CharonY

All of the ones mentioned are able are food-borne diseases, i.e. they are able to survive and multiply after ingestion (which is why I listed them, though intestinal infection with C. botulinum is perhaps less common). But as I mentioned, a single EHEC is very unlikely to establish infection (for a variety of reasons, some related to the pathobiology and expression of the mentioned Shiga toxin, which is partially regulated via quorum sensing and requires some cell density in order to establish successful infections and to compete with the existing microbiota, which includes other E. coli), though 10-100 is pretty much at the lower end of observed dosages for bacteria.

I do not think they can be as low as a single bacterium, but EHEC has been reported as low as 10-100 bacteria. However, much of its action is due to the Shiga toxin. Among gut infections I would probably be more worried about Clostridium difficile which is extremely difficult to get rid off (due to high resistance to antibiotics). The toxin of Clostridium botulinum is of course famously nasty though luckily not that common. Listeria are also nasty, with a case fatality perhaps around 5x that of EHEC. They can grow slowly at low temp, but typically do not exhibit gastrointestinal symptoms. Instead often unspecific symptoms of inflammation are found making it often very difficult to diagnose. One should also make sure that the lines are not e.g. leaching lead. One thing I learned from colleagues who are specialist for water safety is that in many first world countries (including Canada, USA and perhaps also Australia) there are often surprisingly few mandatory regulations. Now, I proceeded to put my fingers in my ears and pretended not to have heard it, so I am a bit hazy on the details but my faith in drinking water has been shaken a little bit. But from what I understand is that while the overall guiding principle is that the water is safe to drink, it can vary regionally what it means in terms of e.g. bacterial load or how frequently the sources are tested for such or other contaminations (or which contaminations are regular tested for).

I am not entirely sure what relevance that has. If we focus on Canada, in the smallpox epidemic in Montreal (1880s) resulted in mandatory vaccination efforts which were almost immediately met with riots. In response to the Vaccination Act passed shortly after the epidemic. Various anti-vaccination groups formed in response and among them the Anti-Vaccination League of Canada. Throughout the early 1900s lengthy back-and-forth between medical boards and the anti vaccination group(s) followed, with many arguments that we see today (i.e. harm of vaccines, limits of personal freedom etc.). There was far more dismissal of layperson at the time with call for trust in the medical profession, but otherwise, well much of it could be facebook posts. Incidentally there were also hiccups in vaccine rollout and so on. Based from these movement, numerous successor groups formed, and persisted through postwar times and after effective end of smallpox in 1979 they focused on pertussis vaccines. Some of their "successes" include the amendment of to an 80s act which barred children from folks if they were unvaccinated to allow exemptions based on conscience, on top of religious exemptions. There were also other, international groups throughout starting from the beginning of mass vaccinations and having various impact on legislature. I.e. there were many, many organized anti-vaccination efforts in Canada, and chances are that you simply have not followed those discussions. Probably in part because you were young and not directly exposed to anti-vaxxers. Nowadays folks overshare and they seem to be everywhere as a result. To me it seems that is what Quebec is doing. They mandate the vaccine and if you don't comply (and have no exemption) you'll be fined. I am not sure what the alternative is beside jailing or forcibly injecting, both of which would probably even more problematic (I mean, some have mentioned using modified blowdarts...).

Perhaps you could explain the difference a bit better. From the report it seems that unvaccinated folks would suffer a financial penalty and in various reports they were called "fine", "tax", "fee" or simply "penalty". So I am not entirely sure why you think that it is not a fine. Other countries are imposing penalties, too and, as mentioned it has happened in the past. I kind of fail to see a difference that you seem to see in what Quebec is doing, so perhaps you could elaborate the issue a bit. I have not seen details on the mechanism of the penalty so I am hazy how it is supposed to impact health care system. That's fair, but I think we have drifted quite a bit in various direction in the rather lengthy thread, since we are back on track, I suppose the intermission won't hurt too much

The latter part is quite critical and age is also an issue. A parent (~80s) of a friend died shortly before vaccines became available. While the infection was diagnosed, the complications set in so fast that they died before much could be done. Another elderly relative of a colleague was fully vaccinated but got infected. Detoriation was much slower but the hospital ran out of ventilators... Looking at infection numbers we are measuring (and estimating the part that we are not measuring), I get chills (hopefully just a psychological reaction) just thinking what would have happened if Omicron hit us without vaccines.

Depends a bit on study and reporting as well as the precise distinction between obesity and overweight. But looking at obesity brackets of BMI >30, studies often find perhaps a 5-8% difference between these countries. It should also be noted that not only obese folks are at risk, there is a steady increase of risk with increasing BMI (though it jumps a bit when we get to BMI >35). Nonetheless, the obesity/overweight levels in UK (~65%) are close enough to the US that they alone would explain observed differences. It is interesting to note that in many countries vaccination rates jump a bit with major events (such as vaccination mandates or new variants), indicating that some holdouts are not fundamentally opposed to vaccination but that they are doing a kind of personal cost/benefit calculation. Some surveys have shown that the ability to go to clubs or similar venues contributed quite a bit to vaccination willingness. Based on anecdotes from students quite a few (even after such a long time in the pandemic) they still assumed that it was not important for them and only decided to get vaccinated because they needed it e.g. for travel or getting on campus. That, somewhat frighteningly, highlights how badly informed the presumed next generation of intellectual elites is.

Absolutely, my wife has used some old headlines as well as some snippets of discussions and articles from the 1918 pandemic in her classes. And only after discussion she revealed from when these articles where from. The fun bit is that many students picked up on the old arguments (e.g. vaccine safety, or the idea of naturally boosting your immune system) while thinking that these are new ideas based on latest science, showing the circular nature on how we are dealing with outbreaks. Yes that's how I feel. Sometimes it goes so fast, I hardly trust my own memories. I now slowly understand why some older folks kept archives of newspapers at home...

Oh gosh, if we had a child we would be done for. It is hard enough to keep the students safe (in the lab) and instead of winding down our COVID-19 work (as funding agencies were suggesting) things are picking up (been writing reports until 4AM and decided to just continue). I hope you all stay healthy!

On top of that, testing has been a bit of a problem in the US. While tests are always underestimating the true spread of SARS-CoV-2, the UK has a better and somewhat more centralized system in place. Especially during the ongoing Omicron surge, many areas in the US are likely disproportionately underreporting cases. I.e. in the US we are likely looking at a far more severe spread. The analysis in the article only looks at hospitalization per population and not relative to cases, and therefore misses on important context.

I think part of it is that we often build narratives for our own personal histories and then also apply them to the past and future. It sometimes feels that we only have a short-lived bubble of reality and anything beyond that is susceptible to distortions of own memories as well as external narratives (I don't think I am expressing myself clearly here, but right now I am too tired to try to formulate it properly). In a way, the amount of information we got nowadays made us remember less, not more, I feel sometimes.

Also, starting in Victorian times in the UK and elsewhere vaccines against e.g. smallpox were mandatory. Fines were implemented due to non-compliance. It was basically the same issue as now. If there was a slippery slope, we would expect progression somewhere. Yet here we are pretending that this new, indicating that no slope is present. We are back at the top of the presumed slide again. Moreover tax burden have gone up and down over the long term, when accounting for inflation. See below a plot of tax burden in Canada, which clearly refutes the always increases parts. While there is discussion to be had regarding impact, we should make sure we keep the facts straight. Moreover, we have over 100 years of precedence of pretty much the same discussion, so it is not like we are in entirely new territory. Rather than a "it's starting" situation we are in a "it's happening again" sort of thing. Perhaps the next pandemic will happen soon enough that we don't forget, but considering all we have seen i am prepared to assume that we will be absolutely surprised again on all levels and rehash all points. I will say that it is unclear whether fines are more effective than e.g. mandates and social media likely has changed the game.

! Moderator Note Please keep all the very similar topics contained to this thread.

I do not disagree, though I do see that a surprising number of students are unwilling or unable to, say, read the syllabus. It is annoying if you spend 10 minutes explaining what they are supposed to do (with slides) and the next question is basically asking how you are supposed to do it without any indication that they listened to what I was just talking about. Bonus points if the answer is actually on the slide that is still on.

I think the discussion is missing another component and I think it is a bit related to how some students thing about assignments. It appears that some think that the purpose of such assignments is to figure out the right answers. However, especially at lower level, the idea is to learn how to think critically and write assays. That does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, you get instructions on the approach (what are sources, which sources are for what purpose, how to do you read sources, how do you distill information) as well as either the specific or at least related topics and then you are expected to first at least try to emulate what you learned. From there you get a critique about what you did well and what not. The latter is then used to improve on your next assignment. Unfortunately folks often think in terms of failure or success and do not try to improve if they don't hit it out of the park on their first try. Copying gives a feeling of success (if one happens to get away with it) and I fear that this what most folks are after (well and grades). I also think that the grading system has become screwed up. In the past you used the whole range so that folks have a range where they can see their improvement. Now the evaluation bands have become so narrow it is almost like a pass/fail system.

I think folks that want to invoke the slippery slope should provide some historic data to substantiate such claims. Too often it just a single data point extrapolation. The whole current situation looks like a repeat of the 1918 pandemic (or measles or smallpox etc.), but in colour.

Well the target would depend on what you are actually taxing (say, unprotected sex). But there would be a lot to unpack here, especially as sodomy laws were actually on the books, but for entirely different reasons. Also, with regard to HIV there are actually protective laws in place and in many countries, where it is required to disclose HIV positivity to potential sexual partners. IOW, there are laws in place targeted at curbing transmissions. I will also say that this discussion is not new. Smallpox vaccinations in the early 20th century was made mandatory in many countries. In the fines for non-compliance went to the supreme court and was upheld. In fact, it is part of a much longer discussion regarding how much a society should compel individuals to minimize risk to themselves and others and it is not an easy either/or situation. But it is also not a simple slippery slope situation, either. Looking back we had have many, many of those regulations, some based on moral considerations, others based on immediate emergencies and so on. Some of those have been eventually removed as society changed their attitudes, others still persist. But what has not happened is that our society has been increasingly constrained by ever-expanding regulations or governmental control. Things have come and gone, depending on the attitudes of a given generation and if anything, the world now appears more complex due to the availability of more information and higher interconnectivity. Finding the right approach appears more difficult than ever, but in part it is because we realized that things we did actually do not work.

I think that is a false equivalency. Neither of these conditions are contagious. Edit: Also, alcohol is already severely taxed in Canada, so is tobacco. Assuming these measures are ideology-based, it would indicate that they are historically ingrained. Likewise, I presume, measures like fines for not wearing seatbelts and drunk driving. The latter are perhaps a better comparison as those also increase of risks surrounding the individual.

I suppose we can just state that neither is conducive to learning or critical thinking and then move on.

It seems to me that dimreepr might conflate plagiarism (passing someone's thoughts as one's own) with parroting.

It's great that it wasn't more severe. Looking at the current spread we are somewhat lucky that it only arrived after vaccines were available and more expertise in treating patients have been developed. If the first or second wave happened at that speed, the outcome would have disastrous, even if severity was lower on the individual level.

Well, to be honest part of it is the procedure involved in fully failing students. It is a rather drawn out process, students are now much more likely to appeal even without grounds and you have document a lot things, which I frankly do not have the time for. On top Dean's is overloaded due to the spike during online teaching so there is a bit of pressure to get things over as fast as possible. Also, we are not allowed to block students (or at least heavily discouraged from doing so). Our Admin unfortunately has given in to the "students are clients" attitude and, to my disappointment, it is seeping through. Students are in for the certificate and those with genuine interest seem to be getting fewer and fewer each year. But then, I do not see myself as a gatekeeper of competence (except for my research group). If that is what students, administration and politics think how educations is supposed to be I do not have the energy to fight them.

Absolutely. Or rather, I think that the idea flip-flops depending on how you approach it. Obviously the connection is well-recognized, otherwise we would not use so many psychoactive drugs for treatment. And we have long known that our psychological sensations are integrated in the brain. Yet, we do not fully understand the connections and it is often simpler to talk about the one or the other. Placebos are one of the fascinating areas where both heavily overlap.

That is very likely to be true. In our own analyses we found that within ~2.5 weeks of showing up it has pretty much replaced Delta. So there are a few things related to that. First, yes ACE2 receptors are docking sites of the virus and in Omicron one piece of the puzzle seems to be that the spike protein-ACE2 receptor interaction is much tighter than with earlier variants. However, the upper respiratory tract has also high levels of ACE2 receptors (as well as other organs) and the upper respiratory tract is known to be an entry point also for earlier variants (the often reported loss of smell is one of consequences). The question then becomes why it does not spread or colonize the lungs that efficiently. There are are several lines of investigation underway to look at that. In vitro studies suggested (Zhang et al., cannot recall the journal of the top of my head) found that two additional serine proteases promote the entry of SARS-CoV-2 (TMPRSS2 and 4). Conversely, Omicron seems not to use that pathway to enter, instead using a TMPRSS2-independent endosomal fusion pathway (i.e. a different way to enter after docking). These proteases are abundant in the lung, but much less so in the upper respiratory tract which would at least explain much higher efficiency in colonizing the upper respiratory tract. That being said, this data alone does not entirely explain why they seem to colonize lungs somewhat less efficiently yet.

There are a lot of medical microbiology textbooks specifically for nursing students.

If you just copy, you don't understand.