CharonY

I doubt that folks in the field have firm ideas on how to cure the disease at best there are treatment options to improve outcome. Also the cure for pandemic has been the same as forever: reducing spread by isolation and other means, a measure that many failed to take, btw. The virus seems to wreck havoc on several levels, disruption of the coagulation cascades seems to be one of them. There seems to be two questions here, one whether blood thinner can reduce or prevent deaths and the second whether it can prevent symptoms. The latter is highly unlikely (to my knowledge) as many symptoms are unrelated to blood clotting in the first place (or rather, hyperactivation of the complement cascade, which might cause the coagulation, is one of the downstream effects of a virus-induced dysfunction). The former, however, is far more likely. There have been a number of studies looking at that. In best cases, treatment with anticoagulants improved survival (in cohort studies roughly 20% higher survival rate). In others only the most severely sick ill people seemed to benefit (though they also reported major bleeding in some patients). None of these are randomized trials so evidence level is somewhat low. It is possible that stronger treatments could improve the outcome further, and there are ongoing trials. Fundamentally it appears that some folks do benefit from it more than others. If the assumption is whether folks taking blood thinners will not get sick at all then all I can say is there is zero evidence nor mechanism for that.

Has anyone asked them whether they want to resettle? Some folks are likely trying to, many others will prefer to stay. Quite a few want to fight for their rights in the face of an oppressive regime.

King Tut has been banned for being sockpuppet of Delberty, Brahms, Tunnel and others (also obvious trolling).

Actually I asked the same friend regarding starch and he mentioned that typically coconut flour should be virtually starch free. Based on the EU definitions, virtually any oligo and polysaccharides would fall under that category (though many of them would also fall under fibre).

Oh I think I know where the issue is. You are referring to the ingredient list, which actually has its own set of rules. I was referring to the nutritional labelling indicated by OP, which follows other rules and is mostly an indicator of nutrients. That part (i.e. the quantitative elements) are very superficial nutrient information in the outlined format above. With regard to blood glucose, the EU definition of sugars are mono or di-saccharides but excluding polyols. So polysaccharides such as starch, as Studiot pointed out, would fall outside that category. I know that in some countries dietary are included into carbohydrate section (e.g. Canada/USA) and others it is not. I am not sure how it is in the EU, but since the labelling indicates a separate category it seems that all fibres are excluded from that group, although most chemically are carbohydrates. Edit: I overlooked the part where tim.tdj actually said that the fibres are counted separately. I will say that the ratio from fibres and sugars seems to be bit off in the listed product. I was under the impression (i.e. friend with celiac disease told me) that coconut flour was fairly low on sugars (usually around 1:5 ratio).

I do not think that the guidelines are that strict in the UK. Going off https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/nutrition-labelling#mandatory-information So at least based on that, they are not really compelled to tell you what carbohydrates you actually have in your product other than sugar. Starch is optional. The longer form of various guidance documents provide details (e.g. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595961/Nutrition_Technical_Guidance.pdf) I am sure you can find more info on those pages, including how things are labelled but of note the minimum information seems to be carbohydrate of which - sugars -polyols (optional) -starch (optional)

It has been long assumed that in early hunter/gatherer societies job division was along gender lines. However, recent finding challenge the notion. After finding a skeleton that appeared to be female among a hunter burial site, researchers revisited the other skeletons using a proteomic analysis of enamel and together with osteological measurements they determined that altogether 11 out of 27 of bodies found with big-game hunting tools were actually female. It is an interesting study that challenges a notion that I assume most of us grew up with. Ref: Haas et al. Science Adv. 2020 6:45

It does not change anything about what has been discussed so far.

I have not read enough about that, but it is possible that different methodologies only reduce the error to ~5% (give or take). For a variety of types of polls this is actually fine. However, to the inflexibility of the US system, where huge chunk of the electorate are more or less fixed, there is only a narrow margin of votes going to determine outcomes. In turn, this might mean that polls as a whole are not terribly predictive for many US elections, unless there are big margins in swing states.

They are not. Most mutations are neutral and not selected against. That is the definition of neutral. They keep them. This is clearly not the case, a huge chunk of our DNA are areas that are duplicated, contain viral insertions and/or have otherwise accumulated bits and pieces. Typically there is no strong selection for eukaryotes to maintain a small genome size. The eukaryotic amoeboid Polychaos dubium has a genome size of 670 Gigabases (compared to 2.9 of the human genome), for example. In prokaryotes there is some benefit of keeping genome sizes compact, in part because it allows faster replication time.

The Ikea chairs (Markus and the on in op) have optional arm rests, but they are not adjustable.

I think I have read that many gaming chairs try to emulate racing seats and are not necessarily that ergonomic for their price. I have been eyeing the Herman Miller and Steelcase chairs. However, I am actually using Markus (Ikea) plus sit/stand desk at home and I never really felt the need to upgrade. I might change my mind if I actually was able to test one, but until then I have a hard time justifying the price hike when I actually do not have any complaints.

It is a bit funny that I know more about US politics than in other places which I live of have lived. But I think part of it is because it is fairly one-dimensional and thus easier to grasp (to some degree). It also highlights weaknesses in democracies. The slide of the Republicans into an alternative reality was like a slow-motion trainwreck and I am not even sure when it began. It certainly has memorable highlights, of which the tea party and Trump are just recent highlights. While there has been much talk about electability of moderates, the reality seems to show otherwise. The Republicans have become more and more conservative and extreme, but it does not look like the progressive wing of the Dems, simply because they are not a wing, they are the majority. In fact the few remaining moderate conservatives would probably be considered the mainstream right a while ago. Meanwhile the left wing of the Dems could be seen as more aligned with public sentiments when it comes to support of taxes for the rich, healthcare for all, livable wages and so on. In fact, recent polls indicated that instead of putting off voters, they were instrumental in getting otherwise non-voting folks out to vote. In the US going the middle road means being stranded, nowadays. It also is funny to see how the red scare is fading. A while ago communist and socialist were venomous insults and evoked enemies such as Russia. Nowadays it seems that in the Republican mindset Russia has been replaced by Democrats. The US looks like country with complete communication breakdown. However, it is not unique to them. Looking e.g. at Europe, parties with similar tendencies like the Reps now have become prominent over the years. In Germany I suspect because of the failures of the Trump administration the similar populist right-wing party (AfD) has been losing ground on the federal level, after getting tons of support, especially in the aftermath of the migrant and refugee crisis. But the parallels are uncanny (including outright denial of scientific fact, a romanticized backward view on the past, blaming foreigners etc.), though their media support is much weaker and they are not considered mainstream (yet)

That is actually worrying given the current state of the US. In any other well-informed and functional democracy one might expect an incompetent leader who has personally fueled needless deaths of his voters to be ousted from office in a landslide. Then of course there is the damage done especially to low to middle income folks (perversely, the rich are doing even better during the pandemic). After all it is citizens dying not asylum seekers, or kids which no one cares about. That in my mind demonstrates the power of identity politics that is divorced from policy goals. You can have things fall apart all around you and still support the folks who are responsible for it. I actually want to mention that there are several things mixed in the arguments above. One is how Democrats should act to be morally superior, and the other in order to win votes. While the former argument is easier to state in terms of taking the high road, the latter is much more difficult. Studies have established that the US is massively polarized. The study I cited above indicated that a significant proportion of conservative voters would vote for Republicans even in conflict with their own interests. That means that the Republican party can implement unpopular policies without losing votes, whereas the Democrats will have a hard time implementing policies that will keep their voters happy. I think iNow and me have repeatedly shown that middle-of-the-road policies are not the way as what voters want are far more progressive than the political landscape indicates. Again, part of it is driven by the fact that the Republicans have mostly killed off their moderate wing, which can in fact kill policies that are actually preferred by their electorate (such as public health care options) without being severely punished.

You have to take into account that mutation rate and the equivalent of generation rate of viruses is massive even compared to a single-celled organism. Think about it that way, in humans a generation is about 20-30 years. In bacteria it can be as short as 30 minutes and virus particles can be produced in even a shorter time than that. Viruses do not undergo cell division, but are rather produced by cells in copious amounts, of which there is plenty of opportunity to introduce errors. Then there is the fact that viral genomes are very condensed. I.e. there are not many intergenic regions, so mutations can often occur in coding regions (i.e. regions that encode RNA and proteins). So functional changes are simply more common and selection basically occurs on the level of interaction with their hosts (e.g. non-infectious mutations vanish and so might highly lethal ones). In fact in a person with a long-term Covid-19 infection folks were able to isolate a variant that developed in the patient, which carried a few point mutations compared to the original strain with which the patient was infected with. In other words, when it comes to evolution, time scales are not absolute but depend on the organism (or virus in this case).

It requires a specific design to tease out effects. The study was observational- kids were treated for a GI disorders and the researchers looked at how the treatment affected their autism scores. A different type of study is required to identify treatment efficacy. However that is non-trivial. AB treatment without indication can be harmful, especially to children, so I have a hard time finding a way to replicate the study in healthy children (but with autism symptoms), for example. But for typical treatments one would at least have a control group (usually placebo treated) and then see how much the difference the treatment group experiences over the control. But that requires a well-designed and ideally diverse cohort. How many people are needed depend ultimately on the effect size but also the expected variation (in terms of outcomes) in the cohort.

The issue is that it is not clear whether the effects are solely due to the implants (especially as only 18 children were tested) . Moreover, the indicated number is based on averages. On the more individual level on can find a rather huge range of shifts with some basically being at the same level and others experiencing massive reduction (which resulted in the reported average). We have no idea what the trajectory of the children would be without a treatment. Also, it is important to note that all children had gastrointestinal problems, which is why they were treated in the first place. As Arete pointed out, it could be that there is a connection with these issues along the gut brain axis i.e. GI issue might exacerbate autism symptoms. And treating those might lessen said symptoms. However, that would mean that folks with autism but no GI issues might not benefit from such a treatment. The study at best invites a double-blinded study at which point we could evaluate the effects over a placebo treatment. It could be somewhat tricky to design a good study, though.

From OP I assume that the question is about the minimum number of individuals to avoid inbreeding. There are multiple approaches to these calculations, and it also depend on factors such as population control selective mating and whether the stability is supposed to be indefinite. Moore has developed a tool to do such calculations, with space travel in mind. I think he calculated something in the range of ~200 people. Others have came up with lower or (much) higher numbers, which are all based on different assumption. For example, accounting for random deaths, which could shrink the gene pool.

One thing I would like to add is that while associations have been found, many studies cannot really tease out the effect size. In other words, even if they have an impact, we do not know exactly how much. I think the area has a huge uncertainty when it comes to eventual clinical impact. Part of it is also because immune homeostasis and associated mechanisms are maddingly complex.

It seems you are confusing moderates with undecided or non-aligned voters. For the most part, folks that call themselves moderate are somewhat left. There is comparable little to no evidence that being nice to conservatives would anyhow impact their voting strategy. The Voter Study group has some data showing that most moderates are center-left when it comes to issues (especially immigration and economic issues). So the overall evidence suggests that to encourage moderate to vote Dems, they need to align more with center-left policies and basically not try not appease to conservative ideals, as that core group cannot be swayed (and the moderate fringe is too small to matter anymore. The group of folks that are truly in the middle (non-aligned with any party, undecided up to election and middle in terms of policies) are a vanishingly small proportion of the electorate (about 2%). While I am no expert on the US system (and really barely understand it), it seems to me that instead of swaying folks (or being nice as you put it), it is more about mobilizing folks to get to the polls (or preventing folks from doing so). I.e. turnout seems to be a deciding factor. In contrast to European-style parliamentary systems, there is much less strategic voting.

Well, that is an entirely different argument. Going back to political preference, outcomes of the presented (and similar studies) suggest that there is not a big chance for Democrats to win over Republicans as their voting preference is not aligned with policies (which could be negotiated) but their identity. I.e. they won't vote for a Dem even if they had conservative policies. Rather it is required that the person identifies as a conservative, which, given the shape of the political parties would probably also require a switch of parties. So effectively it means that Republicans cannot be appeased, whereas Dems could be (in contrast to what has been mentioned before by JC, it is weird that folks assume that only the middle to left is able to do anything). The tricky bit would couch policies that seem to conform with conservative identity (like, say offer universal health care and call it "anti-obama act for health self-determination").

Generally speaking very high humidity tends to make breathing harder again, though I have seen ranges going up to 60%. One should also keep in mind that these values are relative values, which are dependent on temperature. What I am wondering about however is ventilation. Is it possible that the room is very dusty or has other allergens?

That is a very strange reading. What it actually means is that Democratic leaders have a higher need to promote policies that align with their voters, whereas Republicans have no such need. They just need to stick to identity politics (which could include encouraging vitriol to the voters to their left). I am at a loss how you came to that conclusion based on the abstract. I do have the full paper, so if you have specific questions I might be able to address them. One of the basis of the study is that previously it was found that Republicans tend to vote more frequently against their district opinion than Dems, but still remain in office. Fundamentally they found that among Republicans, voters want congruency with their identity, regardless of what they really want (policy-wise). For example, if asked whether they want access to health care (even to public options) they might answer in the affirmative (i.e. align positively with the issue policy-wise). However, being against the Affordable Care Act is congruent with their conservative identity, which seems to take precedence. I.e. if a policy-maker votes against ACA as a Republican (congruent decision with identity) even if their constituency is actually for it (incongruent with policy preference), they won't be penalized. With Democrats the effects lie more on the policy axis. I.e. incongruencies there will be more penalized than incongruency with identity. In other words, we do have an asymmetry in partisan preferences. I.e. for Republicans there is an incentive to follow voter's symbolic preferences, rather than policies. That in turn means that Republicans are more likely and easier to become a solid voting block which is mostly based on identity. That, in turn, explains why folks vote for policies which appear to go against their interests, it is a case where identity politics supersedes policy. Moreover, it also highlights why partisanship is likely not going away, there is much less incentive for Republicans to cross the aisle to get promote policies that may benefit their constituents, if it goes against their identity. It also kind of shows a blueprint for Trumpism, which was full-on identity politics with little to no policy and why especially Republicans may be receptive for it.

With regard to OP, there are several strains of SARS-CoV-2 and one of them (B.1.1.7) seems to spread significantly throughout southern England, which carries around 23 new mutations compared to the original strain. There is evidence that it is more contagious, and potentially more infectious to children than the original. There is currently no evidence that it impacts lethality or vaccine efficacy.

Unlikely. A virus has only limited features that would change their physical properties. Moreover even more complex bacteria do not appear to become resistant to physical disruption in any meaningful way.