CharonY

If your blades are No.4 versions I doubt it. The fitment has a difference size and it would be tricky to get a secure fit. I only got a No.4 here, but from foggy memory the fitting blades were No.9-17. For No.4 scalpels the blades would be No. 18 and up (there are some outside the range no. but there would be no overlap due the shape of the fitment).

I think this illustrates also the issue with the democratization of information and social media. Properly interpreting data is time consuming and requires expertise. However, falsehoods and narratives can be fabricated almost instantaneously. As such, the infosphere almost by default will contain fare more false claims relative to true ones. Putting in the argument that every source is biased or false further dilutes the value of actually well-analyzed information. After all, why put the effort in, if it ends up against weighed against tons of crap? There is an effort to teach kids about source criticism. But the issue in the end is that there has to be a certain level of trust. And that trust has been systematically eroded which ultimately (in my mind at least) puts democracy at risk.

Depends on what you intend to discuss. If you want to talk about impact of social media and their effect on spread of misinformation, politics could be a place. If you want to discuss why folks believe it, somewhere in psych? General societal impact could go into other sciences. If you have an idea why things work out that way, you could also go for speculation. It really depends on how you couch the discussion.

There are two sources of information here and they are not equal, though they are treated as one unit. The first are the polls themselves. The article does not link to the source (only to the one regarding Bush, but more about that in a bit). So the first question to ask is whether the mentioned numbers are accurate. The article itself is clearly not a news article (calling someone from CNN a crybaby, and making highly selective extrapolation based on the data). In other words, the issue with that snipped would not only be whether the numbers are accurate but also whether the extrapolations are. Let's discuss the data first. The challenge with polls or any other data is first the methodology. The issue of course is that a certain level of expertise is required. There are different measures that could be used, but Marist generally is considered a very good polling organization. Here, the article is showing the bias part by declaring that 33% non-white support must be a high African American approval rating, but the poll does not provide that information. Going back it shows that this particular poll has shown roughly that level of approval non-whites. So there actually has not been a lot of change in the numbers. Going deeper into sample size it shows that among the ~1k persons polled there were roughly 100 African American (a bit more Latinos and others). So specifically tracking the approval from that small group is going to be difficult, which is probably why they only present it in aggregate. This limit in is also reflected by the fact that in the poll the white group is dissected in more detail (e.g. education gender etc.) whereas they did not perform any further distinction in the non-white set. In other words, the data set is good to track overall approval, but probably not a good set to specifically trace African American sentiments. So here, one could ask whether a poll with a larger African American respondent base would show the same results (and a quick look across other polls does not seem to make it likely). Rasmussen is the one showing quite high African American support, but in order to figure out whether either makes sense one would have to look at other available information. For starters, ~8% of African Americans have voted for Trump in 2016 and most polls directly asking African Americans are at a consistent approval rating between 8-12% (more or less) Rasmussen explain that their methodology is different is focused on likely voters. Yet that would imply an more than 20% jump that other methodologies did not capture. So it could be that this method is great (if the outcome turns out to be true) or that it is, in fact faulty (I cannot quickly find details regarding their sample composition, for example). But to re-iterate a previous point, it is well-known fact that general polls with usually 1-2k responses tend to undersample (statistically) minorities if they use the actual composition of the US-population, resulting in imprecise data. In order to figure out how the distribution truly are, you generally have to oversample and then perform a weighing correction. It does not mean that one needs to reject data outright, just that one needs to be careful in the interpretation and contextualization. I.e. the methodology determines what the data actually might be able to tell us. Rather obviously the linked article has not such qualms and provides a strong narrative without proper contextualization

The best understood mechanisms involved RNAi pathways (has been a matter of debate for almost a decade, but I think it is fairly convincing at this point).

TBF, the forum names here are a bit of a mess so it would not matter much if it gets sorted into something that already exists. Alternative a broader social science section could be established.

Usually if there is not a thread about a topic in recent history, feel free to start a new topic. Worst case scenario is that it will be merged with an existing thread.

I think there is nuance there that is lost in the discussion. For starters, there is a difference between whether a report is based on something that is factual or not. Opinion articles can be heavily biased, but they may or may not base some assertions on actual facts. Let's say for example there are reports praising or condemning the harsh stance on immigration. That in itself is a value judgement. However, in proper discourse you would want to analyze the underlying facts to see on what these judgement are based on. You will find, for example that folks against immigration assume that immigration is associated with a number of negative outcomes, such as drain on economy crime and dilution of culture. The last point does not really have a good measure whereas the former two points could (and have been analyzed) and in the US most studies failed to show that those are true. So if you report on this data and assert immigration is a positive you may show political bias but remain factual, whereas when ignore those studies and drum up assumptions, you show bias, but are not factual. This is the issue with the website posted in the (now) OP, it shows political bias but, as they acknowledge themselves, they a assert that they do not make any judgement on how factual reports are. There are other websites, such as mdiabiasfactcheck, though I assume that measures would be imperfect as fact checking takes more resources than a simple poll for bias. Of course, one needs to discern which articles are supposed to be news and which opinion pieces to begin with. It also seems that there is quite a bit of imbalance when we look at the extremes in terms of the popularity in relation to how factual they are. For example the worst in terms of factual reporting on the left of the column from the image in OP are Alternet (mixed) whereas on the right side only the aforementioned National Review was not as bad or worse than Alternet. However, each publication had a much higher circulation/internet ranking. Or to put it differently if we use the graphics in OP, there is only left publication out there that fails to be considered at least mostly true, whereas on the right there is only one publication that manages to achieve a mostly true rating. The fact that these are so vastly more popular than fact-oriented right-leaning reporting is a big issue for many of my Conservative colleagues. The issue for me is therefore less about bias (which we will always have) but whether we can agree on facts to begin with (before we start spinning). And there, I do not really see a symmetrical issues when we talk about the left vs right news sector for a long time anymore.

I think the situation is slightly more complicated, one of the papers you listed for example seems to focus on acute injuries. However, there is increasing worry of long-term effects, specifically in professional athletes. There is also a difference in casual engagement vs competive or regular activity, age etc. In addition there is uneven distribution in reports for various sports as well as type of evidence. For example, there is a study on the brains of (deceased) NFL players and 110 out of 111 showed evidence of CTE (the above mentioned condition associated with concussion). But similar studies are missing for many other sports so it is not easy to rank them. Studies in the broader population generally associate athletes with ca. 5-fould higher incidence of CTE than non-athletes (and again football players with the highest incidence rate, though boxing also showed some positive association). If one really wanted to tackle the question from a policy and public health point of view, one would first need to define what types of outcome one wants to prevent. In addition, the dose has to be taken into account as professional sports has a higher strain than casual engagement. And finally, these risks have to be balanced against health benefits due to exercise. That all being said, at least for professional football there is very strong evidence that athletes are at marked elevated risk at developing neurodegenerative disease. Going back to the argument of consent- it has to be informed. The NFL has historically denied any links between CTE and has been engaged in litigations surround that issue. I think the first step is not really a ban, but rather providing as as complete risk assessment as possible and provide thorough information especially to professional athletes. Only then are we really certain about the consenting adults in this case.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I was thinking that initially, but his uncharacteristic doggedness in that particular matter seems to go beyond just branding. Moreover, in addition to the over cruelty, his administration has been pushing policies through on the quiet to further these goals, which makes me believe that this is really the only part that is part of his actual convictions.

Right now it seems that he is heavy leaning into isolationist ethnonationalism. Going back to the impeachment hearings, I found it interesting that even the witness for the Republicans (Turley) essentially criticized the process, though not the question at its heart. Since the witnesses were there to present legal arguments, it seems to me that that perspective is pretty much settled and that there is unquestionable grounds to proceed with the impeachment process, as only then the case will be made to prove (or not) whether there was a quid pro quo. Considering the various testimonies we heard earlier indicating that: - pretty much everyone involved on the US as well as the Ukrainian side saw it as an quid pro quo (including Mulvaney, on camera) - Trump was only interested in having a public announcement of the investigation, regardless whether it happened - private lines of communication rather than State Department procedures were used to facilitate this exchange (plus folks involved are being indicted) as well as that there is probably more that I already forgot. Considering the wealth of information available there is a lot substance here on the legal side to go foward with in a trial. But then again it is not about substance for most, is it?

It is actually fairly complex. (Nano-)encapsulation has been under research for a very long time and the literature has expanded in several bursts. However, the response of the immune system to these complexes is not as well researched. I should also expand a bit and not limit the issue to antigenicity. Especially when it comes to nanomaterials we also have to look broader and include all cellular and humoral immune responses (i.e. immunogenicity). For example, the mentioned liposomes alone generally only elicit weak to no immunogenic responses. Yet certain formulations and depending on what they contain as load, various groups actually identified liposome-specific antibodies. Or take PEG, which is often used as a hydrophilic coating and to prevent immune recognition. However, in some studies it was found that repeated treatment with PEGylated products resulted in faster clearance from blood, suggesting eventual recognition. The tricky bit is that to identify immunogenicty it is often not enough to just inject and look for antibodies. Often many parameters have to be considered, such as the animal type, dosage, number of treatments, interval of treatment, the specific composition of carrier and cargo and so on.

The issue of concussion and especially its likely association with of a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) as well as other diseases is a huge topic in sports medicine right now. Much of the research is based on American football and hockey players and there is an increasing body of evidence that identify these sports as a risk factor for CTE later in life. As such, there are some voices who call for a modification of these sports for children (e.g. stopping tackling). In other sports something similar has already been done and in US soccer, heading is banned for children under 11, for example. Whether that is enough remains to be seen. Obviously, the popularity of sports such as American football or hockey makes it very difficult to even consider bans. Folks have been working on better head protection, though there is evidence that helmets may actually amplify the effects. There is also a push to penalize actions that may result in head injury put it is a hugely contentious issue, balancing athlete's long-term health with huge popular entertainment.

I should add that DNA itself can be antigenic, too.

They did. Several, in fact. They show all the weird stuff during the news segments, however (but it bleeds into pretty much all other shows). There are crowd pleasers such as "Shit the president says near a helicopter", "Democratic primaries battle royale-don't talk while I am yelling", "Republican Conspiracy-o-Rama - how Clinton is the actual deep-state shadow president". There are of course underappreciated spin-offs such as "Border wars- let's lock up children as deterrent", but we tend to forget about these. But seriously, the stuff is almost exactly like scripted shows. Just look the Conways for example.

... why would she do that?

I think you did not understand the article or the concept of herd immunity. Obviously vaccinating just the elderly does not create herd immunity. Herd immunity is the effect of having a sufficiently large immune population, which inhibits disease spread. This allows passive protection of susceptible populations, such as elderly , even if they are not vaccinated, or when vaccines are less effective. I took a quick look at the article and it actually describes precisely that (which is actually what you quote before, but seemingly misunderstood): Thus having school-age children vaccinated creates herd immunity for the elderly. The above passages are also example of similar effects (e.g. vaccinating children against rotavirus protects older children and adults). One thing that may have thrown you off is the weird phrasing, which is often a bit of an issue with wikipedia as folks often take passages from other sources without adjusting the context properly. However, in the cited publications were discussing whether it is enough to immunize high-risk groups alone (i.e. the elderly) or whether there is a need to increase protection via the herd effect (e.g. via universal immunization). The general conclusion is that herd immunity for influenza is rather crucial and strongly suggest that all health workers should be mandated to be vaccinated for that reason.

Bacteria generally transfer plamids via conjugation. Uptake of free DNA is generally only possible for relatively small fragments. Considering constraints in size and transport mechanisms, I do not think that bacteria can take up whole plasmids outside of in vitro settings (e.g. electrporation, chemical transformation etc.). What you are thinking about is probably more applicable to eukaryotic cells, which actually do phagozytosis. That being said, at least in theory you could probably encapsulated plasmids in a liposome and force a fusion with a bacterial cell (depending on the cell envelope structure of the bacterium in question). These are not active uptake mechanisms, but rather an attempt to increase perneability of small molecules, such as antibiotics. These methods have been discussed since at least the late 80s but I am not sure whether folks have tried e.g. with whole plasmids. It has seen a revival together with nanomaterials as a means for drug delivery. However, it does not seem to have seen much in progress toward clinical utility, and much of the data is in vitro.

Well, now she is officially out.

You are missing the point that increased immunization, even if imperfect, still reduced the overall likelihood of spread. And that is the key aspect of herd immunity. In this, and many other aspects comparing seasonal flu vaccines to others make perfect sense. The real main difference is that they do not confer lifelong protection (though others may also wane over time). What it does mean is that the prospects of actually eradicating the disease via vaccination is most likely not going to work. Also, reduced immunization efficacy in elderly is not specific to the flu vaccine, it is e.g. also the case for MMR (a phenomenon known as immunosenescence) . As mentioned before, there are specific formulations to elicit an immune response in the elderly (e.g. using adjuvants). The reason why despite lower responses the elderly are especially encouraged to vaccinate, is because they are the most likely to suffer serious or fatal consequences from the flu (~90% of all deaths associated with flu) and estimates have shown significant effects in preventing deaths and hospitalizations (and again, side effects are comparatively rare and the anecdote may very well has been an unrelated effect, especially considering that the person in question did not have adverse effects before). However, what it also means is that vaccination only the elderly is not going to be enough, the broader population needs to vaccinate to protect those elderly where the vaccine is not effective enough (again, protection by means of herd immunity).

There are different versions for different ages each year (e.g. live attenuated, produced with eggs, produced in cells , adjuvanted for the elderly), but the formulation within each cocktail is updated for each season. To make things more complicated there are also trivalent and quadrivalent versions, protecting against three and four strains, respectively. I think the NHS offers mostly quadrivalent vaccines at this point. It depends a lot on how much contact you have with infected folks, which is why herd immunity is so important.

I feel that because of the technology misinformation spreads more easily.

That is worrying, as it is clearly not the case. An actual influenza infection feels really bad, whereas side effects of the vaccine are generally no worse than a passing fever (and only in 1-2% of the population). The CDC estimates influenza-related death between 2010-2014 (which is a bit broader than direct deaths due to flu) ranging from 12k (2011-2012 season) to 56k (2012-13). In Europe, as mentioned, the decline in life expectancy in several European countries in the last few years were related to rather bad flu seasons. A challenge with flu vaccination is that the outbreaks change every year and if the prediction is off, folks may get vaccinated against the wrong strain which only offers limited protection. In addition, there are certain strains for which the efficacy of vaccines is somewhat low. However, even imperfect protection has an important impact on human health. As mentioned the vaccine was less effective for the 2014-15 influenzaA H3N2 outbreak. But even with the diminished vaccine, the CDC estimates that ca. 67k hospitalizations were prevented by the vaccine, as well as ca. 1.9 million illnesses. Obviously those numbers are higher for seasons where the vaccines were more effective. As such, recommending not to vaccinate, especially for elderly folks does seem somewhat irresponsible.

The increase of respiratory illnesses 2014-17 in UK (and much of Europe) was at least partially driven by an influenza strain (H3N2) which predominantly was fatal for elderly. It has been speculated that due to the increase in the proportion of elderly in the population, age related deaths will increase and thereby diminish life expectancy estimates. Also, as mentioned, the decrease in age-associated diseases have slowed or stopped, adding to that trend. This is is somewhat analogous to how high infant mortality can diminish life expectancy measures. Lung cancer has been decreasing since 2001 for men, but for women there was first an increase until 2011 and then small decline until 2016.