Do we have any studies that show this fast clearance? From what I understand at least one of them used a pseudo-uradine that there isn't an efficient direct metabolic pathway to process, which was kind of the whole point. The idea being it would circulate longer and be "more effective"
The uridine modification was intended to reduce immunogenicity of mRNA - some of our immune cells have pattern-seeking receptors in the TLR family that recognize ssRNA and dsRNA. The presence of modified uridines throws this pattern recognition off. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.08.051)
The modifications to increase mRNA half-life concerned mostly the caps and poly(A) tail. But even with those the persistence was in the range of days (sort of depending on how sensitive a method you picked).
That's right, they use N1-Methylpseudouridine instead of uridine (the nucleoside contained in uracil, which is the U in mRNA sequences) to last a bit longer (but not forever) and to avoid triggering immune reactions to the mRNA itself (the immune system can detect foreign mRNA).
Certainly the vaccine's mRNA sequence breaks down into separate nucleotides. If it did not, continued production of the antigens would cause a chronic immune reaction and/or immune exhaustion that would make the vaccine ineffective.
I don't know what happens to the N1-Methylpseudouridine though. That's an interesting question.
> Certainly the vaccine's mRNA sequence breaks down into separate nucleotides. If it did not, continued production of the antigens would cause a chronic immune reaction and/or immune exhaustion that would make the vaccine ineffective.
I suspect you just described "long COVID" or "vaccine injury" for some fraction of folks.
Now, that particular study is in whatever cell line, highly dubious how it pertains to a human body, a few steps removed. But if you say "will you see this if you vaccinate 500 million times in 500 million people each with 500 trillion cells" - yea probably you would
Numerous studies have found vax-derived spike persisting for months and even years after vaccination, giving rise to concerns expression of spike can continue long after the claimed 24-48 hours.
A recent study found spike protein persisting for 17 months in the cerebral arteries of stroke victims. [1]
> In our study, in situ hybridization detected both mRNA derived from the vaccine and mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. ... our in situ hybridization method has high sensitivity and could detect trace amounts of mRNA, possibly reflecting unrecognized asymptomatic infections. These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting the presence of spike protein as exclusively vaccine-related.
We should also note that the study doesn't show that the original vaccine mRNA somehow survived for months, only that mRNA matching the vaccine sequence was detected by complementary probes.
I wonder if, in these cases, the vaccine was administered to someone with an active (but asymptomatic) COVID infection, and the vaccine mRNA was copied by the same RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that copies the viral RNA.
That might explain why both vaccine and viral RNA were found.
It's an interesting take to be sure. I suspect that the lack of flexibility is going to be the real killer.
You'd probably have to build offshore platforms on either side to bring the cables up and terminate them and now that's a nightmare, saltwater/salty air and electronics don't mix well.
Or you're going to have to trench very deeply for the first few miles.
Either way you're stuck with something that really doesn't want to be bent.
I think the "glass is great insulation" is a good insight and perhaps a composite glass fiber/polymer sheath would really increase the V/m without the brittleness.
a material that stretches 1% to failure (like steel/aluminum) can ballpark bend to a radius 100 times the thickness. so a 1 meter cable could bend 100m radius before cracking. assuming 10x margin that would be 1 km radius. large but not crazy. A tube that size can easily span 1 km trenches in water. you could also add a few meters of foam around it to make it neutrally buoyant and just barely press on the ocean floor.
You're missing a critical piece of information. Human hearing (and vision) are logarithmic sensors.
Ears can register sounds from maybe 20-30 dB upwards of 120ish which isn't a factor of 4-6 in terms of power but rather a factor of 120-30=90 decibels or 9 bels or 10^9 or one billion.
Because your ears have absolutely enormous range you need the potentiometer (pot) to have a logarithmic taper to it. The amplifier has an essentially fixed amount of amplification so that's a fixed sound dB output. Your ears can hear a vast range. A linear pot essentially locks the entire output into the same 10 decibels as the amplifier maximum output through its linearity. Once you've turned it to 10% of the range it has precisely 10 decibels worth of range left. If you want to turn the volume down by 40 decibels you have to do that within the 0-10% part of the pot's range.
A logarithmic pot will give you maybe 40-60 decibels worth of adjustment by dividing things up differently. Every 20% of the range increases the output not by 20% but by a factor of 10 let's say. That gives you a pot with a range of 50 decibels which is enough that it roughly matches the absolutely miraculous range of the ear.
I find this kind of article hilarious. "Numbers go up! You're not allowed to feel poor or think that there's a problem! Our number is bigger so you must be rich!"
I saw this 10-20 years ago when economists were telling people that inflation is low despite their feelings about inflation. "Our math is correct and you ignorant folks should be grateful for how this economy is managed."
Just because you can produce equations like physicists doesn't mean it's the same field. Ground truth in economics is just as much people as it is anything else.
In the 70's a middle class family had 1 car, a 1200 square foot house, ate out once a month, had less than a dozen sets of clothes per person (most of which were work clothes).
They felt well off, because they were doing fabulously well compared to the 30's which were still lived memory.
And because they felt secure. They did not feel in any danger of losing the essentials of housing, food, clothing and health care.
Now we have a lot more, but we've lost that feeling of security vis a vis housing & health care.
It’s always housing. We’re basically at economic war with each other. Home owners vs. non-home owners. Home owners get anxious when their house value doesn’t continue to rise past inflation. So they vote against policies that would help non home owners get into the market without drowning out of self interest.
While the long stagnant periods in wages (Noah marks the one from the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, but ignores the one from 2001 through about 2012, perhaps because he realizes that marking most of the last 50 years, accurately, as periods of wage stagnation, rather than falsely claiming that that ended in the 1990s, would undermine the rosy picture he is painting) are a problem, the distributional dynamics are probably the thing most closely associated with the perception of a hollowed out middle class.
I think you nailed it, but in addition to that I also think social media boosts the lives of few wealthy people and as a result others feel they don't have enough.
Don’t forget your job was probably giving you heath care and a pension. And if you had a job, you could be there for 10s of years, if not your whole working life.
I said "housing and health care" in my original post, so I agree with you on that part.
In the 70's, only a large minority of Americans had a pension. There were lots of very poor old people in the US, especially before 1972 when social security got indexed to inflation.
That goes both ways, though. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean that's how it is. A lot of people's perceptions of economic performance are more connected to their opinion of the President than to any actual facts.
How people feel matters, of course, but that doesn't mean that the numbers are wrong if they don't match. People's feelings about inflation are not ground truth about inflation, just ground truth about feelings.
And the conservative "intelligentsia" point at people and say "it's the graphs which are wrong" to the point of rejecting basic medicine and sabotaging the economy because people feel aggrieved.
I'm not happy with either one but at least the liberal one is connected to reality in some fashion.
Sure yeah conservative leaders are evil most of us get that. My point is that if you want to WIN if you want to DEFEAT fascists you have to change tactics. You can't just ignore people's complaints and tell them they're wrong, they will go to the other side. Politics is transactional-- liberals think of quid pro quo as a dirty word, but why have democracy if you're not gonna get something out of it?
I totally agree, but I'm not seeing any alternative approach being taken besides declaring that the numbers are incorrect and the feelings are the real facts.
Much of our current political woes can be traced to widespread rejection of various facts. Figuring out how to remedy that (which has to include understanding that particular facts don't always give you the full picture, and people's feelings matter whether correct or not) is critical, but this sort of "lol stop talking about numbers you stupid scientists" response is not helpful.
Bernie is a good example of the alternative approach. I personally don't think he's radical enough, but he promises people things and makes people feel listened to. If you can establish a two-way street where people feel seen and heard, they will start to believe you again when you show them numbers. Of course you can see the response of the Democratic party to progressives like Bernie and AOC. The democratic party isn't going to win until they abandon the neoliberal technocrat schtick, literally nobody likes it. (also who knows if we will even have elections anymore so whatever)
It is right wing who are currently busy installing a fascist regime. And supporting far right fascist parties abroad. And yes, it is entirely possible for republican voters to be wrong and for republican politicians lie about economy enough.
See my other response in the thread. It's not about being more right than fascists. Fascists always lie that's their main strategy. If you want to defeat them though you cant just keep acting like a bunch of technocrats. You must project power, you must provide something transactionally for voters and make them feel good, and you must go after anti-democratic elements viciously without fear of being perceived as "too partisan" or authoritarian.
How anyone can look at housing costs and say everything is fine look the other way is insane to me. How delusional and/or out of touch do you have to be? And if you enter the market it’s nothing but massive stress and chasing promotions to simply pay some exorbitant mortgage.
> I find this kind of article hilarious. "Numbers go up! You're not allowed to feel poor or think that there's a problem! Our number is bigger so you must be rich!"
When US americans got filthy rich, can the US americans that did not made it rich with the help of globalization complain that the world is taking advantage of them? Go fight your oligarchs, start a revolution.
Yeah this completely ignores the fact that many people would rather work on making things with their hands that they can physically see, rather than pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet.
This article ignores alienation, cost of living, social atomization, enshittification, the police state, and many other factors that contribute to everyone feeling like shit. The liberal intelligentsia need to learn that voters don't care about their numbers and charts, education has been hollowed out and the populace is going to respond to material promises and aggression. Not "hmm well did you consult my graph??"
The people you talk about are consistently voting for more police state, for more social atomization and for higher cost of living. They see empathy, help to others and cooperation as negatives. Those are just facts.
As for working with hands rather then pushing numbers in spreadsheet, most people do not want to work as workers in factories - that is based on surveys. That includes tradesmen.
Damn maybe if the democrats didn't kill any progressive or grassroots momentum, or ceded ground to conservatives on issues like the border (Kamala endorsing building the wall) they wouldn't have hollowed out their base of support and lost to fascists.
>many people would rather work on making things with their hands that they can physically see, rather than pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet.
So why aren't they making bank in the trades? Why aren't they learning a craft? Why instead are they yelling that we should start digging coal again, an economically nonsensical thing to do? Nobody wants to buy coal, not even the people who happily buy oil and natural gas.
Welders make good money. Plumbers are essential workers who literally keep shit flowing. Parts of my family work in construction, forestry, trucking, general contracting, all classic machismo jobs that pay well for effort and experience. All essential industries. All in constant need of more workers.
The main problem seems to be that even the good "low education" jobs still require you to move to where people are. There are no jobs in dying towns because there is no economic activity in rural towns when the main income source is welfare.
From what I have seen, personally, the younger guys that would follow in their dad's footsteps and enter trades do not because of a few reasons:
1. Their dads tell them to go to college because trades are hard on your body.
2. For whatever reason, their kids end up really lazy. Doing drugs and trying to live life the easy way, ending up in their late 20s still living at home with their parents and not having any skills.
3. They join the trades but their coworkers are extremely toxic. Either always starting fights, being racist, shitting on apprentices. One guy told me a story of how a disgruntled coworker got kicked off a job site only to come back with his AR. Needless to say that guy has been trying to pivot into civil engineering instead of concrete work.
It's a bit of a rabbit hole to go into, but I think that the reason is that the idea of "every generation having a better life than the last" is easier said than done. Parents in the trades who want their kid to be white collar workers end up sorely disappointed when they don't give their kid any of the advantages that white collar worker parents did-- early childhood education, summer camps, SAT prep, etc. Or when their geographical location doesn't have decent white collar jobs. The kid ends up not prepared for either type of work.
If a lot of these jobs were better unionized (I know many already are), there would be no need to view them as "stepping stones" to a better life. You could have several generations all working the same trade, making good livings.
I can't wait to hear about genetically modified wild dogs to hunt and eat the toads that somehow turned the disadvantage into an advantage. No idea how, but it seems like the next step.
Then releasing big cats to hunt the dogs once that goes wrong.
It's an opportunistic pathogen that mainly spreads in hospitals among people who are immunocompromised or otherwise ill. Symptoms vary wildly, because it can infect different organs and tissues, and can include pneumonia and meningitis.
No one mentioned pandemic. It's a health threat--if this thing gets into a hospital its very, very hard to get rid of. Most people prefer their hospitals as sterile as possible.
Its also something that can become a damocles swoard. Like its living in your intestines harmlessly, but if you have a ulcer or somebody in your house gets with a cut near your toilet - exitus.
A global health threat doesn't have to be a pandemic affecting otherwise healthy people to be a global health threat. In this case, the threat would presumably be that the same bacteria winds up in health care facilities elsewhere.
"A. baumannii can cause infections in blood, lungs, urinary tracts, and wounds. It typically causes these in healthcare settings, such as hospitals. Owing to its ability to resist antibiotic treatment, it has been listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a critical priority antibiotic-resistant pathogen."
Your body should be able to get rid of it by itself, but if it can't, the infection will grow and be fatal.
It's not just in Malaysia, but typically these cases are rare so it being widespread is worrisome. We have MRSA in North-America, but hospital processes eliminate most of the spread of bacteria through thorough cleaning.
It's not much to worry about if you're in a first-world country, but this may cause a lot of deaths in these countries, and force them to spend more on cleaning procedures.
> but hospital processes eliminate most of the spread of bacteria through thorough cleaning.
Not really. I worked at a hospital over a decade ago and I during an onboarding training session we were told that 1/8 patients will receive an infection as a result of their hospital stay.
The 5.9L 12-valve Cummins is also a fine choice. Another fully mechanical engine. In theory, with a manual transmission, you can operate a vehicle without even a battery after it's started.
Well, almost. The 5.9L fails safe: there is a fuel shutoff solenoid which operates in reverse: you give it power to keep the fuel flowing. You’d need to modify it to force the solenoid open (or remove it).
The OM617 (as used in many 1980’s Mercedes sedans) fuel shutoff operated on vacuum, and once started, the engine would run with no electrical system at all.
What ECM? They're mechanically injected diesels. The main purpose of the electrical system is to run the starter to crank the engine. And maybe headlights and stuff.
Nickel itself isn't interesting. Any new material is interesting. Yet another YbCo-whatever wouldn't tell you as much as an entirely new metal. It would be just as interesting if it was titanium or vanadium or lithium or any other metal that hasn't ever been found in a superconductor before.
It's all well and good to suggest that each program receiving funding gets a thorough review. Of course, that review needs to be by experts, to ensure it gets a fair shake. Who are the experts in the field? The odds that you can be an expert in the field (by publication count, let's say) without having already been funded by the NIH is pretty slim. So now your experts are also insiders.
That's going to be a big problem as very few insiders are going to be willing to rock the boat. Even if it's necessary.
Maybe you've got a good idea of how to solve this "good review requires experts, experts are very likely insiders, insiders are unlikely to rock the boat" problem. It would be wonderful if there was some solution, even if it was hard.
> Maybe you've got a good idea of how to solve this "good review requires experts, experts are very likely insiders, insiders are unlikely to rock the boat" problem.
You're the one who has identified this as a problem, shouldn't you be the one to suggest an alternative?
The alternative being implemented is that insiders could not police themselves, so outsiders are doing it for them with far less precision.
It’s like a hoarders show where everyone is shocked (SHOCKED!) that things had gotten as bad as it is, the hoarder has lost the capability to determine what is valuable or necessary, so a third party with no attachment or sentiment comes in to clean house and throws out the good with the bad.
Couldn't at least part of the reviewing be done by foreign experts?
Having said that, this smells witch-hunty to me. The US can boast decades of excellence in medical and biological sciences, which in turn generates a massive windfall. Completely upending the architecture behind this dominance on the suspicion that a few hundred million bucks are less-than-optimally spent is a hell of a gambit, and even ignores all the higher-order effects that even that "spare change" bring about.
You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter.
Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure.
It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?"
I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.
Q> Can you explain why the sledge hammer approach, removing funding for things wholesale and causing large amounts of destruction (both economic and health) is reasonable?
And your answer was
A> It looks like there is a problem with the current system, and changing something would be beneficial.
And, while I agree that the sentiment ("changing something would be beneficial") is fair... as an answer it falls squarely into "We should do something, this is something, so we should do this", which is categorically ridiculous. The way to approach these types of issues, where changing things can (and does) have real, significant impact on lots of people, is to come up with a plan and discuss what the impacts/tradeoffs are. It is _not_ to just do the first thing that comes to mind and then ignore the people who's lives your destroying.
We spend a large portion of the federal budget on human death prevention. It sounds like hyperbole, but anyone dying from administrative changes is literally “world ending” for them.
If a plan to cut bureaucracy was somehow analyzed to find that we could save 5% of the US budget in exchange for 10,000 lives, reasonable people might consider otherwise. To take these changes against life-saving organizations without first analysis of consequences is pretty reckless.
> But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.
ok but burning down a house with a family in it because of a hypothetical burglar usually isn't a good solution.
It's simple, really. Make it so the experts have 0 leverage. Maybe have "the workers" make all the decisions! ??? Profit? :-) They tried this in Soviet Union...
It's probably more efficient for society to subsidize micro grids using solar and wind and batteries for rural electrification than to bury all the power lines that it'll take.
A $100 million project to bury the lines to 1000 houses is $100k per house which just ain't worth it. Not saying this is a real number but it could easily be if it's costing $0.20/kWh to do distribution.
