CharonY

! Moderator Note Since this highly speculative it is moved to the speculations sections. Please take a minute to familiarize yourself with the rules for discussing speculative sciences on this board.

Realistically, it would be a bottle that can be cleaned and sterilized properly. In that regard, plastics are usually not that great. Another aspect is how you get the water out. Pouring it out (e.g. in a washable cup) is probably the best. Complex openings which are difficult to clean (e.g. squeeze bottles) and you cover it with saliva during use (as well as drip infuse your bottle with it) will most likely have a higher bacterial load.

Well, since the zombies in this scenario are the sick ones, things will probably sort themselves out eventually.

Who knew that social media would bring back epidemics... My suspicion is that with increasing infections and deaths there will be a backlash of sorts at some point. It is easy to argue against vaccines while they protect you. Much more difficult when increasing folks specifically in those groups start dying. If only they would not endanger others with their mindset.

First question is whether you have got access to a biosafety level 2 lab.

Well, what if the water inside also has bacteria inside?

To put a bit of a downer on the good news, measles are making a resurgence. In the US it is hitting highs after being declared eradicated and in Europe infections are hitting record highs (82,000 in 2018) after being on the path of eliminating it. The coverage is below 95%. The silver lining is that the resurgence has sparked increase in vaccination rates, hopefully folks won't forget that easily next time...

I think I have a bit of an issue with that part. I think implicitly the argument implies that there is a rational foundation of decision making (i.e. good reasons). However, every decision happens at the intersection of biology and sociology. The way we are brought up and what we have learned together with our biology creates certain boundaries in our decision-making. Cases, where one urge becomes overriding are rare, but even then within a particular urge, the micro-decisions are governed by other elements. Now we could step back and construct these decisions as rational based on the limitations that we observe externally. We could rule that the brain is impaired, but what does it mean? It really means it works differently than one that is not under the influence. Likewise, one could argue that someone that was indoctrinated in a particular way of thinking has their brain imprinted a certain way. This seems to be reflected on every level, in my mind. Even simple things, like the way we move our arms to grab something are determined by geometry and certain anatomical rules that we are not aware of, which can be modified by things we were taught. Of course one could argue that the execution is not part of the decision-making process but I think the boundaries are paper-thin, if we try to look at the intersection of decision-making and resulting behaviour.

That is what I meant. The issue is that talking economics won't sway (most) Trump supporters, as many feel less threatened by the economic outlook per se, but rather connect it to the rise of minorities (i.e. status threat). If one wants to address their demands, one would have to go into anti-immigrant /-minority policies. Indirectly, the Democrats have done so in the past by promoting stricter sentencing, for example. However, their platform has shifted to a more inclusive message and using that is likely a non-starter.

There are numerous studies looking into voter characteristics. Too many to name them all but here are some key references to start reading, if you cannot find a particular lit I can help with the full citations. The focus on these studies range from identifying factors that are predictive for voting behaviour as well as prevailing attitudes in Trump supporters. The studies pretty much paint a rather similar image, which is remarkable considering the different approaches and focus of the respective studies. However, it rather clearly shows that economic hardships, despite how commonly it is brought up, was not the most important factor in the 2016 election. As I have mentioned earlier, things like status threat, related racism and sexism far more prevalent and predictive for Trump supporters and voters. Schaffner et al. Political Science Quarterly, 2018 Mutz, PNAS, 2018 Valentino et al., Publich Opinion Quarterly, 2018 Major et al. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2016 Knowles and Tropp Soc Phys Pers Sci 2018 Luttig et al Res & Pol, 2017 Ratliff et al. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2017 Smith & Hanley, Crit. Soc., 2018 There are many more, but these cover the main issues quite well and can be used as a decent starting point. It should also be noted that quite a bit of the political polarization is based on the fact that folks reject the prejudices of Trump and his supporters. You can also find numerous reports in a variety of journals and newspapers contextualizing these findings. But in short, many Trump supporters are feeling threatened by minorities, regardless of whether they experienced economic hardships or not. It is the consistent feeling that if "they" are becoming part of the establishment, the Trump supporters would somehow lose their status. And considering that the GOP is whistling hard this sense of persecution is not going to be alleviated by actual showing that there is no threat of even an economic benefit to them. This is why meaningless measures which are entirely symbolic (such as the wall or cruelty towards asylum seekers) is so useful and powerful. It also shows the prevalence of attitudes in the society which we often consider to be marginal, simply since we consider them to be distasteful in principle. However, when one actually looks at it, it becomes clear that we all have our biases and prejudices. The Trump campaign just managed successfully to harness them to a sufficient degree.

Honestly, I think that is the best reason to like a book. Not specifically this case, but more in general, the place the book has in your life. A good book is not necessarily one with the most intricate plot or best prose. A good book is the one that is right for you at a given time in your life. You grow out of certain books, you grow into certain books. And sometimes, magically, a book grows with you.

Most of the childhood vaccines are attenuated, I think, but if we include all vaccines more are just using parts (+ adjuvants).

I highlighted that part as analyses indicated that these elements were the most consistent trait among the voter base. Economic hardships were fairly low on the list, somewhat surprisingly (below indicators of sexism). I.e. the economic anxiety assumption does not seem to hold.

For a PhD finding a good group and fit within is more important. E.g. if the MSc supervisor wants to take you on, they'll tell you what they expect. This may or may not include papers, depending on the project, but it varies significantly between disciplines, too. However, especially if do your MSc in a non Western country (or Japan), and want to apply for a Phd, in one of those countries publications in international journals are very helpful. With regard to interest you will have to ask yourself how well you can perform if the topic does not really interest you.

Despite what I said earlier, there is the challenge that populism carries a lot of power in both parties. Trump won the electoral college with a populists platform built on racial resentment.

In that case, applicable and demonstrated skills (including soft skills) are more relevant.

His strength is that he appeals to the establishment, which could work in his favour come election. His weakness is that he appeals to the establishment, which could hurt him in the primaries.

Well, that is getting the causality wrong, in my opinion. For the most part unicellular organisms have the tendency to replicate which is why cells that are not replicating are often at the end of their life cycle and do not successfully divide anymore. Even then this is not strictly correct, as certain cell types care able to undergo dormancy. What is rare is to have a very active metabolism but not reproduce, as the former often serves the latter. In addition, there is the intricate interaction between metabolism and replication as the major drivers for aging. The mechanisms I was thinking about is inequal division in which the resulting daughter cells obtain a different share of components. Here, real rejuvenation can happen by having one daughter cell obtain all the damaged elements (examples in yeast include e.g. ROS damaged mitochondria) whereas the other obtains the "fresher' parts so that one daughter cell has less damage than the parent cell.

Can you provide the context in which cell division would be considered rejuvenation? There are some mechanisms but I am not sure whether these are cases you may be thinking about.

Perhaps the part that confuses you. In order to maximize immune response, you want the antigen to be presented for a longer time so that it will be properly recognized by the immune system. This is what has been referred to as depot effect in this thread. As I mentioned, the original assumption was that releasing it directly in the bloodstream would lead to relatively fast clearance, thus minimizing the response. The only way to increase the response was to increase concentration, which can be risky. As such vaccines were developed to be released more slowly via intramuscular injection, with the added benefit of minimizing discomfort and adverse effects (as already mentioned). The development of adjuvants has provided alternatives. The adjuvants can now provide the desired depot effect. However, since there are no obvious benefits in IV delivery under normal circumstances, it is generally not done. So to re-iterate, using adjuvants that provide depot effects IV delivery is feasible. But it is not advantageous, has higher risk of issues and requires additional protocol development. So it is generally not done for routine vaccination.

It is easiest just to look at the concentration. In the original vial you have 1mg in 1 mL solution. In the second vial you got 0.1mg in the same volume, which is (as you correctly pointed out) a tenth of 1 mg. Using a formula seems to complicate things here in my mind.

I have a question regarding the aspect of "own reasons". What in that context, would you consider to be boundary condition. You and iNow have discussed drug addiction, for example, and it seems that there is a distinction between "normal" or pristine and the addicted framework. However, decisions, whatever they are, are contextual an addict may state that they want to be clean, but faced with the immediate (physiological an other) consequences, decides against it. Similarly, you state you are in control of your hydration level, but again the context would affect your decision. E.g. if you need to go out of your way to acquire water, or if it just in front of you. So is the decision not to drink because it is too far away/expensive/whatever your own reason, or is it an externality? Or in other words: Unless I am misunderstanding something there is presumably a most free state, one, in which decisions are ones own independent of factors that are not recognized ones own. Is that correct?

And Joe Biden is in.

I started reading it years ago and in hindsight it felt a bit like a pulp novel. Somewhere more complex than, say D&D novels, but not as interesting as Tolkien or having the more imaginative prose of Le Guin. Or perhaps the outrageous imagination of Mieville (though the latter probably is more urban fantasy rather than high fantasy). I do have to admit that I realized at some point that I am partial to British authors, especially when it comes to Fantasy. The use of language by most American authors tends to rather purely descriptive, which fits well into crime novels or certain Sci Fi types, but feel a bit flavourless in fantasy. The characters were archetypes and fairly cliched as you mentioned . In a way the it was kind of clever to set up the protagonists and their troupe as exceptional beings due to the supposedly cyclical nature of the world (a bit like Moorcock's eternal hero meta-narrative). Its downfall for me at least is that it did not have enough elements that were new or unique and it was more about being comfortable with the characters (who underwent the usual hero's journey type of development). That, in turn meant that any break between reading those books makes the effect weaker (a bit like not watching a TV series for a while and lose track of the characters) as the story did not captivate on its own (in that regard, the comparison with Harry Potter is also quite fitting). I think the Winter's Heart (or something like that) was the last book I bought but ultimately did not even start reading as my enthusiasm cooled off quite a bit by then. It is, as fantasy goes, certainly not bad. But thinking back there was little that I found exceptional and captivating (for me). On top, the prose was rather flat and incredibly repetitive. Things that still remain in my head are how similar many characters (and especially the women) were presented so flat, that during speeding through the text I sometimes had trouble figuring out which of the characters was actually talking. One of the phrases that I still remember involve pretty all of them at various points: smooth their skirts, tugging something, fold arms beneath their breasts. While not critical per se (again, the story is enjoyable in a pulp fiction soft of way), but usually this small gestures are used to flesh out a character. All doing these things without a purpose just flattens them (as you unconsciously expect something based on what the author describes to you). I think there was a bit of the same issue with the male characters (I think something with their hair) but I cannot quite recall what it was anymore. Hmm, overall it seems that I probably should not have answered in the first place. I enjoyed it enough to buy a couple of books of the series, at least until I had to wait until the next book came out and found that I was not invested enough to continue reading. Also I now wished that I had more time for leisure reading.

That is a good summary. I believe we had discussed it in an earlier thread somewhere. But essentially, when vaccines were developed, it was assumed that local accumulation followed by a slow release would yield the highest immunogenic response. This is generally referred to as a the depot effect. However, this effect was not unequivocally shown to be relevant or even present, and especially the use of adjuvants makes it questionable whether intramuscular injection site is really that important for immune activation. There are other considerations, of course, as injection into subcutaneous fat layers may result in too low mobilization. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that with the proper adjuvants IV injection are feasible. However, as the vaccination methods were developed and tested with the "classic" method in mind and because they were shown to be reliable with minimal discomfort, there is generally no good reason to change it. One has to keep in mind that the medical profession is generally required to follow protocol rather strictly (i.e. based on the specifics that has been tested and documented), for good reasons. Edit: regarding the lymphatic system, one could really extend the whole thing to a rather large lecture. The immune system is quite complicated but in this context it is important to recognize that both systems (i.e. blood and lymphatic system) intersect and the lymph nodes is where the lymph fluid is drained into the circulatory system. Thus while the success of vaccines is ultimately determined by the actions within the lymphatic system, they can (and have to be) detected throughout the circulatory system (typically via antigen presenting cells of sorts), where they are then directed to secondary lymphoid tissue (via the lymphatic system). The antigens can also directly enter the lymphatic system, but it is not required per se.