johncearls

Are any of those vaccines being distributed under an emergency use authorization without FDA approval?

Of course you’d say that, you have the brainpan of stage coach tilter.

I wouldn't call Heinlein nuts. I think he was deeply interested in the idea of how social mores are a reflection of the times and conditions they exist in. It's one of the things that set him above his peers. The technological advances and space cowboy stuff was just a backdrop to discuss philosophy and morality. He did so in a generally entertaining way. I don't know that he was advocating any particular philosophy or moralism. He was just exploring them. The difference in points of view between Stranger in a strange land, starship troopers, and the moon is a harsh mistress demonstrate that.

Is it just.me or are they glossing over the fact they have any flu vaccine requirement. Since when are flu vaccines required for anyone but health care workers?

Why is this downvoted? These are valid concerns with respectable citations.

Thanks! I'll note it is exactly what I thought. This was not a random population. This is children showing symptoms bad enough to warrant going to the hospital.

To me the real issue here is how did they select the children. Unfortunately, I cannot find the paper. Why don't they ever link to these things? A likely restatement of this article is, "To have even mild symptoms of COVID, children need a much higher viral load than hospitalized adults." Again, I'd love to find the paper to see if my guess is right.

I think the rationale is that the primary way SARSCOV2 is spread is via droplets in the air. The most effective way of doing that is coughing and sneezing, i.e. being symptomatic of a respiratory infection. Children are generally asymptomatic with SC2 and likely remain infected for shorter time frames as SC2 never really gets a strong foothold. These factors make the spreading of SC2 from children likely.

Do you have a citation for the neurological disease statement? I follow this field and I have not heard that.

You are not alone, no matter what the downvotes say.

Here we go. Let's jump from convincing to requiring. This is the difference between freedom and tyranny, and the fact so many Americans are ready to make that jump is outrageous.

I have this problem a lot with pandas Dataframes. I know I could engineer around it, but most of the time I just want to distribute some number crunching to a bunch of docker images quickly and a database is overkill for a one off analysis. Works fine until an image updates pandas. Not taking issue with pandas or pickle, but it's an issue of time trade-off. JSON is okay, but object conversion/Nan/None/inf can be a bear.

I had to scroll down way too far to see this. The added value of the Florida law was at the end of the article. It included:

> long-term-care, life and disability insurers.

The problem is meat processing plants, not the abundance of livestock.

Quarantining is a fancy word for arrest, with zero cause. There were no "tests" at the time.

And finally, thankfully, it is illegal to refuse an American citizen entry to the United States.

You'll be happy to hear that, in recent years, the funding for Alzheimer's disease has boomed. My lab does a lot of research in AD and it is probably the fastest growing area of funding by NIH, from 600 million in 2015 to 2 billion this year[0]. Also, note Aging is another real growth area and a lot of Aging programs have AD/Dementia as a sub-focus. [0]: https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.

[Edit] from 1B to 4B if you count subcategories. Expect good things in the future.

It would be "unheard of" in the United States for a Ph.D. student in a normal program to not have good health insurance and the birth paid for. The stipend in the US is ridiculously low, and I can see having trouble affording to take care of a baby, but it is not going to be the medical costs that get you.

The biggest problem with this study is they did not find what they hoped to find, or at least what would have been most interesting. They broke their subjects up into 4 groups based on early and late socioeconomic status, High/High, Low/Low, High/Low, Low/High. They only found differences between High/High and Low/Low. If there were some big differences differences between DNAm resulting from early poverty, I would expect the Low/High to have had significant differences. In other words they did not prove or disprove the click-bait title "Poverty leaves a mark on our genes".

Of course the lack of "significant" differences could be a power (sample size) issue as the number of upwardly (or downwardly) mobile people was half of what the maintainers in either class was.

I agree this is a clickbait article, but I do not think the research (in the paper) is bad. Hopefully this paper will be the basis of a higher powered grant to follow up on their findings.