CharonY

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 Nowadays it seems that in the Republican mindset Russia has been replaced by Democrats.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.

I edited my post. to address that. Edit: Ack, accidentally edited the link in your post, too. Edit2: tried to put in the original faulty link so that it does not look as if you misquoted but I lost it. So whatever is weird with the link and quote, it is all on me.

I stumbled across an interesting article on US politics that investigates identity and policy based preferences in Dem and Rep voters, respectively between 2008-2014. The study suggests that Republican voters rally more around identity rather than politics, compared to Democratic voters. Edit: try this one https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720003746 The reference is Cayton and Dawkins; Perspectives on Politics 1-15. Article is not free, but perhaps there are articles on the paper. Abstract:

I only skimmed the abstract, but with all correlation studies (especially those connected to lifestyle) one has to be careful to identify what the cause are. The authors conclude that radiation is a cause, but the study does not provide that data. Assuming that the data can be replicated (i.e. it is not a spurious correlation, which is common if you analyze enough categories), it is possible that long-term cell phone is associated with a lifestyle that leads to higher infertility. There are also other confounding factors that the authors may or may not have identified. However, despite these issues it does not mean that the reverse is necessarily true. I.e. that cell phone radiation has no impact on fertility. But rather that more specific studies are required to find a causal connection.

I think that is hype. I still do not see a path toward 200 years (above 100 with higher frequency is more realistic). There is an implication that frailty will also be delayed and I think I have seen that there is some evidence that quality of life has been improving for most elderly as a whole and dependency is pushed back a bit (but not uniformly and not everywhere). It depends a lot on lifestyle, though.

There are more folks on this forum who do not live in the US (or do not live there anymore) besides you two and I think their perspective matters, too. I myself have lived in various systems and still see a lack of symmetry in many claims here (and I think it is because I have experienced very different overton windows throughout my life). As such I would say it is not only the Rep vs Dem issue here, but also personal experiences.

While I think this is an interesting point, it is necessary to look at things more fine-grained than that. The reality is of course a mix of effects, some of which we have talked about earlier (e.g. voter suppresssion, status threat of white voters etc.). In that context I think two key questions are important. First, what are the proportion of voters who voted for Trump because they felt unheard, and second, why did they felt so? One issue as brought up earlier and which seems numerically the most predictive factor was status threat by non-whites. Folks felt that their way of living was threatened by immigrants. The swamp is just nebulous enough to include folks that are not doing what they want to see happening (e.g. fewer immigrants, a wall and similar things) as part of the swamp. In that regard Trump actually delivered. And in fact far from being disillusioned, Trump actually got more votes than in 2016. I feel that a part of the whole mess is that certain folks like to see themselves as victims, even while being in power. Issues like status threat arise from such a viewpoint, and I have heard repeatedly that especially white men think that they are not take seriously anymore, just because there is a push to have POC's also being heard. Personally, I find it very hard to navigate these situations for a number of reasons.

Actually no, the mechanism to how they are generated are so vastly different that it has severe impact on their effect and production. In short a RNA vaccine holds the promise of rapid vaccine development. Once you sequenced a virus you could just identify an unique stretch, synthesize it and put it into a lipid shell. An attenuated vaccine requires to cultivate and purify the virus, inactivate them in a way to render them harmless but still retain immunogenicity (which is tricky and takes a long time). Using parts of the virus requires again a genetic step but then you still have to express the protein in vivo or in vitro, purify it and then use the resulting product as a vaccine. Think about it that way, instead of raising a pork and roasting it, or even just cut off pieces of it (which is actually not a a good example, it is more like raising just a leg instead of a whole pork) you just take a picture of a hog, and then use the digitized information to print out something that you can just eat (yes, stupid analogy, but it is that different). All antigen production happen within your body now, instead of requiring to produce them.

Then my info is outdated, I only have heard of two more serious UK cases (but it was a few days back and I have not kept a close eye on it). But as you said, they all recovered. I am not sure about the flu vaccination, especially as not that many have been vaccinated yet. Aside from the mRNA the the ingredients are: Lipids (including ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3- phosphocholine, and cholesterol) And finally some salts and sugars: Potassium chloride Monobasic potassium phosphate Sodium chloride Dibasic sodium phosphate dehydrate Sucrose In addition, the FDA has now released a report one the Moderna vaccine (which is also RNA-based) and is expected to be approved soon under emergency rules.

Worse than that, though. A cult has formed that actually think that the rampant corruption is for unfathomable reason great and justified.

So far there have been two cases of anaphylactoid reactions (i.e. similar display as anaphylaxis, but different mechanism) from which they have recovered. So folks with severe allergies are asked to discuss risks with their healthcare provider.

Yes, outside of vaccines, I was thinking about the fact that folks would promote unproven treatments and deride simple but effective measures. And technically, if we kept or distance for, say two months on a global scale, we would be effectively burning the virus out, too. But again, it is worthwhile to remember that even during the rollout, distancing and protection measures must continue in order to keep deaths down. We do not have sufficient evidence that immunized folks are unable to transmit the disease, for example.