11 Likes
On the other, hand, youâll still die. So thereâs that.
2 Likes
But it doesnât count, donât you see? Only definitely, conclusively proven Covid-19 cases count, and only if they happen to perfectly healthy people. Actually, now that I think about it, if you have Covid, you are not perfectly healthy, so no one can die of Covid! Pandemic solved!
(I hope this is unnecessary, but /s for any who doubt.)
31 Likes
Thumbs up to you from the grave by Jonathan Swift!
16 Likes
MmmmmmâŠbaby back ribs.
8 Likes
Tricky little inverse sections of RNA linked to a fluorescent tag that only becomes available when the section of RNA has a perfect match. The way most of these fluorescent tags work, there is a section of RNA that has a series of nucleic acid bases that are a mirror to the ones for the virus.
Letâs use a series of 8 bases as an example (though these sensors are usually much longer, up to 100-ish bases): ACGUACGU. That would correspond to the virus RNA section with the code UGCAUGCA. Then the sensor also has a fluorophore, often Fluorescein, bonded to the RNA strand along with a fluorescence quenching protein close by. When the RNA section bonds to RNA from the virus, the sensorâs structure is designed to separate the fluorophore from the quenching protein, which allows the fluorophore to light up in response to a certain wavelength of light. In the case of Fluorescein, it responds to blue light by releasing green light.
12 Likes
18 Likes
Thread:
Read it. Read the whole thing. This is a common experience when seeing a doctor while non-white, or even (often) as not a cis-man. I have no doubt that if she didnât have all these people working to help her, sheâd be dead at the hands of this doctorâs arrogance (and yes, racism and sexism).
You want to know why POCs (especially Black and Indigenous) are dying in greater numbers? Look no further than this thread.
30 Likes
16 Likes
10 Likes
Thatâs horrificâŠ
11 Likes
thatâs not how this works. thatâs not how any of this works.
i guess then we shouldnât count traffic fatalities if the people were driving, because itâs well known if they hadnât been driving they wouldnât have died
21 Likes
Like those apocryphal thousand Inuit words for snow, perhaps Scots has a thousand words for âidiotâ
8 Likes
That is absolutely fucking horrifying and I am ashamed that someone of my profession would treat a human being, any human being, in this fashion. This is a physician who needs to be reported to the medical board for unprofessional conduct. Thank god she had advocates to stand up for her! But of course, most do not. DamnâŠ
26 Likes
And here we go with âItâs the coloredsâ again
Throw in âThe Mark of The Beastâ and we have the makings of a horror movie!
14 Likes
I have to come back to this. First, because you mentioned belief again. I told you before what my scepticism is based on. It is based in knowledge, not belief. It is not expert knowledge in this particular field of virology or clinical research, but based on my scientific training. I am sceptical of myself as well, but when I look at the available data and something contradicts this data, I question both the old and the new data. In this case, as posted above, the old data wins my trust.
As a statistician, you will know that priors are sometimes referred to as âstatistical beliefâ. You could also say a priori assumptions which are based on previous observation. Sorry, but I have to hammer that point, because belief is also used to refer to religions dogma: I donât trust this research based on my prior knowledge, as imperfect as it may be.
I guess we are on the same page, and this is just semantics (plus some language barrier since English is not my first language), but we have a public discussion here regarding important findings during the worst crisis since WWII. Some people might read our discussion. I hope it helps someone.
I am sceptical about much data right now, but I am also putting my trust - not a belief - in science. And if I sense something fishy about scientific findings, I highlight that. Your post, however, said:
This seems to close to being sceptical of the expert opinion. I do trust some data more than others. It is difficult to choose which data to trust, but I hopefully made clear above why I donât trust the short communication that they have IDâd a Covid-19 case in France in December. I implicitly mentioned it above, and I assume you are aware of it, but for everyone else I want to emphasise: it is not a full research paper, but a short communication - this means it still should be good science, but is a quicker way of publishing some results which, while usually of high standard, sometimes also puts something in the research community to be torn apart later.
This is possibly such a case.
I apparently was even to moderate in my scepticism above.
- they should have presented results of confirmation testing on other PCR sequences
- if they can detect the virus with the rPCR, they should also be able to sequence the full genome, hence addressing which clade the virus is from
- their test results might even be a false positive because they used a very high concentration of genetic material in their positive control samples, which elevates the probabilities of spillover
Add the lack of sero-conversion testing (antigene tests) and we end up with a paper the person who leads the workgroup which developed the test they used is very sceptical about. Heâs rather friendly, still, but firm in his doubtfulness.
Bottom line: if we do not see additional well-checked evidence, it stays unlikely that the virus was already active in France in December, let alone in November.
4 Likes
The Sun has betrayed me!
The astrologer JoĂŁo Bidu who predicted 2020 âlighterâ says that ânobody expected a coronavirusâ.
8 Likes
Who wants to bet the Trump admin would give him a job offer for doing a stunt like this?
6 Likes
