supported by our understanding of genetics that inbreeding increases the likelihood of recessive disorders. On the population level we know that severe lack of genetic diversity can affect population fitness to various degrees and so on. Whether any of that is right or wrong is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with genetics (or biology or science) per se.

Another report came out, indicating that vaccinations also cuts down risk for long-haul covid-19 symptoms. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext

! Moderator Note Title edited as requested.

I think the issue here is that the method does not properly distinguish between "normal" (i.e. white) and "scary" folks.

Studiot is correct. I will say that depending on application and especially if the total volume does not change much and/or the pipetting might be large relative to the error in the dilution (e.g. if you pipette 1 ul into 1000 ul instead of 1 ul in 999ul) some folks just round up. That, however, is a bit sloppy and if folks do it without proper consideration, it can affect the results (especially for quantitative analyses). Moreover in many student protocols (and annoyingly some papers) I have seen confuse the dilution factor with dilution ratio. I can only recommend that if you write a thesis that you clarify exactly what you mean in your materials and methods section.

I think it is wrong to think of it as lost money. After all it was generated by spending and I think that your main criticism is not debt per se, but what the money was spent on. I think many fiscal conservatives are also confusing that matter a bit. As iNow suggested, lending at low rates can in effect increase your revenue, if you can invest it to get a better return. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/fourth-quarter-2020/does-national-debt-matter The actual discussion should be whether 1 billion in the military yields a better net than, say a billion in education, or infrastructure. In many cases that is what fiscal conservatives actually mean rather than issue of debt itself (except when conflating it with personal debt which, as the link above highlights, is mechanistically entirely different). Unfortunately the specter of debt is often invoked in order not to invest into something (often if it runs counter the ideological principles of a given party) and in effect can hinder the economy. There are certain relationships that were thought to be indicative of economic stability (e.g. relationship between GDP and national debt) but empiric evidence have shown that not to be true. I think the discussion should really be in what do invest when cost of borrowing is low, so that we can have a solid foundation for the future, when it might not be.

! Moderator Note Merged topics of treatments into megathread. A couple of other recent treatment news: As mentioned earlier, the TOGETHER trial (which focusses on repurposing of drugs) found evidence for the use of fluvoxamine to reduce the need for emergency room observation (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262323v1). Also as mentioned, Ivermectin was showed no effects, which was communicated in a recent presentation https://trialsitenews.com/mcmaster-together-trial-ivermectin-a-no-show-while-fluvoxamine-shows-some-promise/. Another trial involving anti-coagulants indicates improved outcomes in moderate severe cases, but little benefit if patients were already critically ill. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2105911 Ronapreve has been approved by UK regulators (it is already authorized for emergency use in many countries). The monoclonal antibody cocktail has shown some prophylactic properties in a few phase 3 trials and might also be useful for individuals with compromised immune systems. As a side note, I think this thread documents how difficult it is to translate initial positive findings into actual clinical usefulness. I could write whole articles (in fact, I have) regarding such issues, but looking back, the first post showed potential benefits of hydroxychloroquine and we all know what the trials eventually said. That is why initial positive results of any medical intervention should lead into trials, and not into a call for self-medication.

Ok so now the argument is that some media outlets have not been fact checking and therefore we should take medication before they go through large trials and getting reviewed? Look, if you move the goalposts further I am going to need a better telescope. Edit, also it seems that the articles now include the comment from the NHS, so basically quoting each of the folks involved, which seems to conform to usual standards. Does it mean I should take half the dose? Or do I need to mix it with another experimental drug until the internet hypes up something else (i really hope it coffee). Edit 2, just to be as sure: don't self medicate with drugs. Ask a MD not the internet. The internet is dumb.

So now you are shifting away from the prophylaxis argument and focusing on treatment? That was not the original argument and obviously folks are constantly trying to repurchase drugs. Which again runs counter to your narrative. Folks are getting treatment, but obviously after they are sick. You on the other seem to promote... something. Potentially Self medication for unknown reasons. Now tell me is ivermectin more efficient for treatment than, say remdesivir? Or steroids? I mean the big medical cabal seem to promote those? Why again are so invested in drugs that are still pending big trials over those that have data? Do you think less evidence is better because somehow pharma is less involved in that? Sorry you reasoning seems to me backwards from what it should be.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I am notoriously bad at proof reading my posts as they are generally more of a stream of thought thing that I do between doing other things, so my general apologies for having to put up with them. I did correct it now but now am unsure whether I should have. Anyway...

Thanks iNow, I have indeed seen the study. I am a bit skeptical that the viral particles would remain intact under the conditions, certain bacteria and certainly spores would have much higher resilience compared to them. But thank for clearing that up.

I always found that that to be bit of a a convenient excuse. See, folks do not have abhorrent believes, but it is because someone made them so. There are a few issues with that statement. The first is the use of political correctness of a pejorative of the right to criticize the left. In reality, there has always been an Overton window that determined what is palatable. The phrase PC has been weaponized by the right to shut down every criticism (justified or not) that stem from progressive ideas. In all honesty neither side is doing well with fostering dialogue, however it seems to me that the right has created a whole ecosystem to systematically shut them off from discourse, which is now exemplified by the presence of an alternative right-wing reality in which things like, say global warming or COVID-19 simply does not exist and antifa has taken over the government. If you want to follow this route and where the origins are, you won't find those in the opposite camp. There is a large body of research now which discusses this in more detail, but in short, it is not a reactionary or even new phenomenon. It follows a long tradition of right-wing patterns which elements of authoritarianism and xenophobia which are rolled into a zero-sum worldview. The only new thing is really the amplification of signals from all sides via the internet which allowed folks in fringe to create and maintain their own alternative universe. It should also be noted that one of the hallmark of these fringes is the duality of a) being heroes of their narratives but b) at the same time being downtrodden and forced to action by the enemy. The narrative that the left forces them to believe in crazy stuff because they have taken over mainstream media and science, is just another element to it.

I am still waiting for someone jumping out of the closet and tell me it was all just a joke. I even cleaned out said closet to make it easier but still no luck. Really? I find that somewhat surprising. The only things I have seen so far was mostly related to increased mortality due to PM2.5 exposure. Do you have a report at hand by any chance?

Yes indeed, controlled studies have shown little to no effect of supplements on overall outcome. However, overall improvement of well-being by life choices (diet, exercise) environmental health and so on, all have positive properties for many diseases as they can improve our ability to combat and survive infections and associated complications. Unfortunately well-being is also often coupled to income. Also unfortunately folks (and I am guilty of that as well, especially with respect to sleep) folks often neglect overall well-being and focus on drugs as primary measure. I.e. fix things when broken, instead of not breaking it in the first place.

A bit off-topic, but considering the background of the founders I am fairly confident that the constitution was set up with slavery in mind, rather than being a compromise of sorts. At best one could consider it ambiguous, but it clearly benefitted slavery operations in its original form. Unless you mean what the ideal should have been, which is a bit more abstract and decoupled from the realities of what it really was.

Excellent, so I suppose you have dispensed with the notion that somehow there is a cabal restricting ivermectin research, considering that there are sufficiently around to actually try to make a meta-analysis? There was another earlier meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. And as the author noted, many of the studies had sub-optimal quality https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2, which is not terribly surprising for initial (and often limited) trials. If you look at the paper you linked in detail, you will note that especially for prophylaxis they had 3 trials and highlighted that it only has low-certainty evidence of reduction. Even worse, one of the tree trials used for the evaluation was recently withdrawn (at least temporarily). So as a whole there is not a much to shake that particular conclusion. However, even if we ignore these issues for now, as I mentioned earlier, the data (in part due to the quality of data) suggests at best that a bigger controlled trial is needed to figure out effects rather than jumping the fence and ingesting it because of some positive outcomes. As mentioned before, this is not how drug research works. If every initial study was indicative of effectiveness, we would have cured all sorts of cancer a couple of thousand times by now. The good news is that the TOGETHER trial with 1,500 participants could provide some answers. Unfortunately the outcome is not published yet, but in a virtual symposium I attended one of the PIs has mentioned earlier last month that a couple of drugs where dropped out because they did not show benefits over placebos, including metformin and ivermectin. I am not sure whether that talk is public (though I suspect it somewhere) but I do not have a link saved. My notes only say that relative risk was 0.91 (0.69-1.19)and mortality relative risk is 0.82 (0.44-1.52), so no significant effect over placebo (well and that fluvoxamine showed promise, but for some reasons folks are not demanding its use in droves. I wonder why). I think it was a prophetic documentary. When I was younger I thought the future could be a Neuromancer-esque dystopia. Instead, we have this.