CharonY

I do feel that at least with respect to the question the discussion is going a bit astride. Again, EC50 is a summary point for dose-response curves. Knowing baseline and max response are necessary to define this point. However, it does not tell you much about the shape of the curve, which you would need if you want to compare arbitrary doses outside of the EC50. The max response is relevant if we talk about efficacy (as opposed to potency).

That is a fair point, and an increasing problem outside of medical data, too. Different countries have various levels of enforcement of privacy laws, but I can only see that the issues will increase, especially with improved abilities to precision-mine data.

Which basically means that no, he has no data or evidence that would in any way, shape or form substantiate his claim of whether a) there is any indication of any group having higher priority for self-preservation and that b) it does correlate in any form with race. Also note that race is not a biological concept and human groups are not really separated as such. So if at all, the discussion would be within the realm of societal differences rather than biological ones. That being said, further discussion are pretty useless if no evidence are provided in the first place. Lower rate of mass shooting could also easily be explained by the overall frequency of shootings and demographics, for example.

You have to read things more carefully, the poll was about mixed marriages and not segregation per se. And in the societal climate at that time it was clearly not looked universally favorably even in minority communities. You also have to look at the context. In the wake of enlightenment and modern racial theories segregation and associated measures were often seen as a good or at least a "natural" thing. In this context, race-mixing was arguably one of the most contentious offenses which could isolate individuals from either community they belong to. That being said, among minority communities the acceptance is traditionally higher than that of the dominating group, which often proscribed to some ideal of purity (e.g. codified by the one drop rule in parts of the US until the late 60s). That all being said, there is certainly a decent likelihood that in the first data point minorities were undersampled, but then the general approval trend seems to be fairly constant over the next periods.

Sounds interesting. I still got a "The war on alcohol" by Lisa McGirr on my unread stack. From the blurb it sounds a bit like a grand narrative and the influence of prohibition on politics further on (but also describes how its enforcement was unequal and arguably unjust). I am not sure how one follows from the other...? Changing the law is unlikely to result in sudden shifts in societal views. However, some laws also enact societal change, such as opening the way of certain groups to participate in politics, or improving their ability to accumulate wealth. These in turn gradually change the perception of societal norms of these groups over time. While generational change is a major driver in these scenarios, changing the landscape will likely have an important influence.

While I I would love easy access to a patient cohort (it is the major challenge for population studies), I would be loathe to provide my own medical data to anything else other than research purposes, and even then under clear rules regarding their use.

I always found that Gattaca would have been a better story if the story was more about getting health care or similar fundamental things denied based on genetic information rather than a trip to space.

I recall that there was a decent article in the Guardian a few years back which summarized some of the historic factors, including the influence of the temperance movement, and its connection with the drinking (effectively, saloon) culture. It also highlights why it ultimately failed, but essentially caused cultural shifts in the relationship to alcohol. I.e. the legislature resulted in a cultural shift, but perhaps not quite the way it was envisioned. But there were reasons, including unfair enforcement, IIRC. May be worthwhile to dig out. As a whole, an argument can be made that legislature and cultural shifts interact with each other and neither can be seen in a vacuum. For example, cultural shifts can result in selective enforcement of certain laws, and conversely, public policy can have a guiding hand in shifting cultural norms. There are many examples such as the civil rights act or the 19th amendment, which were heavily contested in their time. Yet, without those legal changes there would be no road for cultural perception of equality.

Yet another article. Mostly a rehash of other points, but a decent read.

So I am a bit involved in these things and one critical point is the informed part of informed consent. While you may be aware who you are selling it to, I am not sure that it is easy to predict what the ramifications are. In fact, I am kind of doubtful that anyone can, we are at a juncture where we provide unprecedented personal information (often freely) without really understand who and how it can be used (as we can see in recent events).

It is hard to tell without having all the details, but from a researcher's point of view I see a couple of issues pertaining to consent. It seems that medical history information is extensively mined, and I am not sure how well informed the participants can be. This is especially problematic as there is potentially a very broad use of that information. That aside, I have to admit that the ability to simply request a patient cohort is kind of attractive (considering that it is the bottleneck for population studies). Overall, I am kind of curious, though I fear that there may be unforeseeable issues with that level of information sharing.

It is a fundamentally different approach for an entirely different situation. In OP you clearly defined it as an alternative to vaccination and asked why it is not used as such. But again, it is for a different purpose. It does not, as you claim, provide immunity (at least not comparable to vaccinations). That being said immunoglobulin therapies are already in use e.g. for folks with immune disorders or some other forms of complications. There, prophylactic use can be indicated, but only for certain conditions (i.e. high risk of infections). These treatments are not targeted though (i.e. not need for engineered antibodies). Specifically for flu, there is experimental evidence in animal models that infusion with immunoglobulins (again, non-specific and non-engineered) may ameliorate symptoms of infected individuals. However, relatively high amounts are needed, the precise mechanisms are not quite clear. Targeted approaches using engineered antibodies are likely to have a far lower efficacy as one would severely limit the target range. Other than those therapies there are also more targeted uses of antibodies, such as as antivenom, but again, they are specific and usually responsive treatments. Another scenario is post-exposure prophylaxis. E.g. folks that got into contact with highly contagious diseases could be offered immunoglobulin injections. If you are thinking of continuous transfer of IG as a form of immunization, it has several downsides. Long-term therapies have a range of side effects, which are acceptable if health of patient is at risk, but not if there is no indication. And also far more expensive than vaccines. So as a whole, it does serve a different niche than vaccines and is not really a viable alternative at this juncture.

I think OP is misunderstand the role of politicians. They do not pitch specific approaches or methodologies. What they pitch are e.g. policy positions. I.e. they could run on a platform that offers tax credit for reducing carbon blueprints or offer research/development funds for folks developing improved carbon sequestration methodologies. Saying that this is the specific way I want it to realize is a) not the job of a politician and b) can be easily lead to conflicts of interest.

So VWR sells some self-branded products but for many things they are a re-seller. They are a typical lab supplier, meaning that you can get things from regular highschool needs to highest quality/purity things. For the most part they are not dirt cheap, though. I buy things from them for my lab, of course, but if you really need something cheap and do not mind low quality there may be cheaper options (including e.g. ebay). That being said, there are budget lines of wares that still satisfy most common lab requirements that are relatively affordable.

Hmm, possible. It is probably not what I would associate with "typical" comedy (I did have stand-up and sketches in mind). But now that I think beyond that I can see that some may enjoy e.g. plump stereotyping without contextualization or sense of irony.

Fair enough. I mean, some folks find clowns funny. Edit: typically, the reason why folks do find it funny rather than offensive is the presumption of the fact that the comedian is actually making fun of something and are not just simply being offensive. With the current context some jokes from Louis CK and Bill Cosby just somehow don't work well anymore...

They can be, but they require a skillful buildup. Just launching into controversies is rarely funny for its own sake. As you said, it requires quite a bit of work.

I think that is the whole point. After all if it wasn't that, why would it be funny to begin with? A good joke often relies to some degree on a surprising change of perception on something that the audience is familiar with. Being offensive just alone is not terribly funny, even if one adds that it was just a joke. Setting up the offensive bit as the punchline (i.e. contextualize it in a manner) can be.

You have to understand that immunoglobins, just as other proteins, do not stick around forever. I.e. an injection of antibodies is not an immunization. Rather it allows to address an ongoing situation (which is done in immunoglobulin therapies). However, it does not protect for infections that have not happened yet, as vaccines do.

There are lab suppliers (e.g. VWR, Fisher, Cole-Parmer, Carl Roth and others) that you could take a look at. They often offer discounts if the school opens an account with them.

The main transmission route is via inhalation, and subsequent infection via mucous surfaces. So skin thickness is not an issue. And of course animals have a wide range of different skin composition (not to mention that thickness even varies between body location), i.e. humans do not have thinner skin compared to other animals per se.

Using I initialisms without spelling them out once often make things unnecessarily confusing. Do you mean green fluorescent protein? They can be extracted as other proteins. If you need them in higher purity, you best bet are overexpression with tags.

That is part of my point. If e.g. the various sources happened to be social media it would do little to improve things. Also it appears that they are an increasing source of news for folks younger than 24.

There are a few caveats I'd like to add, some of which are entirely based on my personal ignorance. First, the study is based on a British cohort. I have no real insight into the British media landscape, but I believe having a strong public broadcasting system mitigates some of the issues. I am also not sure whether there are regulations in terms of journalistic integrity. As a whole, though, I found that in parts in Europe there were more calls to mitigate fake reporting. The second part is that the study is based on self-reporting with indications of validation e.g. using offline sources. While difficult to compare the rate seems way higher than other questionnaires that look at media use habits where in certain age groups offline sources where only a small proportion of the media diet. Also, the did not mention the media sources so I am not entirely sure whether they could really draw diversity out of it. But maybe I just missed it by skimming over the paper and would have to re-read it a later time. But for now I tentatively treat it as good news...

Indeed. There are some folks who are excellent in public engagement and often inject humour to make sure that folks understand the caveats while being entertained. Still, those are typically 10-40 min talks, and not 10 second soundbites. Yet, I assume they can be easily be countered by someone repeating a falsehood with a catchy slogan. Or even better, something that validates people's fear (regardless whether factual or not).