CharonY

Well, technically they are playing for the same team. They are only interested to cover their own arse, but have not intention to potentially harm another player on the same team.

I am not sure how it changes the essence, if we take the highest threshold (i.e. who won), which could be considered the epitome of crazy, it is already 52% of Trump voters. Only 26% accept reality. I do not think that this is due to the GOP, it seems that the Dems have massively increased their turnout. It would take some more analyses, but so far I have not seen anything that suggest a fracturing. My sinking feeling is that effectively the crazies have won (as the tea party before them) and that if they are folks disgruntled now, they are not enough to matter.

First, that is a very incomplete reading of how SARS-CoV-2 affects our bodies. Damages are not exclusively to cytokine storms, and there has been some discussions whether it is really relevant to the observed damages. There seems to be an association with severity but then there is also the question of the triggers. That being said, there are always interactions with the immune system in vivo but it is not the sole source of damage. What is known is that the virus attacks several organs, including the brain stem and at in vitro studies show that cellular damages also occur. Moreover, there have been immunomodulating therapies which in some cases improve outcome, but as it turns out, it only works for a fraction of the folks. Others still die under that treatment (or get secondary infections and die from that). And very obvious examples are immunocomprised folks that die from COVID-19. In fact, they can also suffer severe consequences from otherwise fairly harmlesss viruses, so no, making the immune system blind to a virus is generally not a great idea. In addition, the viruses that we carry and which do not make us sick anymore often have mutations that reduces their virulence- our immune system has not changed in that regard (and again, except for inactive ones, they are generally only harmless if your immune system still works). As such an one-sided view that viruses do not harm us only our own immune system is simply wrong or at best misleading. It is like saying electricity does not kill us, it is the heart failure. Or the fall is harmless, just the landing happens to be lethal. To be clear, SARS-CoV-2 can be lethal for many folks and let it roam through your body without an immune system to keep it in check is pretty certainly deadly. There is no evidence that rapidly proliferating viruses in your bloodstream, organs and nervous system are in fact harmless. Moreover, the immune system is easily one of the most complex regulatory system in our body. All mechanisms to modulate our immune system are blunt instrument, including vaccines. While many, many folks are working on it, precision modulation of the immune system is still science fiction. It is probably also the closest to a panacea that we could get, if we get it. As you mentioned, this is not the time for high-flying dreams. If folks are unable to the simple things to keep each other safe, a vaccine is really our only option. We (i.e. most countries and their population) failed to take it seriously and since this is not a movie, there won't be a sudden miracle cure delivered by Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, if we had taken it more seriously we would not have needed a vaccine. But obviously that was too much to ask. Folks are dying, and if folks would just keep their friggen distance instead of dreaming about sunshine, bleach or magic we would not be here. Edit: if that sounds angry, it is because I am. A good friend lost a parent. I am afraid for my parents and things go exactly as everyone said it would if we are complacent and mess up. And now some folks are surprised and some are protesting the need to do the absolute minimum to protect your neighbour and community. Plus there are students that do not care because they are effing young and do not care that they potentially kill folks around them.

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count. So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

I second Sensei's comment on books. Without any background perhaps start with a good highschool or first-semester level textbook and perhaps a good popular science book (best if written from an actual expert in the topic). For starters these provide more background and context that allows you to become familiar with terms and concepts and generally provide more context. It still requires interest and work, of course. If what you read is not in any way interesting to you, you will quickly forget. Learning is an active process that is driven by self-motivation.

I think it is fair to say that so far there are not viable alternatives to abiogenesis. It is less of a theory but more of a theoretical framework that exist due to what we know about the chemical composition of organisms. I.e. we know that something simpler than cells must have existed at some point, we roughly have an idea what chemicals are more or less likely and so on. Moreover are hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of abiogenesis, how potential candidate molecule could have occurred and so on. It is really not my field so I am not sure of the current progress in that area. With regard to evolution, as Phi pointed out, the term describes the observable process (i.e. fact) that gene pools change over time. The theory of evolution describes all the bits and pieces that explain and quantify those changes.

Even before NZ and Australia, China has shown the way. And then some other countries demonstrated what could work instead of a total shutdown. And way before that we have history lessons about the efficacy of quarantine. It is just depressing that apparently most countries (which includes Australia, which first tried a flattening strategy before going for a burnout) decided that they need to experience that lesson themselves and likely forget if the next pandemic arrives too far into the future. The only other alternative to lockdown seem to be high compliance coupled with massive contact tracing. The lesson this time around is that half hearted approaches do, in fact, not work.

Oh gosh, yes food, that alone could kill it. I mean, in the bigger city it is possible to get stuff you need/want, but the average supermarket is going to be a shock for many.

It is a bit complicated and I have not looked at it too deeply. However, one model is that the the inflammation might, similar to e.g. autoimmune diseases cause an activation of the complement cascade. This system is part of the immune system, but it interacts with the coagulation cascade (which does the clotting). There is evidence from other diseases that both system can enhance each other, and there is evidence that in COVID-19 patients that might lead to hypercoagulation and thrombosis (especially high D-dimer values, which are a produced by degradation of blood clots have been associated with poor outcomes). So the short version is, there is evidence for increased blood clotting in certain patients. I should add that I with disruption I do not mean that the system is dysfunctional, rather that its normal functions are distorted.

Or he showed a blueprint that an actual competent autocrat could use to seize power. Also note that a significant proportion of the US population that are part of the GOP or are GOP voters do not consider that crazy (70-80% believe that the elections were not legitimate, for example). Not sure if it considers wrecking, rather a long slide from the right into fantasy country. But I assume they will recover if Democrats will finally be nice to them.

I am not sure how to call it, but it is a somewhat self-centered perspective that no only fails to take the ramifications into account, but also neglects that the folks in Hong Kong are humans with their own agenda and not that just bodies that can be easily shuffled around.

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.