[removed]

[removed]

It seems to me like a bit of a no-brainer that someone that has COVID and doesn't even realize it because they have no symptoms what-so-ever (vaccinated) would not spread the virus nearly as much as someone that is half dead with the virus running rampant through their system and they are coughing up a lung, spewing particles everywhere they go (unvaccinated). Sure there are exceptional cases, but I'm talking on a broad scale.

I'm no expert though, just going on common sense.

I'm triple-vaxxed (in my 40s) and I'm pretty sure I've had COVID at some point and didn't even know it. My elderly mom got it too and barely missed a beat (also vaccinated 3 or 4 times). She lives with my dad (nearly 80) and he did not catch it. I understand this is not scientific data, but it speaks to me about the effectiveness of the vaccines and their ability to reduce transmission.

It's not completely different. We don't see everything around us ever.

The use of invisible accurately describes our inability to see things the brain decides aren't important.

Social mobility can also refer to social movements, as opposed to personal situations. The ability to mobilize for a cause. March on Washington, Freedom Riders, Occupy, protest in general, etc.

Someone explain it to me, how can the brain process something invisible to the eye?

[removed]

[removed]

Why is the bleach example a bad faith argument? I gave that as an example that promising in vitro results often fail to make it to the clinic. That statement is absolutely true.

You don't like bleach? Fine, if you put enough table salt into the dish, cancer cells die, but people who eat the same salt still get cancer all the time. Is that still a bad faith argument? Or how about the fact FCCP kills cancer cells in a dish but will likely also kill people if you give it to them?

In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

[deleted]

What a horrible lottery to have won.

Or assuming that adding hypernormal concentrations of drug to a cell culture dish in any way translates to the mechanism of action in the human body.

... yeah. It doesn't matter how much personal motivation you have if the regime whose territory you live in systemically disenfranchises you and enables mass extraction of surplus value. Improving the livelihoods of people in that territory is usually the primary political argument leading to changes in political rule. "Follow me, and I'll get you better food and housing" is a very compelling argument even if the "how" isn't clear. Typically, new political regimes require a period of proving themselves, so they implement policies directly tied to improving social mobility such as socialized housing and healthcare, public infrastructure like transit and medical resources, and education/skill training/jobs programs.

Edit: the article is about a case study on the Meiji Restoration where an entrenched political establishment was replaced with one that promoted social mobility. Which makes sense. Established political regimes want to perpetuate themselves, which usually means establishing some mechanism of inheritance and protecting that mechanism. Shogunate Japan had what was essentially a caste system, where your occupations and expectations were defined by your familial relations. It offered very little social mobility. The period of transition offered the most social mobility because the opportunity for mobility was the best salary available. After the restoration was complete, mobility shrank again as the established regime needed to protect their "in-group" and its interests. Worth reading the article either way for the case study's specifics, but the headline is a little vague for the content.

It's the mean, not the median.

Absolutely not, i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I am saying that cell cultures and organoids help to greatly accelerate research, and i dont get why their use would make a study any less valid. Your bleach example is a bad faith argument.

Tru dat homie

Many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many things*

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying every that works in vitro also works in vivo?

for a long time most people, even psychologists, thought kids were just dumb, seemingly drunk little people. kids are actually smart af, they just don't know a lot of things. they pick up anything and everything multiple times faster than even well-educated adults. hopefully, people will one day stop being surprised that children are just as cognitively capable as adults

If this is actually a point of contention for somebody then they dont need to worry about their scientific literacy, as it would be moot.

[removed]

I'm just gonna consider it a beer a day keeps dementia away

What about I drink maybe 3 times a year?

[removed]

Let's be friends