Jump to content

CharonY

Moderators
  • Content Count

    10042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by CharonY

  1. There a few typical routes folks take. One is publishing results in a journal (if not done already) but that is usually not enough, new methods are published almost hourly and it is difficult to stand out. Therefore companies often link up with research groups to test them under field conditions (so to speak) and have them endorse it. Ultimately, what you want is that they then use your products for their regular research and reference them in their papers. Smaller trade shows are a good way to get into contact with those groups (especially if you got someone with people as well as technical skills to go there) but larger ones are usually dominated by the heavy hitters. Visiting labs is often as good, if not better to build contacts. The first part should be validated with a critical sample. With eluent do you mean particles or the purified protein itself? Because a lower concentration can be problematic for some applications.
  2. We are still in the same, so from that perspective nothing has changed. There were already a number of mutated strains out there, with most of the mutations being silent or most likely neutral. The article indicates a new functional mutation in the spike protein, which had fewer non-silent mutations than other sites (IIRC) as it is such a crucial element to establish infections. I.e. the risk really is that there may be a change in the transmission, though it is still a bit early to tell. At this stage changes in frequency can also simply down to chance (e.g. how fast an outbreak was recognized and stopped). But not to worry, we will get a new pandemic with something new soon enough, especially if we continue to fail to improve our response.
  3. For large scale production I think industrial standards are limiting. Switching over a process is costly, and especially in pharma you need to recertify any change to the process. As a whole I suspect it would only be interesting if the cost savings would be massive while retaining all the other requirements. For smaller scale application, I think it depends a lot on the individual researcher. If they have established routine protocols and all their product is already cloned, chances are that they might not be very interested in switching. Doubly so if at least part of their work requires re-validation/certification of their work. For others, it may be more flexible but an important question then is (aside from the tag) the quality and work indeed comparable to established methods (often claims of purity/quality are inflated or best case scenarios). Are there downstream issues considerations due to buffer or particles being used? Also how much would one save per sample? New methods are in principle always welcome, but some folks (me included) tend to be a bit more conservative with regard to jumping on a new product. Over the years too many have been around promising great benefits which fail to materialize when used and at some point one sticks to something that works alright. Our time budget for trying out new things can be a bit limited.
  4. CharonY

    Political Humor

    Very strong "I got a black friend"-vibe.
  5. It is also important to note that all extant species have experienced exactly the same time of evolution. Obviously with large variations in life span. I.e. the length of evolutionary time is not related to expected lifespan.
  6. Generally speaking the CDC would be a good place to start- there have been some indications that the administration might have hampered their ability to communicate data freely. Youtube is probably the worst place as you can find conspiracy theories side by side with folks who may or may not know what they are talking about. "Serious" Newspapers such as New York Times have good articles and I would focus on long articles where they do some explanatory work. But perhaps others have better suggestions- I tend to get my info from primary literature, but that may a bit difficult or even confusing for laypersons.
  7. I think you should divorce yourself from the idea that a disease goes a certain course. A disease is a harmful condition that is caused by some sort of agent. So you can infected by an agent e.g. bacterium or virus but depending on what happens, the disease may not manifest itself in you. How do we classify a disease? By monitoring symptoms. So if someone is infected (i.e. tested positive for presence of an infectious agent) but shows no symptoms, the person is asymptomatic or potentially pre-symptomatic. The latter just means that a person is positive for the agent, negative for symptoms at time of testing but may develop symptoms later (i.e. we only know in retrospect whether the person was truly asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic). However, obviously symptoms alone won't allow you to classify the infectious agent you have, as many may share similar symptoms. So if you have a cough and other symptoms that are associated with COVID-19, you should be tested. But there is no way to be sure what you have otherwise. In addition, as others have mentioned, being sick does not automatically mean immunity. Regarding face masks, the reason originally predominantly sick people were asked to wear masks was because masks reduce droplet generation and makes it less likely that others get sick. However, there is increasing evidence that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic folks may also spread the disease at which point it becomes prudent to wear a mask even if you do not have symptoms. A big issue in the US is that they have politicized health. The severity of COVID-19 is now not judged based on data (as in most other countries) but based on party lines, which is just utterly ridiculous. In order to get info you will need to listen to medical experts. I will say that knowledge is changing for another simple reason. Since the outbreak there has been an unprecedented boost in research so we learn things at a very fast pace, which also means that some things we assumed to be true earlier may be changed rather quickly. Normally a consensus forms slowly over years of research. Now it is happening in weeks or even days and it is obvious that not all assumptions will be proven true.
  8. Ken123456 has been banned for abusive behaviour and continued soapboxing.
  9. ! Moderator Note If you stop focusing on rep you will have a much better time here. Also note that everyone can neg a post only once and the member in question has provided only one negative vote. Again, focusing on posts rather than on poster is generally a much better approach and this is true for everyone involved.
  10. ! Moderator Note Please refrain from using personal insults, even in response to inane accusations/posts. I know at least one of your sockpuppets is better than this. ! Moderator Note If you want to argue, please do so without insulting people. Also, stating opinion as facts is not a good argument, it is soapboxing. If you want to make specific arguments, make them here and structure them in a way that allows a discussion. If all you want to say is visit this website and if you do not agree with me, I am going to throw insults, then this is not the right place for you.
  11. The animal kingdom is a rather small fraction of the global carbon cycle. Most is produced by microbial actions. I.e. most CO2 of an organism is not produced by active respiration but when the body is rotting (i.e. degraded to CO2). This includes inorganic processes, such as fires. While an animal is alive in nature, they often contribute to carbon sinking, studies have shown that in certain habitats grazing reduces the carbon emission of an area, by shifting above ground carbon (i.e. vegetation) to soil as dung where only part got emitted as CO2 and a significant proportion was basically buried. Conversely, the agricultural use of livestock, especially ruminants in industrial settings, increase CO2 production. Moreover, killing animals and thereby disruption ecological processes have shown to convert ecosystems from net carbon sinks to carbon emitters. So almost any way you dice it the human factor remains the most disruptive element.
  12. That sounds like an incredible waste of valuable time to me.
  13. It is an utter waste of time trying to decipher what he says and it is going to be a distraction anyway. He almost never comments on actual policy in a meaningful way so there is really no value to dedicate any mental capacity to that. Historically folks paid attention to leaders because what they often outline their policies or provide other information. But since Trump is not leading and does not really operate on anything approach information, it does not make a lot of sense to interpret him on that level.
  14. This is not really different from the other findings, and despite what I wrote earlier, a reduction in titers does not automatically mean lack of immunity per se and the authors of the actual report did not make comments to this effect. But it does mean that protective titers drop relatively fast and unless there is rapid recruitment from memory cells. In addition, some earlier studies found the presence of T cells in infected patients (but in a very small cohort), which is in principle good news. But as usual, the situation is still fluid and highlights the need for efficacy tests (which are going to be difficult) before one can rely on them.
  15. ! Moderator Note This is more suitable for the Lounge. Note that the idea of a good illusion is of course to make it difficult for the viewer to figure out how it is done. It would be quite a jump to suddenly conclude that magic is real (unless you believe that there a lot of uncles with detachable thumbs).
  16. I think the overabundance of sources has reduced the willingness of folks to really dig into lit. Over the years I have seen students reading less, not more and it is getting harder to motivate them. It used to be hours or even days digging through the library to get all the articles one needs so you would sit down and read them if only to pretend that you have not wasting time. Now I find quite a few quite after literally reading perhaps the first two articles in a google scholars search and give up if those papers do not give all the answers. It is frustrating, to say the least.
  17. I should also add that theoretically folks may still have long-term protection if sufficient memory cells are formed, which cannot be easily be tested with simple serological assays (i.e. the rapid tests). What the study calls into question is the usefulness of serological tests to establish how many folks may have been infected without detection as well as the length of immediate protection. Now, lack of immunity against RNA viruses in general is often the result of their high mutation rate. OTOH, coronaviruses have a proof-reading enzyme that reduces the mutations rates (but are still high compared to DNA viruses). Also, there a bunch of viruses that can cause cold symptoms so it cannot actually be traced back solely to the major human coronavirus strains. I have looked a bit into some older pre-SARS papers and found one from 1990 (Callow et al. Eipdemiol. Infect) in which 15 volunteers were infected with coronavirus 229E. Here they showed that some volunteers showed slightly increased antibody titres after one year, though it did not protect from re-infection. However, there was lower shedding, indicating a higher level of neutralization and none developed a cold. So there is some potential there, especially if vaccines result in a stronger response. At the same time, SARS-CoV-2 (and 1 for that matter) obviously elicit quite different responses, including massive inflammatory responses. So there are still a lot of unknowns at play (plus, we do still do not understand all that goes into long-term immunity and the literature is maddening at best).
  18. I think extending it to other forms of asymmetric biases is something worthwhile to look into. Many mechanisms appear to to be similar. I.e. differential evaluation of folks in absence of differences in objective measures. After all, similar studies with similar setup have shown that certain groups are systematically disadvantaged. The new bit here is that those that think that those bias do not exist are the ones most likely to perpetuate it. I.e. in order for a fair evaluation one needs to be aware of the bias in the first place, as you mentioned. That goes against some narratives that state that a) fairness can only be achieved if either one pretends to be gender- (and/or race-) blind and b) specifically including race or gender will bias against the others. The study suggest that in contrast to these assumptions, folks being aware of biases swing toward a balance rather than pushing the pendulum to the other side.
  19. Your analogy is flawed. For starters the data and evidence is identical, only name is different. In addition, those that claim lack of bias could still have given higher scores to women. It does show that there is indeed a problem, but it is not symmetrical, even in a women-dominated field, which is curious.
  20. It should be added that vaccines still might elicit different or stronger responses. But other than actually trying them out there is no way (that I am aware of) to predict the outcome. Theoretically if one could coordinate enough vaccinations worldwide even short term protection may burn the virus out. But looking at those in charge, I have low hopes.
  21. An interesting study targeting gender bias, but potentially has relevance for other group biases as well. Researchers looked whether gender bias exist in jobs with high representation of women by asking folks to evaluate a performance review. The reviews were identical but one group had a female and another had a male name. Effectively male names were evaluated higher resulting in an 8% increase in salary over their female counterparts. Strikingly reviewers who were more certain that bias does not exist in their field, were more likely to be biased against women. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/26/eaba7814 It would be interesting to extend this study to other group differences.
  22. Add the fact that studies suggest that black and Hispanic folks are disproportionately target (e.g. for jaywalking) plus the fact that poor folks get disproportionately punished for minor infractions it does not seem like a great system to begin with (or at least has substantial issues).
  23. I echo SJ's notion of finding another medical specialist. IIRC Citrobacter are often found in urinary tract infections and the prostate in turn is vulnerable to UTI. Also note that often the boundaries between pathogens and non-pathogens are fluid. If normally non-pathogenic bacteria get into areas they shouldn't or number that are too high, they still can inflammation and other issues.
  24. ! Moderator Note Since this is more "Fantasy Fun with Physics" rather than actual physics, I am moving it to the lounge.
×
×
  • 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.