Jump to content

CharonY

Moderators
  • Content Count

    10672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

CharonY last won the day on April 25

CharonY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2423 Glorious Leader

8 Followers

About CharonY

  • Rank
    Biology Expert

Profile Information

  • Location
    somewhere in the Americas.
  • Interests
    Breathing. I enjoy it a lot, when I can.
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology/ (post-)genome research
  • Biography
    Labrat turned grantrat.

Recent Profile Visitors

65997 profile views
  1. Also to emphasize that the article I linked also shows that the US private space sector has raised much more than the Chinese private sector.
  2. It is not an either or question. China also has a fledgling private space industry (mostly involved in satellite delivery). https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/ And looking at an apple-to-apple comparison the Chinese private sector has total lower volume in investments than their US counterparts. Also regarding unilateralism, the US congress has banned NASA from any bilateral agreements with China (with few exceptions). However, with respect to the Chinese space station, there are at least agreements with the Italian
  3. In other words, all of them had at best a science-based education, but none of them worked in any capacity as scientists.
  4. A new report has provided new estimates for COVID-19 deaths. Verified death numbers obviously are a lower estimate. By looking at excess deaths and accounting for non-COVID-19 related deaths the authors estimate a current death toll of 6.9 millions globally (more than double of verified cases). In the US the estimated total deaths are over 900k. In the UK both numbers are closer (209k vs 150k).
  5. It got highlighted in the news for a while as fatal cases (often strokes) occurred also in younger (below 55) hospitalized patients. There are follow-up studies indicating that even after discharge COVID-19 patients were at a higher risk to suffer from thrombembolic events, so the numbers I provided above might actually underestimate the risk, if they only looked at the time during hospitalization (I honestly cannot recall the details, there is just so much being published and quite a bit of it is somewhat useless).
  6. In addition to what Phi and exchemist said, there are folks who have lost loved ones or know of folks who did. The whole outbreak was perpetuated by the inability of us to pull together and do the right thing. The fact that even now, when the chance of herd immunity is slipping away there folks who cannot think beyond their own benefit is galling, to say the least.
  7. We could shorten the discussion by simply stating that a) there is no age group where providing the vaccine does not benefit the population as a whole and b) with the potential exception of under 20 year olds there is no age group where vaccination does not significantly reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes. And even then in younger folks it would depend a lot on active case numbers and other factors, which goes back to a). I mean, theoretically you can avoid those risks altogether by isolating alone indefinitely in a bunker, but that likely carries other health risks.
  8. There are values actually published and circulated in various news (I could try to find them, but it was maybe a few weeks ago). There is a bit of a problem with how the reporting should be done, as there are different thromboses risks. Looking at the published numbers The result was about a 10 fold higher level in COVID-19 patients. In the study the calculated rate was about 40 per million CVST (the form of thrombosis associated with AZ and J&J) in COVID-patients and about 7 per million for mRNA vaccines. However that study did not (to my knowledge) include AZ and J&J vaccines
  9. This understanding is very wrong. As you mentioned the overall goal of vaccinations is to limit spread of the disease and thereby the creation of new variants that could increase morbidity in younger folks. This is happening right now, B.1.1.7 has resulted in much higher hospitalizations among younger folks. In many areas half the ICU cases are now under 40. However, even ignoring that, the risk of death drops with younger age, but even in the 30s it is still estimated at around 0.2%. This is way higher (orders of magnitudes) than any risk (i.e. not only counting death) from any vaccine.
  10. As mentioned, those folks are not trained scientists by education, but perhaps more importantly, they did not make money via science or research careers. It also helped that their respective families were relatively well-off (not sure about Bezos, tbh). If anything the example actually demonstrates that one should not have an academic career if wealth is the goal. In fact, academics tend to earn less over a career than their counterparts in industry. A part is that after a PhD entry salaries in many industries are at least decent, whereas postdoctoral salaries is often just somewhat
  11. You were talking about phages. They only work with bacteria and it is fairly to get a site specific construct. Also expression systems typically do not require site-specific insertion into the host genome. The goal there is not to modify the genome, but to express specific proteins (or RNA). Site-specific mutations of eukaryotes are an entirely different thing, but again, you would not use bacteriophages for that one. I mean, if you are actually interested there are a whole bunch of books (including open source textbooks) you could read on that topic.
  12. That's right. They looked vaguely familiar to me for some reason, that could be it.
  13. These are bacteriophages, i.e. they only infect bacteria and there is no need to use CRISPR. They have been used traditionally as a cloning vector since they do not care too much about what is packaged in their heads and can therefore be used for specialized transduction. Nowadays there are versatile in vitro systems that utilize viral recombination reactions which makes the virus itself redundant and can be used to e.g. create mammalian expression vectors and other purposes outside of bacteria.
  14. I would not frame it in evolutionary terms for a variety of reasons. The simplest being that I don't see a good reason to use that framework over classic cell biology. While it is not my field, I think that everyone promoting even only doubling of healthy lifespans is massively overhyping the little we actually understand. To me it seems like we just figured out how to somewhat reliably make fire and now want to create cold fusion based on what we just learned. There are many steps between and these have not been outlined in a satisfying way (and/or include hand waving away massive knowle
  15. Yeah the desire to get somewhere first or fast is not necessarily the friend of doing it safely, which also applies to manned Mars expeditions. NASA struggled with that, too (Challenger).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.