I like the idea, but I am pessimistic. The more experienced I get (aka getting older), the more I see administrative bloating as the cancer of institutions---a somewhat equally inescapable fate. Installing a safety reporting administration may do what it set out to do, initially. But at some point, promotions may be handed out to those with most reports, perhaps perverting the initial intent.
In another thread I read that the EASA and FAA used to send Airbus/EASA engineers to Boeing (and maybe vice versa) who could raise all sorts of hell if mistakes were found. Such a setup seems perhaps harder to "game". I do not know this for a fact, I recall it from reading another debate, so take it as hearsay.
The abstract indicates that there was no control group without treatment, but two groups given two different mushroom combos. As such, the "baseline" clearance is not revealed by this work.
Yes, that was indeed the point I was trying to convey! In an even sillier example, assume word vectors X, then calculate "proposal by proposal" similarities (i.e. inverse distances). Then duplicated X and concatenate [X,X], recalculate "proposal by proposal" distances (now for twice as many proposals)---those distances must now be less on average because each proposal has at least one "zero distance" neighbor. HOWEVER, why would you assert that the overall "idea space" has been reduced?
As others have said, the usage of similar words is no convincing evidence for homogenized ideas. I would like to add that the publication referred to in the article notes that there are many more proposals now than there were in the past.
This can naturally lead to lower average "distances" between proposals. In a simplistic example, lets assume 100 proposals existed in the "good old times" and they were different at random. Let's further assume in the "bad new days" people use those old ideas, change/improve upon them just slightly ("add noise"), but some old ideas are less often picked up than others. Say for example the least attractive old proposal is picked up twice, whereas the most attractive old idea is picked up and changed in 100 new proposals. Then, there is a lower average distance between proposals, all the while the total range of ideas has increased.
Because it's Friday and I am waiting for my oven to finish cooking my food, I wrote a small simulation. It's probably full of mistakes and I may have made terrible mistakes in my assumptions, but I thought it's fun:
Indeed. Yet, this graph shows the distribution of averages. See the x-axis. I didn't want to be so blunt, but due to its shoddy presentation, I cannot trust what this page is showing.
They, in poor form, report the "average" without explicitly specifying if they are referring to the mean or the median. Your perception would be shared by the majority of people if it's the mean they are presenting (which is most likely the case) because of the extreme income distribution. Overall, I am not a fan of the data presentation here.
Why even ask for a grant proposal? Require some evidence that the applicant is serious, and then let luck decide. You might be suggesting this already (but your last sentence read to me as if you're thinking of vetting proposals). Obviously not all funding should be allocated like this, but maybe a small fraction. Perhaps only to those without any grant support at the time. I think it could be a good hedging strategy for society.
While the vitamin D result was significant, this is not a slam dunk result. 123 (treatment) vs 155 (placebo) had a confirmed autoimmune disease. Low incidence rate with a small effect size hamper the power here. This is somewhat expected given the complexity of autoimmune diseases; I would have been highly suspicious of a slam dunk, silver bullet result.
>Do the unvaccinated populations fuel the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants?
> The consensus among the scientific community is yes, they likely do. Unvaccinated people have less protection from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and thus would allow more of the virus to multiply within them.
> The higher rate of virus multiplication in the unvaccinated is likely to result in more possible mutations of the virus, resulting in the emergence of a larger number of variants in unvaccinated than vaccinated people.
I think at this point there is not much more to say here, at least from my end. Have a great day.
Lol, right---I did not recognize this as the agent of one of the "deadliest pandemics" starting in 1889 (Wikipedia) in history. But what is your point? Are you of the opinion that vaccines cannot reduce variant emergence rates?
That virus has also not caused a global, multi-year long pandemic. In this context, your reference seems tangential to me. Vaccinations ought to reduce SARS-CoV-2 variant emergence rates by virtue of reducing viral replications.
I agree with this, and I do not think it contradicts my original statement. You cannot prevent new variants, but you can reduce the rate of their emergence.
The paper you cite supports this: in a case study of a single immunocompromised patient who---because of that---had a prolonged infection, many replications of the virus were observed. This patient represents a "hot spot" of variant emergence in this furthermore antibody treated patients. From the article "the remaining samples [sic: most] are consistent with arising from a consistent viral population".
What I take from this is: we ought to prevent prolonged infections where it is possible. Again, from the article "The effects of convalescent plasma on virus evolution found here are unlikely to apply in immunocompetent hosts in whom viral diversity is likely to be lower owing to better immune control." And a vaccinated individual will on average have the best immune control.
Interesting. Indeed animal hosts could be problem. I would counter two points:
1) Assuming animals were a major source of variants, it quantitatively but not qualitatively changes the problem. Until we know the quantities, I do not see how you can assert relevance.
2) The references you provide say Omicron came most likely from a human with prolonged infection. The paper proposing a intermediate variant in mice is interesting, but considered unlikely (your reference: "Evolutionary biologist Mike Worobey, Ph.D., of the University of Arizona in Tucson, said the most plausible theory remained that Omicron evolved in an immune-compromised patient with a protracted [SARS-CoV-2] infection.")
Viral replications are the only scenario where variants can emerge naturally. Duration of disease and severity of disease are correlated with load and total viral replications. Vaccination reduces both at the population level. A vaccinated person therefore will on average be a less likely source of a variant. How much this weighs against other factors when deciding on policy is impossible for me say, but I would insist it is not irrelevant based upon current knowledge.