881 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. ReconfigBehSci [@SciBeh] (2020) SciBeh is organising a workshop on "Building an online information environment for policy relevant science" Mark the date, Nov. 9/10, 2020, join us, contact us with thoughts and suggestions, and RT!. Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309436825753260032

    1. Hennessy, E. A., Acabchuk, R., Arnold, P. A., Dunn, A. G., Foo, Y. Z., Johnson, B. T., Geange, S. R., Haddaway, N. R., Nakagawa, S., Mapanga, W., Mengersen, K., Page, M. J., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Welch, V., & McGuinness, L. A. (2020). Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ptg9j

    1. ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “having spent a few days looking at ‘debate’ about COVID policy on lay twitter (not the conspiracy stuff, just the ‘we should all be Sweden’ discussions), the single most jarring (and worrying) thing I noticed is that posters seem completely undeterred by self contradiction 1/3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1308340430170456064

  2. Sep 2020
    1. There are two possible approaches to build widespread SARS-CoV-2 immunity: (1) a mass vaccination campaign, which requires the development of an effective and safe vaccine, or (2) natural immunization of global populations with the virus over time. However, the consequences of the latter are serious and far-reaching—a large fraction of the human population would need to become infected with the virus, and millions would succumb to it.

      Take away: Mass infection without vaccination to achieve herd immunity will result in millions of deaths based on the observed death rate and may not result in herd immunity due to virus mutation. Historically, vaccination results in less deaths than the disease.

      The claim: Herd immunity from widespread disease instead of vaccination will lead to many people dying.

      The evidence: Approximately 50-67% of a given population is estimated to need to be infected for herd immunity to COVID-19 to exist which will result in millions of deaths. This is supported by additional publications (1, 2). This number assumes that the virus will not mutate to the point where re-infection is possible. If mutation occurs, COVID could become established in the general population similar to influenza or the common cold (3). A third publication estimates a needed infected percentage of 29-74% (4). These publications support the statement that millions will die if herd immunity is achieved via infection without vaccination. Historically, vaccination results in fewer deaths/disease on a population level than the disease for which the vaccine is designed to prevent (5-7).

      Sources:

      1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314002/

      2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262166/pdf/JMV-9999-na.pdf

      3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164482/

      4 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A1480DAE803D4CD4A3E9F79B82309584/S1935789320001913a.pdf/covid19_reflections.pdf

      5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28708957/

      6 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29668817/

      7 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12531323/

    1. ReconfigBehSci @SciBeh (2020) For those who might think this issue isn't settled yet, the piece include below has further graphs indicating just how much "protecting the economy" is associated with "keeping the virus under control" Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1306216113722871808

    1. KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) @KFF (2020) RT @KFF @DrewAltman discusses two fundamental policy decisions made by the Trump administration that set the U.S. on the controversial an…

    1. I edited the post twice to remove the broken link /react-js-the-king-of-universal-apps/ (with the edit-comments clearly mentioning that it is a broken link), but the peers have rejected the edit both the times. Can someone guide me what's wrong in editing an answer and removing a broken link?
    1. Jesse Keenan, an urban-planning and climate-change specialist then at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, who advises the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission on market hazards from climate change. Keenan, who is now an associate professor of real estate at Tulane University’s School of Architecture, had been in the news last year for projecting where people might move to — suggesting that Duluth, Minnesota, for instance, should brace for a coming real estate boom as climate migrants move north.

      Why can't we project additional places like this and begin investing in infrastructure and growth in those places?

    2. That’s what happened in Florida. Hurricane Andrew reduced parts of cities to landfill and cost insurers nearly $16 billion in payouts. Many insurance companies, recognizing the likelihood that it would happen again, declined to renew policies and left the state. So the Florida Legislature created a state-run company to insure properties itself, preventing both an exodus and an economic collapse by essentially pretending that the climate vulnerabilities didn’t exist.

      This is an interesting and telling example.

    3. Part of the problem is that most policies look only 12 months into the future, ignoring long-term trends even as insurance availability influences development and drives people’s long-term decision-making.

      Another place where markets are failing us. We need better regulation for this sort of behavior.

    4. And federal agriculture aid withholds subsidies from farmers who switch to drought-resistant crops, while paying growers to replant the same ones that failed.

      Here's a place were those who cry capitalism will save us should be shouting the loudest!

    5. The federal National Flood Insurance Program has paid to rebuild houses that have flooded six times over in the same spot.

      We definitely need to quit putting good money after bad.

    1. Take away: People are infectious for only part of the time they test positive. The tests for COVID-19 were granted emergency status by the FDA so some debate concerning the most ideal number of cycles is to be expected. It is worth noting that the FDA has the disclaimer "Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information (2)."

      The claim: Up to 90 percent of people diagnosed with coronavirus may not be carrying enough of it to infect anyone else

      The evidence: Per Walsh et al. (1), SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) is most likely infectious if the number of PCR cycles is <24 and the symptom onset to test is <8 days. RT-PCR detects the RNA, not the infectious virus. Therefore, setting the cycle threshold at 37-40 cycles will most likely result in detecting some samples with virus which is not infectious. As the PCR tests were granted emergency use by the FDA (samples include 2-9), it is not surprising that some debate exists currently about where the cycle threshold should be. Thresholds need to be set and validated for dozens of PCR tests currently in use. If identifying only infectious individuals is the goal, a lower cycle number may be justified. If detection of as many cases as possible to get closer to the most accurate death rate is the goal, setting the cycle threshold at 37-40 makes sense. A lower threshold will result in fewer COVID-19 positive samples being identified. It is worth noting that the emergency use approval granted by the FDA includes the disclaimer that a negative test does not guarantee that a person is not infected with COVID-19. RNA degrades easily. If samples are not kept cold or properly processed, the virus can degrade and result in a false negative result.

      Source: 1 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa638/5842165

      2 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

      3 https://www.fda.gov/media/138150/download

      4 https://www.fda.gov/media/137120/download

      5 https://www.fda.gov/media/136231/download

      6 https://www.fda.gov/media/136472/download

      7 https://www.fda.gov/media/139279/download

      8 https://www.fda.gov/media/136314/download

      9 https://www.fda.gov/media/140776/download

    1. Baker, C. M., Campbell, P. T., Chades, I., Dean, A. J., Hester, S. M., Holden, M. H., McCaw, J. M., McVernon, J., Moss, R., Shearer, F. M., & Possingham, H. P. (2020). From climate change to pandemics: Decision science can help scientists have impact. ArXiv:2007.13261 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.13261

    1. Bartscher, A. K., Seitz, S., Siegloch, S., Slotwinski, M., & Wehrhöfer, N. (2020). Social Capital and the Spread of COVID-19: Insights from European Countries. IZA Discussion Paper, 13310. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/dp13310/

  3. Aug 2020
    1. Lozano, R., Fullman, N., Mumford, J. E., Knight, M., Barthelemy, C. M., Abbafati, C., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdollahi, M., Abedi, A., Abolhassani, H., Abosetugn, A. E., Abreu, L. G., Abrigo, M. R. M., Haimed, A. K. A., Abushouk, A. I., Adabi, M., Adebayo, O. M., Adekanmbi, V., … Murray, C. J. L. (2020). Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30750-9

    1. Ray, E. L., Wattanachit, N., Niemi, J., Kanji, A. H., House, K., Cramer, E. Y., Bracher, J., Zheng, A., Yamana, T. K., Xiong, X., Woody, S., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Walraven, R. L., Tomar, V., Sherratt, K., Sheldon, D., Reiner, R. C., Prakash, B. A., … Consortium, C.-19 F. H. (2020). Ensemble Forecasts of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. MedRxiv, 2020.08.19.20177493. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177493