CharonY

I probably should add that any treatment likely provides selective pressures in favour of mutations that provide drug resistance (if applicable). No drug is likely safe from that effect. The key here is not to provide a situation where the pathogens are allowed to persist under selective pressures. This is why antibiotics should be taken at high dosages and until the pathogen are eliminated, otherwise, one allows the more resistant ones to proliferate. This is also why vaccines are so important. If a pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2 is allowed to circulate, it will accumulate mutations just by virtue of so much of it being around, which in turn makes it more likely that we encounter resistant variants. Breaking the chain of infections, or at least reducing it, as well as reducing the amount of serious infections, so that antivirals are not necessary is is the only way to delay resistance formation. It was always weird to me that there are folks against vaccines, but in favour of antivirals.

I looked at the Nature paper and one thing that seems to get lost in the conversation is that the study specifically looked at immunocompromised patients with chronic infections. The reason why that is important is because that in those folks infections stick around longer so mutations can arise which could be selected for higher resistance against antivirals. It is not something that is unknown (similar effects have been observed for antibiotic resistances) and it is not a failure of the drug. The second study actually seems to contradict what the article in OP is saying. Again, higher rate in immunosuppressed patients and lower rate of resistance in treated patients without immune issues (but still higher than without treatment). However, rates were low and did not persist. So overall good news, though again, immunocompromised patients remain at higher risk.

Relating to OP just a few general themes: - the GOP base has coalesced around nativist and racist themes (great replacement theory). These lines of thoughts are penetrating the GOP with most members now suggesting that racial diversity is a threat to the country (which was steady at around 20% through the years) - this has penetrated the party at large where racist voices were largely delegated to the fringe (to various degrees) but are now carrying significant power in congress - GOP-dominated areas are changing school curricula to make it more difficult to understand the concepts of historic and systemic racism. Essentially the GOP has a concerted effort to revise historic facts and how the next generation is supposed to think about it - In short, there is a concerted ideological re-arrangement in the GOP which in which the racist fringe has been empowered and gleefully throw their weight around.

Depending on the outcome of this election, there is likely going to be an accelerated change in how polls are going to be conducted. And I think some assumptions of representative cohorts might be affected. In the US, abortion rates are lower in lower economic groups, suggesting that the price of abortion limits access. In countries with socialized health care, the opposite might be true. Though there are confounding factors as folks in lower socioeconomic brackets also tend to be using fewer contraceptives and other reproductive health services.

The polls do indicate that given the consideration of any limits, the majority are more having no rather than some (the 52-41 split). It is given in the context of established medical limits, though.

The issue is that such distinction becomes a gish gallop of arguments. You will end up spending more time justifying your position, while the other side can heap inane claims on you. This just gives another vector of attack while ceding ground. As case in point, Dems do have introduced bills and have said that repeatedly that they want to protect abortion rate until fetal viability. Later abortions can be restricted, provided that provisions are added (e.g. if pregnancy can endanger the mother). But based on your comment, it seems that post-birth abortions are a way more common knowledge than the details put out by Dems. Edit: I should add, these limits are not decided by Dems, but largely follow existing court rulings, most notably Roe and there is some disagreement on when exactly viability is reached (though I think it could be determined by attending physicians). From what I understand in Canada, there is not legal restriction on abortion. However, there are regulations, either by health authorities or professional bodies which basically implement limits.

It is really not really reasonable. If folks carry the child to the point where they are viable, it would be extraordinary rare for them to suddenly decide to end the pregnancy. Almost all abortions happen within the first trimester and I suspect that the majority of folks (especially women) take that into account to some degree in their answers. Asking whether you support abortion just before birth is simply not a realistic question (and quite leading), especially as the medical provider at best might just induce birth (or just wait a few days).

Unfortunately, the US election has global reach. As I learned, even leaving the country does not help.

Just wanted to add to my post above that the poll I was thinking about was likely this one: Majority of Canadians are completely pro-choice (52%) but a significant segment (41%) is considered in-beween and a small minority (8%) is completely pro-life. https://angusreid.org/abortion-canada-faith-pro-choice-pro-life/

On the data sheet the question was indicated as: "Every woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one". In all groups, except US Republicans the majority (56-96%) were in favour. But as mentioned, Canadian Conservatives are more aligned with US Independents on this issue. In another poll (Ipsos, 2020) there were also finer grained options, I have graph below. You can see that the least restrictive option is still in the majority in Canada (59%). I believe I have seen a similar poll around 2020-22 phrasing it specifically around restrictions (something like there should be no restrictions in the access to abortions) and there was a close majority for this option, too (~52%). Unfortunately I forgot which poll it was and I cannot find the data table right now, either. Though I think the phrasing of "whenever a woman wants one" is reasonably close to being unrestricted.

That would be rather poor science. I got curious and quickly did a lit search. It seems that a lot are pop-sci articles (e.g. Scientific American), physics articles, books and a handful of physician-type articles. Plus two biochemical articles. At least it does not seem to pop up regularly in anatomical papers.

I think there is some fracturing going on there and it looks to me that especially on the provincial level conservatives are dipping their toes into certain areas such as vaccination, gender identity and so on to see whether that gives them a boost. It looks a fair bit like the US around 10 years back but in some areas there is some radicalization going on for sure. Unfortunately American Crazy is a potent export and I am not sure whether even on the Federal level the Canadian parties can counteract that.

It is also somewhat concerning that one might think that knowledge is lost until it is shown on youtube of all places.

You are right. I should avoid these funny little buzzwords that obscure how obscene and crazy the actual situation is.

Eh, I kinda doubt that this still true at this point in time. Also, the Trump flags next to F*ck Trudeau stickers is jarring. That is certainly not universally true. There are aspects that are certainly different from US conservatives and in some cases (e.g. firearms) it is because they cater to a radical minority. So I would say that Canadian extreme right has less sway over the party than in their equivalent in the USA (which at this point is largely dominating the party). However, especially on the provincial level conservatives are adopting (perhaps milder) US style campaigning and have sowed vaccine skepticism (https://www.nationalobserver.com/), tend to ignore climate change and for some reasons are obsessed with trans folks. Looking at the US election, 44% of Canadian conservatives prefer Trump over Harris (36%) (https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/read-the-report6589c781-7dd1-40c2-b3ad-372bb98c1aa1.pdf?sfvrsn=cac8947f_1). That is clearly more US Independent territory than Democrat. Likewise, on abortion rights, Canadian conservatives are far more in favour (66%) compared to the US Republicans or even Independents (34%/58%) but still less than US Democrats (89%). Canadian Liberals are closer to US Democrats (91%). Economically, on statements of social and economic justice (i.e., government should do more to make sure racial minorities are treated fairly and government should reduce income gap between poor and rich), Canadian Conservatives (62% and 58% in favour) are close to US Independents (64%/50%) than US Democrats (93%/87%). The percentage is still higher than US Republicans (36%/34%). Still, while Canadian conservatives as a whole are are more to the left of US Republicans, they are closer to Independents rather than Democrats. Some surveys do show further movement to the right in Canada, especially in some provinces, suggesting that the polarization in USA, which has been largely absent until ~2019 in Canada might also start to settle in.

I think they will be feel very much at home seeing the pickups with confederate flags... Plus, depending on the province and how the next Federal election will go, there might be 2,000 additional jobless folks.

Also, why would he wage war against folks he admires in the first place? He will hand Putin whatever he wants and Xi just needs to say one or two nice things (plus perhaps some underhanded deals) and I would not be surprised if the US policy with Taiwan suddenly changes. As Trump said, he sees the enemy within. Well and perhaps he is going to randomly bomb Mexico.

I think what worries me most about the political situation is not only that Trump could become president, but that the situation is rife for another, more intelligent fascist to take control of the US at some point in the future. Folks like Orban and moreso Meloni are normalizing authoritarianism and for once I do think we are looking at a real slippery slope here.

Yep, and I have come a cross a few other examples where folks are confusing no established safe levels to toxic/harmful at any levels. I think in part it is because the common assumption is that we understand toxicity (or harm, which is even more complicated) in a more complete way than we really do.

I think there is another meta-review out focusing on cancer, where a steady increase of risk was found with alcohol consumption. The issue is that the lack of low concentrations as OP is asking for. Incidentally, this is a situation where fine details matter in communication and why it might trip up folks.

There is a bit of an understanding in how toxicity and safe limits (or no-effect concentrations) are determined (specifically this is a lack of data issue, not so much of a clear esatblished low-level toxicity profile), but I the short version is that no it does not mean that tiny amounts will lead to long-lasting effects (typically is related to cancer effects, which makes things even more problematic evidence-wise). In short, we do not have data on trace amount, and it is unlikely to do any harm over your regular diet. I will note, for example, that you likely have (very) low levels of alcohol in your gut right now. We carry a number of bacteria and yeasts in our gut that can produce some levels of ethanol as part of their regular metabolism (there is also a rare so-called auto-brewery syndrome, but that is probably not part of this discussion). But to put it really short, other factors in your diet (e.g. sugar) are likely going to have more impact on your overall cancer risk than a the residual ethanol levels you find in bread or vinegar.

True on both accounts. What is worrying (to me) is that it seems that the US is an indicator for the the rest of the world, the way things are going. This is a long-standing problem especially in communicating science. The conventional wisdom was that you have to simplify as much as possible, but also make it punchy so to not bore folks. I am not so sure that this works in the age of clickbaits anymore. The challenge is that if things are simplified, some folks will invariably find some issues in the reporting. It could be a minor inaccuracy but can also be real concerns that weren't covered. These gaps are then frequently exploited to question all the other (valid) claims. It has become fairly serious and it is something that I find myself increasingly (and reluctantly) working on, as it severely impacts public health and there is a kind of amnesia setting in on every level, that might endanger our ability to respond to future threats.

The incentive is certainly there. It seems to be a winning strategy that is seemingly also easier to implement. I.e. you do not need any fact-based analysis of anything, you just need repeat your claim to make it so. Having a firm moral basis does not seem to provide much of a benefit nowadays.

See, that is why I always found it funny if folks proclaim things like that racism, anti-semitism and sexism is functionally over and that the pendulum has swung too far. Really what happened is that the only swing we had is more towards a more careful approach to proclaiming your ignorance and intolerance. But that movement was enough to make it swing all the way back. The main difference is that on top, ignorance is also on full display (and ignorance is the PC word here for the stuff people openly proclaim). And it does seem that one political side is benefiting more from ignorance than the other. So much so, that fascism is getting acceptable again, and not only in the USA, for that matter.

Yep. Plenty of diseases with a genetic basis manifest later in life and might have little or no effect during development. There are many potential reasons, some include being inactive until later in life, requirement of some interactions (either internally or with the environment) to manifest the disorder, functions that can inhibit the disorder during development but not later in life, etc. One might think that organisms are extremely purpose-built and small changes can cause disorder or malfunction. In reality what is considered "normal" is more of a weird mess where a lot of variation exists that under certain conditions works perfectly fine but may break down under others. It is much less deterministic what works and what doesn't as one might imagine.