CharonY

To some degree that is being done, but it takes a while to verify omicron cases as most cases need to be verified via sequencing, which has a significant delay (frequently around a week) before the data comes out. Edit: I should add that some producers of rapid tests have come out and said that their product will detect omicron, but I have not seen independent studies or results so far.

We had a briefing recently suggesting that lateral flow tests are likely not compromised, however as of last week I have not seen any larger scale data (the presented report was only on a handful of positive patients). I should add, that part of the careful optimism in that regard is because omicron only has few mutations in the nucleocapsid gene. Two seem to be specific to omicron (PI3L and Del31/33), so there is some effort to check out whether those could alter the results, whereas the two other commonly observed mutations were already found in alpha, for example.

In my earlier post I also forgot to add a biggie: - worldwide collaboration: Some countries cannot enact measures because of their limited resources. It is critical that richer countries help out as otherwise we would create reservoirs of a given infectious disease. Stamping it out is in all our interest. Related to that, vaccines and treatments must be made affordable to everyone. Again, if only the rich countries defend themselves and let the disease rage elsewhere we have little chance to stop a pandemic. In fact, if anything this pandemic has demonstrated that an egoistic approach is ultimately harmful to us all (I would very much to have at least that as a take-home message, but I have little confidence that it will be one).

As I said before, it is one viable model. Having even the majority working using one model, does not invalidate others. And obviously specifically researching the spectrum of sex is a specialized research area and will have fewer folks work on it then more general research where folks might prefer to work on simplified divisions. The latter is problematic, however, as it turns out that risks conditions are better traced by e.g. monitoring the levels and changes of e.g. sex hormones, rather than looking at other markers of sex (e.g. chromosomes). That being said, there are at least 3k articles dating back to the 50s looking at the range of intersex we can find. And as you know, in science we often have slightly different models in order to address different questions.

A couple of thoughts regarding OP: 1) No-COVID policies seem to work, looking at New Zealand or China, for a time at least. In order to stamp out alone (i.e. without waiting for vaccine) international coordinated efforts would be necessary, which could be trick, which relates to point 3. Fundamentally we always needs some movement to keep the supply chain moving. It would be necessary to prioritize essential functions (e.g. deploying regular tests) and lock down non-essential functions. A bit issue is the time delay from rise of new disease, the first verification of the nature of the disease and the development of a clinical assay. Until that is done, spread could already be underway. Europe was warned eventually of SARS-COV-2 but until they clinically verified cases, it was already spreading for a while. 2) I don't disagree, a bit issue is that many governments were afraid to do the wrong thing and basically did nothing for an extended time period. Countries that had better outcomes had a task force for infectious diseases in place and gave them tools and funds to actually do something. In others, leadership (speak: politicians) coordinated efforts and often diluted down recommendations by health specialists. Some countries did that and could avoid lockdowns by employing aggressive contact tracing policies. However, most Western countries ultimately failed to do so. They lacked resources and basically after a few contact points the system broke down. 3) It would require a total shutdown of travel for basically every country, not only those with reported outbreaks. This is related to the fact that we have an incomplete view of spread, especially in the early phases of a pandemic. If only affected countries are banned, then still ongoing traffic from other countries can still go on. We again observed that with this pandemic, where e.g. most travel-related cases in the US came from Europe. We also see it with the rapid spread of omicron. By the time it was identified, it already traveled around the world. And this is already with tools in place. I.e. an entirely new outbreak could have spread further and wider already. This makes it a bit difficult to assess whether travel bans for extended periods are really effective. That being said, banning non-essential travel in conjunction with mandatory isolation, contact tracing and testing seems to work well to stop further travel-related spread. 4) While it could be effective, it is obviously not feasible in a democracy. That being said, there is quite a lot of ground to cover between human rights abuse and compelling folks to take certain measures, including fines and other sanctions. Even before China locked down there was tons of information in press. I have no idea how that would be considered keeping it secret. Rather there was complacency in the public as e.g. SARS only caused relatively few deaths and folks assumed it would follow a similar trajectory. A couple of realizations happened later, such as the ability to spread in pre-symptomatic folks, which was a game-changer for epidemiologists but the urgency following that was barely heard by the public. OTOH if scientists were more panicky from the get-go, folks might have dismissed it, too, so a bit of a lose-lose situation. The issue that my colleagues in the health authorities have is that if they are free to communicate the political leaders often water down their messages so that their response seem more effective than they are. If they are allowed to speak freely, they have repeatedly e.g. sent the message of overflowing ICUs, overworked staff and other critical issues. These then promptly get ignored by the local government, who try to spin it positively somehow or at some point even muzzle health officials. In other words, a health task force must be freed from political shackles to be effective. We have seen worldwide how politicking has critically affected health responses (probably nowhere as obvious as in Brazil or the USA). But then much of the stupid spreads from social media. Even among our students taking infectious disease classes we have quite a few who are misinformed because of some stupid video they saw on youtube. This form of propaganda has proved to be deadly. One of the things that has not been mentioned yet is better monitoring: we need to get a better view of new diseases and their spread. Clinical tests will only provide information after the fact. If you have one positive, you likely already have more that you did not see. We have developed or revived a number of tools (e.g. wastewater monitoring, metagenomics) but to maintain such programs costs money and effort. Usually they are shut down after a few years at most. In addition, there is the question whether our current surveillance system (based on reporting to health authorities) is really sufficient. As mentioned before, there was some warning time in the early phases of the pandemic, yet most countries struggled to identify and report outbreaks in time. While China has deservedly received criticism for its failure to report and/or suppress evidence of a new disease, I am not entirely certain whether the reporting structures in other places would be enough to capture and report COVID-19 faster. Preparedness. We need persons and mechanisms in place to implement pandemic measures but also maintain the ability to do so over years. If a committee is formed to select persons once the pandemic hits it is arguably too late. Countries that have done well had implemented such a task force based on SARS and have kept those groups going until this one hit. And for the most part it paid off. Long-term vision. There must be a long-term commitment to these plans. No one can say where the next disease will come from nor when. If we always plan to the next fiscal period or election, we risk being caught unawares again and again. Communication has been mentioned before, but there are a few things that I want to add to which I have no real answers. A big issue is that the public wants simple messages (mask on or mask off) and feel that they understand what is going on, but do not really want to deal with the details. I.e. why mask policies change. The issue is therefore that if new findings come up or the situation changes, folks get discontent because the initial message clashes with the new ones, even if it makes perfect sense from a medical perspective. For example many struggle with the term "fully vaccinated" as most assume total immunity against infections and never have to deal with the virus again. Explaining the intricacies of boosters and waning of immune responses and so on, helps to some degree (I think we reached the majority of a given audience, especially when we can address their questions directly), but then there is always a group that uses their lack of understanding as evidence of something... sinister perhaps? I am therefore not entirely sure where the balance of dumbing down and still being accurate should be.

There is not necessarily a need for one. I.e. if we only want to discuss reproduction, we certainly can ignore infertile groups for the most part. This is one of the various cases where a binary classification is useful and as routinely done. However, I interpreted the OP as broader, as in: "does sex only exist in a binary classification system". As a biologist the almost automatic answer is "no" as basically every classification scheme we have is just a simplification in which almost always cases are found which do not fit these schemes (there are many things that are taught as being universal, except when they aren't, such as e.g. species, or the genetic code). Whether we need to use or address those elements in our scheme depends highly on what we use the classification for. If, for example we solely look at reproduction as a particular trait, then of course we would not need to consider infertile variants. If, on the other hand the question is can we cover the whole human variety that exist just using two sexes, well, in this thread no one managed to create a definition that would have not at least some group falling outside of it, which by definition does not cover the whole variety that exists. To provide an alternative approach to visualize but also categorize sex, which biologically exists in a continuum, in a more concise way some developmental biologists in the 50s tried to create a model of sexual development in humans. Fundamentally the idea is to look at the various steps starting from the karyotype to the full development of sexual organs and organize them into layers. So for example the karyotype would be considered the first element or layer which would be the genetic basis for the following development. The second layer is then when embryonic endocrine organs are formed that make hormones that push development more toward a male or female direction. Then in interaction with those, the next step would be the formation of internal reproductive organs then shaping external sexual organs etc. (I am sure that I missed some finer points but you get the idea). However, the folks who developed this model where especially interested in what they called intersex- i.e. those where either one or multiple of these layers where not clearly in the one or the other extreme. The karyotype could be fully male for example, but much of the internal and external organs would look female (so you could classify layer one as entirely male, but layers two is a bit indetermined resulting in the following layers looking female, for example). Each of the layers is non-binary as individuals would fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person that we would consider archetypical male would therefore fall mostly on the male side at each of these layers, a female on the opposite. However, persons that do not consistently are in or the either end (or perhaps are somewhere in the middle in some of those layers) could be considered intersex or at least on the extreme end of one of the genders (e.g. someone with a micropenis but otherwise fitting in the male categories in the other layers otherwise). So that is an example of an alternative model of sex, which tries to capture the complexity of sex and was developed in order to understand the concept of intersex. And before someone accuses science of following some current political agendas, this model was developed sometime in the 50s which, to my knowledge, is not generally considered to be overrun by SWJs. But at the same time, the folks stopped short of developing a new classification scheme, it was more a descriptive model to a broader range of human sexual elements which would not be possible if we just ignored the presence of those falling outside an exclusive binary scheme. These thoughts have been polished over the years and the mechanisms in each of these layers have been more tightly connected to complex signaling networks which are not simply on or off (i.e. binary) but you can imagine various parts of the network pushing into one, whereas other elements pull in another direction (for each element, i.e. gonadal development, sex organ development etc.) and as such at each step you have a range of possible outcomes (which also depends on external factors, such as exposure to xenoestrogens). But that being said, it is a model used in a particular context, but is likely to unwieldy if one is really not interested in the finer developmental differences between individuals.

This view is not based on politics, but the fact that nature is more complicated than our ability to cover it using a simple system. Both for common as well as scientific usage we can use a range of definitions, which have been explored to death and there is nothing wrong with either a karyotype or reproductive function per se. But since biology is always fuzzy at the edges, there simply won't be something perfect we ca use. Even if we create a better category, chances are that it won't align well with common usage and may remain an academic exercise.

It is how we define evolution. Evolution happens at the population level and essentially is just the change of a gene pool over time. Based on these definitions and individual cannot evolve. I.e. evolution is not another term for "change". Moreover, metamorphosis or similar mechanisms do not change the genetics of an organism. We would describe that as developmental changes and not evolution. Individuals can accumulate mutations in various parts of their body over time, of course, but that is more related to aging or related processes. I will also add that while OP was relatively close to science fiction, I think further speculation regarding an immortal society would be much better suited for a speculations thread rather than in the evolution section.

Assuming that folks become immortal and that there are reductions in offspring, in principle the gene pool would remain (mostly) static. Basically there are not generational changes as there are no generations.

Well, considering that this thread in the biology section I feel obliged to state that devolving is not a thing in biology. Evolution essentially means change (of the gene pool) and there is not direction attached to it.

If we assume that the policy of strategic ambiguity ultimately failed and we enter an open conflict I am fairly sure that the US will have to intervene. There is rare bipartisan support for the defense of Taiwan (be it due to ongoing commitments, stance against China and it expansive ambitions, protection of other allies in the pacific and so on). There are calls to end strategic ambiguity, but in favour of a more open commitment to defend Taiwan. And again, much of it is fueled by the view of China as the more important strategic threat (compared to Russia). As a whole, I see more elements in play that favour an intervention in a China-Tawan conflict as between Ukraine and Russia. In addition the stability in Taiwan also makes it difficult to justify a Russia-style takeover.

Just for clarification, should we assume a military intervention and discuss the likely US response or does the discussion include the likelihood of military actions in the first place?

I have read mixed reports in terms of efficiency of such filters, and I was not actually aware that they were widespread. From a report last year I was under the impression that worldwide only four such plants existed worldwide (Norway, Japan and two in the Netherlands). These carbon capture system, which effective (I believe Norway reported up to 90% capture) is more complex and expensive than simply adding a filter.

That may be true, but at some point there must be some kind of power takeover. Either boots on the ground or some politicians moving in replacing the existing ruling class. I can see how the conflict plays out on that level, but I have a hard time imagining the takeover procedure. Because I think that will eventually trigger US responses (or not).

There is a bit of a discussion about the role of landfills as emitters of GHG. However, when it comes to wood products, it depends on the decomposition rate, which will obviously vary quite a bit. For example, in a study by an Australian group (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.11.006) they found no loss of dry mass within 29 years and found loss of ~18% of the carbon content over 46 years. This indicates that release of GHG from wood might be rather slow at least for the tested landfills and would function as sinks for some time, whereas burning would rather quickly release the carbon. One would balance that calculation with the carbon released from using alternate energy sources. I.e. if the power could be obtained from solar, hydro and/or nuclear power, then landfills might be a better option. If coal is used instead, perhaps not.

I am not entirely sure how that would work in terms of power takeover. Do you mean information warfare and creating sufficient unrest to step in? If so, I would agree that it would be on option, considering that it was rather successful in creating effective pro-virus organizations in the midst of a pandemic. However, part of the tension is because in Taiwan the sense of independence has become somewhat more vocal (though openly a vague status quo is still preferred over open conflict). Moreover, over the last few decades, Taiwanese identity has become a thing. In the past, the Kuomintang (Chiang's party) has seen itself as the legitimate China and the ruling class also considered themselves Chinese, whereas the population that was already there saw themselves as a broad mix of identities and especially the older population identified themselves culturally closer to Japanese and did not speak Mandarin. However, after the Kuomintang arrived on Taiwan, they made Mandarin the official language and other dialects and languages were banned from school and other public places. This resulted in households where multiple languages were used to speak between generations and the identity of the Taiwanese people was conflicted to say the least. Now it seems that a new, separate identity has emerged within the younger generation and the desire to be distinct from mainland China is probably the strongest it has been since the post-war generation. In contrast, unification is only supported by a very fringe, so creating discordance in that area is not that easy (but again, one would think that a deadly pandemic would be an unifier for humanity and it turned out not to be). I will also note that in the past there have been open conflict between Taiwan and China with regard to offshore islands resulted in exchange of fire (literally) from the 50s to the late 70s. The situation seems to revert to days of those conflicts again. I am very doubtful of a Russian-style invasion of the Ukraine happening in Taiwan as the diplomatic ambiguity was carefully designed to create uncertainty for such an event. Conversely, parties with vested interest in the conflict, especially Japan, will push the US heavily into intervention. I have doubts that the US will let China project its power unchecked in that region and lose several allies in the process.

Another thing that comes to mind when looking at how fast new variants spread, is how impossible it is to stop a virus with these characteristics. Even with tests in place, we are unable to contain worldwide spread, which does not bode well for the next possible pandemic.

I think taking over would not be trivial. It is not like China has a foot in the door and while economic ties have deepened, there was always an anti-mainland sentiment first from the older generation, because of remembered history, but the Taiwan eventually became democratic and younger folks now are for the most part not willing to give it up. So a soft takeover seems very unlikely, but how would a military takeover look like? A full on invasion is more likely to trigger a defensive response, and especially Japan will push for it. If China gets away with a military takeover, many other countries will become very nervous indeed. Otoh I wouldbe surprised if the Chinese government does not realize that such an action could further destabililize the situation and am not sure whether they think it would be worth the risk. I would think that they will try their hardest to get pro-China support and use that to make a semi-soft power projection.

I do not think your assessment is accurate (except in the vaguest possible sense). Taiwan's history is complex with many changing hands. But if we start in the late 19th century to the end of WWII, Taiwan was a Japanese model colony and a blueprint of what the Japanese vision of a Pan-Asian system under Japanese rule might have been. Toward the end of WWII there was also a civil war in mainland China between Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Republic of China and Mao Tse-tung. Chiang eventually lost and fled to Taiwan, which he declared to be new seat of power of the Republic of China. For some time they were seen as the legitimate government of mainland China in exile, though obviously that did not hold for very long. So technically if there was a mutiny, it was committed by the People's Republic of China against the Republic of China (and not the other way round).

The characterization is a bit strange as agricultural exports are barely a blip in Taiwan's economy, its largest exports have been electronics for a long while. The trade volume with the US is not huge, but still totaled 100 billion which is about 70-80 billion less compared to Germany or UK. This would still roughly place Taiwan among the top 10 US trading partners. I would also argue that especially due to its location Taiwan would be a strategic asset.

I am not aware of web-based tools. Most that I have used require some time of database of retention times for time correction and many are integrated into certain packages (such as Skyline). There are also others, including commercial packages, but I never used any of them Ultimately I found it easier to just create your own database using reference standards as the predictions were not super accurate and I found them most useful except to screen out compounds (might be different for you application). But especially with modified peptides things are tricky. I faintly recall an open source model that was called OPERA-RT (I think). But have no experience with it.

I actually wanted to write a topic on that paper but more in form of a critique, then forgot about it. Luckily here is an article that echoes a lot of my thoughts on it. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/mobile-clusters-of-cells-can-help-assemble-a-mini-version-of-themselves/

1) they are not necessary, but depending on t quality of your sample prep it can help reduce contamination, and improve signal quality however, 2) depending on the volume of your zip tips (10 vs 100 ul, for example) and the sensitivity of your instrument as well as you should have enough to see something. But if whether you see enough depends on your sample and application. Generally I see significant loss of protein digests (up to 70%) and that may or may not be an issue for you. You often also lose e.g. very hydrophilic or very hydrophobic peptides along the way. If you have a very well defined and/or low complexity sample, I would use them, especially in conjunction with a nano-LC to keep your system happy. If purity is an issue, I would also use them. However, if sample loss is the dominant issue, then it may not be the best way. 3) I would not do it. Theoretically you could try to regenerate the material, but you will like get cross-contamination and the capacity might degrade. 4) can't think of any papers off the top of my head. Most that describe their use have some weird modifications which presumably help with sample prep, but in real applications rarely had any impact (in my experience).

That is certainly true. Most students do not realize that a lecture is supposed to be a general guidance to the material, and is not the material itself.

I would also add that effectiveness is typically more dependent on the student than on the lecture itself. Lectures generally gives you an idea of a topic with some examples. However mastery of the subject requires additional engagement with the subject. At least if you want to go beyond just the next exam.