I didn't take the poll, because there's no nuance - it's not a question of format, but of the content. Some of the pieces would be fine separately and could use longer discussion; others are fine as short takes. But they're all interesting! (I particularly liked the one on feet as predictive markers - at 80, I still cut my toenails, so that was very encouraging.)
Jeremy, I try to not be a pedant all the time but I really think this one needs comment. If there weren't many viruses out there helping (curating, culling and modifying and influencing in many ways) you, and your gut biome and your skin flora etc, would be soon dead, and would in any case never have evolved to your current lofty, excellent substack writing status. That some viruses are broadly detrimental, yes. Blanket bad? no. We could equally say that humans are bad, (... or even perhaps that ER doctors are bad... but then we would NEVER say that would we!)
A tiny fraction of all viruses sometimes have some nasty effects on humans, sometimes very nasty.
I understand that modifiers/qualifiers make for less punchy and more difficult to read text, but its a complex world out there and blanket statements lead to misunderstandings. Please.
What about dentistry? It sits out there in its own sphere and is separate from the practice of medicine whether MD or DO. It seems to be poorly regulated and less trustworthy than either of the others.
You have got me curious about the airborne bit, though. Most of the commentary I've seen has been negative about the WHO changes but I haven't looked in to it that much myself. In general, seems to me the high dispersion factor (most of the spread is from a small proportion of the population) in SARS-2 transmission isn't appreciated enough. This can skew studies pretty strongly for purely stochastic reasons based on whether or not a super-spreader happens to be in the group studied.
Ps I was in the path of near totality ; it was cloudy but I would seek more opportunities to be in an eclipse. Missed last week’s poll. Surprised at the lack of interest in eclipse!
I didn't take the poll, because there's no nuance - it's not a question of format, but of the content. Some of the pieces would be fine separately and could use longer discussion; others are fine as short takes. But they're all interesting! (I particularly liked the one on feet as predictive markers - at 80, I still cut my toenails, so that was very encouraging.)
"Viruses, in case you haven’t noticed, are bad!"
Jeremy, I try to not be a pedant all the time but I really think this one needs comment. If there weren't many viruses out there helping (curating, culling and modifying and influencing in many ways) you, and your gut biome and your skin flora etc, would be soon dead, and would in any case never have evolved to your current lofty, excellent substack writing status. That some viruses are broadly detrimental, yes. Blanket bad? no. We could equally say that humans are bad, (... or even perhaps that ER doctors are bad... but then we would NEVER say that would we!)
A tiny fraction of all viruses sometimes have some nasty effects on humans, sometimes very nasty.
I understand that modifiers/qualifiers make for less punchy and more difficult to read text, but its a complex world out there and blanket statements lead to misunderstandings. Please.
That said, as always, thank you.
By the way, Great TED talk! 👍🙌
What about dentistry? It sits out there in its own sphere and is separate from the practice of medicine whether MD or DO. It seems to be poorly regulated and less trustworthy than either of the others.
These are short enough to be fine in this format.
You have got me curious about the airborne bit, though. Most of the commentary I've seen has been negative about the WHO changes but I haven't looked in to it that much myself. In general, seems to me the high dispersion factor (most of the spread is from a small proportion of the population) in SARS-2 transmission isn't appreciated enough. This can skew studies pretty strongly for purely stochastic reasons based on whether or not a super-spreader happens to be in the group studied.
Ps I was in the path of near totality ; it was cloudy but I would seek more opportunities to be in an eclipse. Missed last week’s poll. Surprised at the lack of interest in eclipse!