Thanks for pointing that out. For the unfamiliar (like me a few seconds ago) culling means "to reduce or control the size of (something, such as a herd) by removal (as by hunting or slaughter) of especially weak or sick individuals " 
Anthrax is found in the soil around the world and generally effects grazing animals like livestock, deer, etc. It is not contagious and isn't something you should lose sleep worrying about. It captures the public's attention because it has been weaponized.
It basically means it won't spread through the population like the flu, which makes outbreaks easy to contain. Corpses need to be properly disposed of and you should avoid contact with the scabs or whatnot from people with anthrax lesions, but that's about it. There are cases of anthrax in livestock in America a few times a year but it's really not much cause for concern. It used to be far more common, but now livestock get vaccinated for it in regions where it's know to occur.
It’s definitely concerning but is it in the same league as say the fact America appears to have lost desire to retain its leadership in the world? Are we ready for another country to decide to take a shot at that role? That sounds like a terrifying prospect to me because i just can’t see that happening without bloodshed.
In years gone past, whatever the crisis, America would step up and lead. Over the past few years it’s chosen, as is its right to do so, to step back from world leadership (trade, peace keeping, covid response, immigration, climate change, etc etc)
What about a super volcano eruption tomorrow, we know one is coming but we don’t know when yet we do very little to prepare for it, e.g. post massive disaster food crop growing research etc.
What about the fact that electrical grids are creaking at the seams today in many countries and that we know it only takes around 2 weeks of no electrical grid to reach catastrophic changes to way of life (hospitals offline, perishable food supplies mostly gone, commerce halted etc etc)
The really terrifying things don’t get much in the way of discourse. How can this possibly be in the same league as the terrifying stuff we’re a bit scared to talk about because there aren’t really any great answers and there’s no way to predict when so we have an easy way to ignore it all.
> In years gone past, whatever the crisis, America would step up and lead.
Many would argue that America was the one who created many of those crises in the first place.
American capitalism has led the world to the brink of destruction by climate change, so a loss in status is absolutely warranted.
> The really terrifying things don’t get much in the way of discourse. How can this possibly be in the same league as the terrifying stuff we’re a bit scared to talk about because there aren’t really any great answers and there’s no way to predict when so we have an easy way to ignore it all.
A super volcano eruption is beyond our control, so there's no point getting worked up about that. Nothing else pales in comparison to the destruction that's coming as a direct result of USA turning a blind eye to climate change.
>> "American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.
> Is that true? I’ve heard this recently from republican leaning sources but it doesn’t appear to be true.
I can't find sources to determine the exact contribution of the US to this, but free market capitalism in general is definitely responsible .
>> it seems like a majority of climate change talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more
> An American citizen emits 16 tonnes of co2 per year. Who else even comes close?
Canada is higher, Australia is close behind. I mentioned this before, but US co2 emissions have been in decline, while many other countries are increasing. It will not take India long before it eclipses the US.
America represents 15% of total co2 emissions . If we wanted to reduce globally everyone needs to participate.
> "American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.
>Interesting how America is always to blame for the world's problems. I'm not saying America has been perfect, but it certainly does more good than bad.
Tell that to the Middle East, parts of South East Asia and South Americas.
> talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more, and rarely about what other countries can do.
Now we get to the nub.
The key word here is responsibility. And dont look at production level CO2 emission. The US eclipses every nation on earth when looking at per person energy consumption and resulting CO2 footprint
If India and China's citizens lived like Americans, it would be a global catastrophe. Those two nations are still developing their grids and can't pour money into alternative energy industries and R&D because of cost and scale
> I'm fairly confident most people think climate change is concerning, but not "on the brink of destruction"
Lucky for them, those people jus haven't yet experienced the destruction of a category five tropical cyclone.
> Interesting, because the United States has actually been lowering carbon dioxide emissions
You can use this excuse when talking to children or US Republicans, but it doesn't work with people who have more than half a brain.
I live on a quarter of an acre. I could use my property to make X, or I can just buy X from my neighbour and make the claim that my property isn't used to make X, and is therefore uncontaminated and clean.
You can't get China to make your polluting garbage, and then blame China for being the worlds polluter.
It's Americans who demand massive trucks to drive on hours-long commutes every day instead of building public transport; who fight wars for fossil fuels to burn.
> Interesting how America is always to blame for the world's problems.
Not interesting at all. Quite depressing actually.
I think the largest deposits would take thousands of years to be affected, but there are shallow deposits that could be released, especially those near glaciers, where the glacier melting allows the nearby seabed to rise.
"Mycoremediation is the bioremediation technique which employ fungi in the removal of toxic compounds; it could be carried out in the presence of both filamentous fungi (moulds) and macrofungi (mushrooms). Both classes possess enzymes for the degradation of a large variety of pollutants"
Maybe Paul Stammets, Michael Pollan, and the entire next generation of mycology experts can find a way to sporolate these areas in an effective way. Even if it just encapsulates and doesn't eliminate, it's still something.
Life that has been continually evolving as the environment changes is much more likely to develop into a super threat than life that has been frozen for ages and is waking up into a world that it is not optimized for.
Anthrax outbreaks have occurred all around the world. Just because it occurred in Siberia and there is evidence that it survives being frozen for long periods of time doesn't mean the risk of some super threat from permafrost is of any exceptional significance.
It seems however that people like to be frightened and to have something to panic about, especially Americans, and your newspapers and magazines cater to this by cherry picking data that can be twisted to tell a scary story.
This article was clearly written primarily by the climatologists and not the microbiologist who is mentioned in the author list. Or perhaps, they are being knowingly irresponsible to further an agenda.
The climate threat is sufficient on its own. We don't need to dilute it's seriousness by inventing threats such as ancient arctic viruses and microbes. I'm not advocating that we don't study these phenomenon, or that some complex phenomena don't have the potential to be globe altering, but this article is just fearmongering.
There is no arctic virus or microbe that is going to terrorize the world. There is no gene that will suddenly be distributed and wreak havoc on mammalian populations, like the article is clearly insinuating.
>Permafrost thaw in Siberia led to a 2018 anthrax outbreak and the death of 200,000 reindeer and a child.
Anthrax is not going to sporulate around the globe from the Arctic. Bacillus anthracis already live everywhere in the globe and only sporulate when they are stressed. The reason the ones in the permafrost were dangerous is because they were stressed from the cold. However, the flip side is no one lives there, making it a complete isolated incident. Additionally, the reindeer were culled, not directly killed by the anthrax toxin.
>Organisms that co-evolved within now-extinct ecosystems from the Cenozoic to the Pleistocene may also emerge and interact with our modern environment in entirely novel ways. A potential example, the emerging Orthopoxvirus species Alaskapox causing skin lesions, has appeared and disappeared in Alaska twice in the last five years.
"Alaskapox" is an orthopoxvirus. These are not novel. They are perhaps the most widespread mammalian virus. They evolve rapidly and species jump from time to time. 33% of known orthoxpoxviridae were discovered in the last detect The reported human cases are thought to be from squirrel contact, and not humam-to-human transmissible. To date, there is zero evidence that "alaskapox" is from arctic/frozen origin. Exactly no evidence, despite overwhelming evidence that orthopoxviruses do evolve to new hosts and jump species. Additionally, there are dozens of emergent viruses around the world that are nowhere near the Arctic. An emergency virus near the Arctic is about as correlated to global warming as a baseball bat is correlated to deep sea diving.
>it is challenging to assess risks accurately without improved Arctic microbial datasets. We should pay attention to both known unknowns, such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria,and unknown unknowns, including the potential risks from the resurrection of ancient and poorly described viral genomes from Arctic ice by synthetic biologists.
This is just totally irresponsible fearmongering for a few reasons:
1) Humans did not and still don't live in these regions in any quantity. Which means no intact, infectious virion that targets humans is going to be found there, and even if it somehow was, it's not going to escape there. This is not Wuhan, this is the Arctic. Again, novel viruses emerge frequently, and are inherently limited, frequently, by their environments. Marburg, Ebola, Hantavirus, MERS, are all substantially greater threats than anything found in the Arctic because they have coevolved with their hosts for millions more years. These old, otherwise extinct arctic virus we haven't seen in eons (if ever)? They died out because they couldn't keep up with their hosts, or because their hosts disappeared and there was nothing left they were capable of infecting. Either scenario results in: not a direct threat.
2) Genome transfer. What if somehow SARS-CoV 2 picks up some gene that somehow wipes us out? This is extremely unlikely to be bad. Most genes are absolutely ancient already. Those that didn't make it, didn't make it for a reason. All of the genes a virus needs are already out there in the virome, and they recombine all the time. That's why next year's flu is an infinitely greater threat than anything buried in arctic ice. Also, if the genes were that much of an advantage, they wouldn't have extincted in the first place, OR they will be entirely incompatible with modern hosts.
3) There's a limit to viral lethality. If the virus kills quickly, it won't spread. This is why super lethal viruses tend to be endemic to areas, and their reservoir is usually hosts like bats where the virus is non-lethal. Super lethal viruses don't spread well, and it's why something like CoV or the flu are much scarier and kill many more people than ebola.
Perhaps we'll do better for the "next" pandemic now that we have the infrastructure in place and learned some lessons from COVID? Maybe I'm grasping for silver linings and being too optimistic towards humanity...
what in our response to COVID was better and more effective than our response to Black Death and Spanish flu? I don't see any improvement despite 700 and 100 years of accumulated knowledge and technology development since then. There has so far been no indication that the only things we were able to muster - archaic lockdown and masks - can prevent it from reaching the 20-30% spread, basically the level of unmitigated spread.
I mean, for example, 700 years ago people couldn't know that that ship coming into the port of Venice brings the infection. A year ago we knew that this plane from Wuhan most probably does.
yes, like Taiwan who 1. did learn the lesson from SARS and did immediate quarantine upon just hearing (i.e. de-facto using modern communication technology) about some strange flu appearing in China. 2. Used modern technology to do contact tracing. 3. Quickly scaled up extensive testing - again modern science and technology. Most places did nothing like these 3 steps. Those steps weren't available centuries ago and could have prevented the covid from becoming pandemic.
Another noticeable difference is that Taiwan actions were real actions where the government did actually performed them whereis typical "actions" we see around like lockdown and masks are just government orders without the governments actually doing anything.
Orders fewer? Lets look at the Spanish flu in US - the US wasn't ravaged by WWI/revolutions/rebelions, didn't have systemic hunger, etc. and had time to and implemented some of those measures like quarantines/lockdowns/masks, so very reasonable to compare to today. Spanish flu killed 700K in US . Covid already 250K in US - even if we imagine that we're at the peak today, it still means end number like 500K.
One interesting thing to consider is that the US isn’t actually the center of the world, so generalizing it’s reaction to the rest of the world makes no sense.
Looking at the world instead, COVID has killed just over a million people so far, and Spanish Flu is esimated to have killed anywhere between 17 and 100 million people, at a time when the world population was much less and travel was much harder. So yes, orders of magnitude.
I would only like to add that the US population was only around 100m around 1920, and travel would have been much more limited. But overall I agree that the worldwide handling in 2020 has been sobering.
Why do you think that? They said the same thing after "swine flu" during Obama. Basically, we just got lucky.
“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”
It's gonna come sooner rather than later. Humans encroach on the natural habitats of animals all over the world, which increases the number zoonoses dramatically. Most such spillovers don't cause any further human to human spread. Think of MERS. But there are spillovers that do spread between humans, like in the case of SARS-Cov-2. While the COVID pandemic is a major catastrophy, we were still quite lucky. MERS has a much higher case fatality ratio. Something that spreads as easily as SARS-Cov-2 while being as deadly as MERS is entirely possible.
We should start preparing once most of the population is vaccinated and human societies have returned to normal. Develop and test antivirals targetting the conserved proteins in major virus families. Build a pipeline that can respond to new viruses quickly with a vaccine. Create capacities to quickly ramp up mass production of PPE. Map the viruses that appear in animals around us to know what we are up to.
I hope that political leaders will listen to the people doing such proposals.
I hope that the new mRNA technology the Pfizer and AZ vaccines are based on will help us develop and manufacture more quickly. The delivery mechanism will be well-understood, the pipeline will be there, the limiting factor would still be knowing what to target and screening for safety/efficacy but it should still help.
I hope similar things can be done with rapid antigen/PCR testing equipment.
One of the lessons that I've learned from this pandemic is that despite overwhelming evidence and over a million deaths, there's a non-trivial amount of people who still believe it's not real, or who refuse to wear a mask, or who protest against the few, mild, reasonable measures we can take to get through this alive. So if anything, my faith in humankind has gone down :(
good friend of mine is a nurse. She has seen people in the ER with Covid deny that it exists too. There's people currently on oxygen who go "nah that doesn't exist I don't have it, the media made that up". So yeah
On a different time scale it does. It’s selecting against groups/societies that reward, value or permit the kinds of behaviours and belief systems that allow such doggedly wilful ignorance to flourish.
Sorry, that doesn't work when most groups/societies are heterogeneous in ideals. Even most people being reasonable isn't enough when the behavior of the few who aren't must be tolerated in the name of freedom. So natural selection alone won't actually improve anything.
It's a strangely western phenomenon. People might be callous about safety measures here in India, but absolutely no one in my extended circle of friends and family has ever denied its existence or that it's something people need to be careful about.
Globally there's far more trust for institutions and authority than in America. Cultures which respect the elderly, the professional, and the official. Even beyond respect it extends to obedience in some places.
I definitely see it in my own culture, which is Arab. It's a double edged sword, and can be said to enable further oppression, but in a crisis situation it's useful.
In addition to being ugly, this sentiment is pretty misguided. The selection pressure is far too mild to have any evolutionary impact.
To whit: covid selects primarily against individuals beyond their reproductive age, selects far too small of the population (unless we see these deaths continue for decades), and is only mildly selecting for anti mask populations.
Most importantly, being anti-mask can't be attributed to a clear genetic variable (although I suppose there might be some very weak correlation), and natural selection takes way, way longer than a human lifetime to create noticeable results anyway. Not even getting into the fact that there's much more to evolution than natural selection. It actually scares me that supposedly "pro-science" people have such simplified views about it.
What helps me to keep faith in humanity is imagining being alive during Galileo‘s time. How suffocating it must have been for him to find everyone everywhere rejecting science..? Sure we have a large number of people now that don’t believe in masks, vaccines, etc.., but keep in mind that the majority of the popular vote in the US voted for someone that does believe in science. Progress is being made, just sometimes it requires a step back to see it.
Some people blame the rise of 24 hours cable news channels. Others blame the rise of the Internet. Both of these have to do with disseminating more information to more people. Is it the fact that there is more information (quantity) or is the information itself (quality)?
I don’t know, whatever it is, I really loathe it. It’s practically impossible to have a rational discussion about anything related to politics. Everything seems to degenerate into entrenched emotional arguments rather than discussing actual facts.
I think that's because a) a lot of people nowadays think their feelings hold more importance than somebody else's facts (outrage is a terrible advisor) and b) the facts themselves have become less tangible because there seems to be a myriad of sides to anything, with so many sources putting their spin on things that even just arriving at a neutral base for an argument takes more effort than people are willing/can afford to expend. Especially because that effort has to be expended against the pull of their own biases, which have gotten pretty entrenched thanks to the online echo chambers. Cognitive dissonance is exhausting, so people often just shut down and go into emotional combat mode when faced with opposing views, even when the views are presented in a sensible manner -- and mostly, they are not, because why bother if the gulf is already so large and the people on the other side are clearly idiots.
Could you provide a source please? Were the videos making claims that taking Vitamin D would protect against COVID or some other misinformation, or were they legitimately talking about mortality rates of those with v.D deficiencies?
I think there is a clear difference in private platforms stopping the spread of misinformation (you aren’t free to use their platform to spread information harmful to society) and what happened to Galileo.
But I am making an assumption because I don’t actually know what videos you are referring to.
The most scientific policy would be to physically force everyone to stay in a room alone for months and physically force them to wash their hands after they use the bathroom, etc. This is the best way to get rid of the virus and it describes a horrific, dystopian, society.
Trump isn’t even close to the best man for the job of handling a pandemic but to pretend we should be following science to the t is politically ignorant (as most scientists would tell you.)
The original comment referenced Trump's anti-mask attitude. His position was never just that you shouldn't be forced into wearing a mask; he was against masks period. He refused to wear one publicly while mocking others for wearing them. He explicitly turned masks into a political issue claiming that people wore them just to express their disapproval of him. He even refused to wear a mask while touring a mask factory.
So again, this _clearly_ had nothing to do with freedom or totalitarianism.
Millions upon millions die around the world each year due to poor choices. Don't let a fraction of that amount getting a bad flu change your outlook. Humanity is doing just fine. Could be better, could be worse, but take a slow walk around the block and I think you'll agree.
These perspectives make a lot of sense. The livelihoods of people who depend on non-pandemic circumstances are either destroyed or are on death's door. It's a lot easier for us working jobs that are easy to transition to remote and are mildly inconvenienced by the pandemic.
Hopelessness, stress and uncertainty all take huge mental tolls on us, and rejecting covid can help these people cope with this malaise.
I was surprised that even in 2020 you have people making up straight lies about covid, while I believed that the wild theories that people had about the plague back in the day (e.g. the one that blamed the jews for it) were born from the fact that these people haven't went to school and were badly educated. But now they can write and relevant parts of the population claim similar things. And COVID is way less deadly than the bubonic plague is. This is a pandemic in easy mode. We would have been in for much worse had it been like the bubonic plague.
'Humboldt, Chomsky says, “argued, I think, very plausibly, that the core principle and requirement of a fulfilled human being is the ability to inquire and create constructively, independently, without external controls.” A true education, Chomsky suggests, opens a door to human intellectual freedom and creative autonomy.'
Unfortunately I see these peoples around in Russia. My estimation of anti-maskers is about 10-15% of population here. Mostly 35-55 males who thinks that wearing a mask is the sign of weakness and/or keeps saying that COVID is "just a flu" and those who died would have been dead anyway in 2-3 month if not from COVID then from something like common cold. Even recent death of 28 y/o school teacher and 23 y/o political activist didn't change their mind.
a good mask will help when you're occasionally visiting an infectious patient in a hospital. There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus, and the people in the country have no resources for any prolonged lockdowns. Add to that that the top people in Russia, like in any other country, receive highly personalized healthcare, and that means that they have practically no risk of death from Covid as it is a very treatable given enough resources (antibody injection, etc. under very personalized treatment resulting in just few days of "bad flu" - i.e. while infection-wise Covid doesn't distinguish much, outcome-wise it is very socially unequal decease).
> There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus
A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself. At any point in time you might be carrying asymptomatic or not-yet-symptomatic COVID. Your mask prevents your saliva from flying in the air around you, protecting people near you and their parents/susceptible relatives this might get passed on to.
And if it’s against your interest when emergency healthcare can’t help your sick child because they have not enough resources due to COVID patients, then over long term wearing a mask is actually for yourself, too.
> A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself
You have no evidence to support this point.
Scientists (WHO, CDC, Lancet, etc) don't say "masks are very effective", they say that masks _may_ help prevent the spread, but only if they're part of a package of preventative measures. They all say that distancing is much more important than mask wearing.
I think “very effective” is a subjective turn of phrase and no self-respecting org would use it in official communication.
That said, I believe it is settled that airborne transmission happens via saliva droplets, and a properly worn, clean mask is great at stopping those from traveling further than your face (physics) without harming your own health.
Also, I believe it is wrong to equate WHO, CDC messaging with “scientists”. Those organizations are careful not to make specific claims that masks are great at preventing the spread, since a mask is pointless if it’s not a suitable mask (e.g., lets large enough particles through) or is worn badly, since human error is unavoidable, a dirty mask is actively dangerous to the wearer, and over-reliance on improperly worn masks could result in a disaster.
Does it mean we shouldn’t bother deploying our individual common sense in equipping masks? That we wouldn’t make a positive difference to the spread by wearing a good mask properly? I disagree.
Also, having been to crowded subway trains of Seoul recently, I question the claim that Russian cities are somehow crowded enough to render masks useless.
so, imagine one "other" without a mask and everybody around in masks (actually "face coverings" which allow air in/out from sides) commuting everyday in a densely packed bus. Do you think that "other" has much improved chances when aggregated over several months? (again, i'm not arguing against proper mask's efficiency during occasional exposure)
Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. If everyone is wearing masks then the likelihood of transmission is lower. Also the viral load of any transmission may also be lower, which could improve the outcome.
i'm not arguing against [proper] masks lowering the transmission chance in any given case. I just don't see it having any aggregate effect. Basically i don't see the local effect translating into global.
The herd immunity is 2/3. If say 1/3 of population has already some pre-existing immunity (from casual reading of Internet it looks that some noticeable share of population does have it for Covid and it seems larger than 1/3) then the total infection rate until herd immunity is reached is 1/3. The Spanish flu hit 30% of human population for example.
So, for Moscow 1/3 is 4M. They already got 0.5M cases and currently is having, despite the tight masks/gloves/partial lockdown measures, 7K/day cases. I don't see why would it slow down, and if anything i suppose it will only go up in the coming several months. Thus in the year they will have a total of 2.5M of officially registered cases. If one adds non-detected cases one can see that it is would be in the ballpark of 4M. I.e. herd immunity, end of pandemic, masks or no masks, lockdown or no lockdown. Basically like Spanish flu scenario, and i personally just don't see how the numbers can play differently.
1) instead we've had empty hospitals and a lot of non-COVID patients didn't get various treatments which they would have gotten overwise. Plus economic hit to the hospitals, and that most probably will have impact on the future patients. Hardly a win, if any.
2) Would be a win if it is so. I haven't yet formed even a barely informed opinion. It looks like a new development though, and I don't remember such thing mentioned about other viruses.
3) which is why i put the numbers only up to a year ahead as any mass vaccination doesn't seem happening earlier than that.
One of the big problems is that early in the Pandemic, the WHO, Fauci and most media said that Masks were useless. This was repeated several times. The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances.
> The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances.
Fauci has widely explained why he felt it was justified at the time, admitted he was wrong, and apologized. Like when I just started to do a search to provide sources, it autocompleted the query even. Probably similar for the other sources you named, so I encourage you to do some research if interested.
Musk is a brilliant guy in many things, but psychotic weirdo in many others. Glad we have him, but no way he should be a model role to young folks who often can't cherry-pick the good aspects of character from flawed and dangerous ones, and rather think in absolutes.
I totally agree on Musk, but I think you could say similar things about many “role models”. We’re just going to need to teach young folks that people are complex. In situations like these I think about how Dave Chappelle speaks of Bill Cosby.
Hmm I think I read a similar article like 6 months ago and it's quite sad to read :(. And the more irritating issue is I know many people who deny climate change / global warming by saying earth has always faced climate change.