skeletor_999

It's worth noting that we've found genetic differences between the N2 wild type strains used by different labs as well, so this is still a problem for C. elegans.

I think that the results of these types of surveys can be misleading, as they don't always ask if the respondent is unsure. Wouldn't it be better to ask them how knowledgeable they believe they are on a given topic before asking them about the exact numbers? Similarly, wouldn't it be better to ask them first about their support for a given policy change?

Many of these answers will simply be guesses. I think it would be far more informing if these answers were broken down by people who believe they are knowledgeable or who support certain policies.

> I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded.

It may be loaded, but our cultural differences need to be considered. On average Asian and Indian cultures place a stronger emphasis on grades. This plays a large role in why they have been very successful by some metrics. If certain questions are taboo, then we might overlook factors that are setting them back. That doesn't mean that external factors aren't relevant, but we need to consider everything.

We need to ask uncomfortable questions. That's not bigoted in itself. Look at the gay community. A lot of gay men engage in very risky behaviour that can lead to the spread of STIs. As an LGBT person myself, I can tell you that it is still quite common. We need to be able to ask if they are doing self harm. In fact, we have asked these questions, which has led to measurable progress (STI prevention strategies have helped significantly).

I wouldn't do away with it, but I would encourage other scientists to engage with non-solicited peer review. A few sites have tried to encourage the wider scientific community to comment and debate published papers, but the overall participation remains low. It's unfortunate because I would be more confident in 100 peer reviewers post-publication than 2-3 that reviewed it for the journal. This already goes on in blogs and social media, but the same scientists haven't embraced the academic venues for this.

It could be that there are multiple proposed mechanisms, and that HCQ being a zinc ionophore is only one of them. I looked up some of the studies of HCQ in different animal models, and some of them showed positive results with CQ or HCQ alone.

The scientific method is hard to explain, and scientists frequently mention peer reviewed papers when talking to the public. I think that this is mainly to dismiss things like health anecdotes that spread around the internet. We don't have time to explain in detail why your uncle's implausible and untested miracle cure for whatever disease is unlikely to work.

There's no easy answer to which sources are reliable, but it helps to look at what reputable organizations say. They typically base their advice on the majority opinions of relevant experts. Scientists are human, so they are bound to make mistakes, but in the whole they have made demonstrable progress in a variety of fields.

I would blame the science media to some degree. I don't expect the New York Times to recognize the problems with these papers, but I've seen several examples of science journalists treating these studies as having the final say. This includes Science magazine, one of the premier science journals.

The issue of bring Trump into this is tougher. I'm not an American, and don't follow his speeches. I've seen many articles start out with "the drug that Trump irresponsibly hyped up has been proven not to work". To me, it feels like Trump is their main focus instead of the science. Now, if Trump has repeatedly hyped this drug I think that it would be reasonable. Is that the case, or is it the case that the media continue to bring up something he said weeks ago?

The need for hyperrigour is one thing, but I think that unfamiliarity with the literature and poor science communication comes in play as well. I'm a biologist, so I have access to the scientific literature. When the mask debate came up, I did a small literature review to see what the science said. I was surprised to find that the science was pretty nuanced and subject to debate. Some papers suggested that masks are ineffective,but others suggested that they could play a role. Many of these studies had strong limitations and only provided insight for very specific scenarios. For example, some papers treated infections as a binary (they either prevent infections or not, rather than looking at reducing infections), many papers looked at preventing the mask wearer from getting infected, but not at reducing the spread by infected mask wearers, etc.

Any scientist can tell you that it's hard to keep up with the literature, and it's very likely that many of them spoke out against make without reading the papers. I was taught as an undergrad that they don't work. Many of these things are passed down uncritically.

This issue demonstrates that we need to improve science communication. Many scientists and public health professionals declared outright that make don't work. This shows that they are either unfamiliarity with the totality of the literature or that they feel the need to give definitive statements. When some people provided evidence in favour of masks, some of them switched to saying that make are needed by medical professionals and that improper usage can increase your risk. A better approach would be to acknowledge that there is uncertainty at that in their view the evidence against masks outweighs that in favour. If they took this approach, it wouldn't seem like they just flip flopped when they started recommending make. Also, it's not hard to train people to use them, and condescending to treat people as being too stupid to wear them.

I think that the language we use might be limiting our analysis of this topic. We often describe minor keys as sad, but I don't think that really describes the emotion. Dark is also used, but doesn't necessarily imply sadness. Dark has problems too, as it's more vague.

Even though many people would describe certain songs as sounding sad, I don't think that it usually makes them feel sad. Can a song be sad if it doesn't make you feel sad? Heavy metal wouldn't be popular if it actually made you unhappy. Personally, it can improve my mood if I feel sad. Conversely, a really "bubblegummy" pop song would get on my nerves, but I would still describe it as sounding happy.

I'm not even sure that we could come up with better labels using common words. The emotions caused by music are pretty unique (at least for me).

I'm a big proponent of free speech, and have read a bit on the arguments against Big Tech censorship. One of the arguments against Google being able to selectively censor political content, despite being a private company, is that they could be classified as an essential service. I'm obviously getting information from sources opposed to Google's censorship, so I don't know if the wider legal community agrees with that view, but it's worth considering.

Another argument is that they have legal protections as content providers. However, the same protections don't apply to content publishers. If their censorship places them in the publisher category, they could open themselves to lawsuits. YouTube is an example that usually comes up. If a user uploads an illegal video, YouTube has protections against lawsuits. As a publisher, they would have more liability for the content they host.

I found the following video insightful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBGFVUjCaI

It seems like an executive order is more of a guideline on how they interpret the law. He mentions that congress would need to make changes to the law for it to have teeth. He also said there will be lawsuits on the way.

Another consideration is whether or not the Chinese data has been reliable at later dates. The Chinese government did eject foreign journalists in March

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51938035

There have been some doubts regarding the accuracy of later numbers:

https://fortune.com/2020/04/24/china-coronavirus-data-real-l...

I'm a grad student studying a field known as bioinformatics. Basically, we come in to do the computer work for the biologists. We are in very high demand, as most biological research today generates huge quantities of data, and most biologists don't have the skills to deal with it.

The good news for someone like you is that I've met a number of people with a lot of experience in the computer side of things but little to no biology knowledge. There are in fact a lot of projects that could benefit from a good programmer/data analyst even if they don't know much biology. A lot of bioinformaticians just pick up the biology they need to know about their project as they go. Grad school would also be another route. A lot of bioinformatics programs are catered to people lacking either the biology or computer side of things. A good student could get into one of these programs without needing to go back and do a separate undergraduate degree.

I hope that helps! It's too bad that you can't pm people through this site, or I'd have no problems answering any questions if you were interested in hearing more. That said, there are a number of friendly online communities, such as the bioinformatics subreddit.