scientificamerican--2020-10-01--We Learn Faster When We Aren't Told What Choices to Make

In a perfect world , we would learn from success and failure alike .
Both hold instructive lessons and provide needed reality checks that may safeguard our decisions from bad information or biased advice .
But , alas , our brain doesn ’ t work this way .
Unlike an impartial outcome-weighing machine an engineer might design , it learns more from some experiences than others .
A few of these biases may already sound familiar : A positivity bias causes us to weigh rewards more heavily than punishments .
And a confirmation bias makes us take to heart outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin with but discount those that show we were wrong .
A new study , however , peels away these biases to find a role for choice at their core .
A bias related to the choices we make explains all the others , says Stefano Palminteri of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research ( INSERM ) , who conducted a study published in Nature Human Behaviour in August that examines this tendency .
“ In a sense we have been perfecting our understanding of this bias , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Palminteri ’ s team found choice had a clear influence on decision-making .
Participants in the study observed two symbols on a screen and then selected one with the press of a key to learn , through trial and error , which image gave the most points .
At the end of the experiment , the subjects cashed in their points for money .
By careful design , the results ruled out competing interpretations .
For example , when freely choosing between the two options , people learned more quickly from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated with punishment , which removed points .
Though that finding resembled a positivity bias , this interpretation was ruled out by trials that demonstrated participants could also learn from negative outcomes .
In trials that showed the outcomes for both symbols after a choice was made , subjects learned more from their chosen symbol when it gave a higher reward and when the unchosen one would deduct a point .
That is , in this free-choice situation , they learned well from obtained gains and avoided losses .
That result looked like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes—positive or negative—that confirmed they were right .
But there was more to it .
The experiments also included “ forced choice ” trials in which the computer told participants which option to select .
Here , though the subjects still pressed keys to make the instructed choices , confirmation bias disappeared , with both positive and negative outcomes weighted equally during learning .
This impartiality might seem optimal , yet the learning rates were slower in the forced-choice situation than they were in the free-choice one .
It is as though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambivalence about learning from them somewhat like a child woodenly practicing their scales on the piano to please a parent .
Because the confirmation bias arose only during the free-choice situations , the authors dubbed it “ choice-confirmation bias.
” The tendency persisted in both poor and rich conditions , when rewards were scant or abundant .
“ Our human subjects were not capable of adjusting the bias as a function of the environment , ” Palminteri says .
“ It seems to be hardwired.
” This observation means the brain is primed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pegged to our freely chosen actions .
Choice tips the balance of learning : for the same action and outcome , the brain learns differently and more quickly from free choices than forced ones .
This skew may seem like a cognitive flaw , but in computer models , Palminteri ’ s team found that choice-confirmation bias offered an advantage : it produced stabler learning over a wide range of simulated conditions than unbiased learning did .
So even if this tendency occasionally results in bad decisions or beliefs , in the long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain to learn from the outcomes of chosen actions—which likely represent what is most important to a given person .
“ The paper shows that this bias isn ’ t necessarily irrational but actually a useful mechanism for teaching us about the world , ” says Philip Corlett of Yale University , who was not involved in the study .
He studies the origins of delusional thinking and agrees that an individual ’ s perception of control in a situation can shift their interpretation of the events around them .
“ Feeling as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes you experience is powerful and certainly would lead you to strengthen beliefs about those contingencies much more strongly , ” he says .
The role for choice found here suggests that our sense of control in a situation influences how we learn—or do not learn—from our experiences .
This insight could also help explain delusional thinking , in which false beliefs remain impenetrable to contrary evidence .
An outsize feeling of control may contribute to an unflagging adherence to an erroneous belief .
Delusions can be a hallmark of psychosis , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alien abduction or being a god .
Milder delusionlike thinking also touches otherwise healthy people , such as a sports fan with a superstition about wearing a lucky shirt to ensure a team ’ s win .
More harmfully , the current coronavirus pandemic has wrought some delusions of its own , such as one that holds that mask wearing causes sickness .
So a false belief remains fixed , and any outcomes that contradict it are not accepted by the brain .
If choice is the point of reference that governs our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bias ) , then maybe something about choice or an inflated sense of control pushes people toward delusions .
Perhaps individuals with delusions are choosing to have particular experiences to support a false belief and choosing to interpret information in a way that supports that belief .
This possibility has not been tested .
Questions for future research to answer , however , would be how beliefs are updated in a person with delusions and whether this process differs when choices are forced or made freely .
To help individuals with delusions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more effective to examine their sense of control and choices than to try to convince them with contradictory evidence—which , over and over , has not been shown to work .
Another question raised by this research is : What might influence a person ’ s sense of control ?
It may be an inherent feature of an individual ’ s personality .
Or it could be more pliable , as suggested by a recent study of people in the military in Belgium published in Nature Communications .
The paper reported a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are further along in their officer training and give orders , compared to privates , who obey them .
The latter individuals ’ sense of control , also called agency , was equally diminished in both free-choice and forced-choice situations .
“ They don ’ t experience agency , even when they ’ re free to choose what to do , which should not be the case , ” says study leader Emilie Caspar of the Free University of Brussels ( ULB ) .
Whether a diluted feeling of control affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and current work is examining whether this mindset follows participants beyond a military setting .
But if a person ’ s sense of control influences the strength of that their choice-confirmation bias , it is interesting to consider the impact of 2020—a year battered by the pandemic and economic and political uncertainty—on an individual ’ s cognition .
“ There ’ s this general sense that the rules don ’ t apply anymore , and that is really unmooring for people and can lead to unpredictable , irrational behavior , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet published preprint study that tracked changing levels of paranoia before and during the the global spread of COVID-19 .
It ’ s not clear whether the newfound choice-confirmation bias could inform public health messaging during a pandemic .
For example , maybe voluntary mask-wearing should be encouraged and coupled with rewards for choosing to put on a face covering and occasional punishments for not doing so .
Palminteri says it is hard to extrapolate from his experiments to the messy , complicated and somewhat removed contingencies of mask wearing .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs deep in the human psyche .
“ Even when the stakes are so high , you may think humans would behave rationally , ” he says .
“ But that ’ s far from clear .
”

In a perfect world, we would learn from success and failure alike. Both hold instructive lessons and provide needed reality checks that may safeguard our decisions from bad information or biased advice.
But, alas, our brain doesn’t work this way. Unlike an impartial outcome-weighing machine an engineer might design, it learns more from some experiences than others. A few of these biases may already sound familiar: A positivity bias causes us to weigh rewards more heavily than punishments. And a confirmation bias makes us take to heart outcomes that confirm what we thought was true to begin with but discount those that show we were wrong. A new study, however, peels away these biases to find a role for choice at their core.
A bias related to the choices we make explains all the others, says Stefano Palminteri of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), who conducted a study published in Nature Human Behaviour in August that examines this tendency. “In a sense we have been perfecting our understanding of this bias,” he says.
Using disarmingly simple tasks, Palminteri’s team found choice had a clear influence on decision-making. Participants in the study observed two symbols on a screen and then selected one with the press of a key to learn, through trial and error, which image gave the most points. At the end of the experiment, the subjects cashed in their points for money. By careful design, the results ruled out competing interpretations. For example, when freely choosing between the two options, people learned more quickly from the symbols associated with greater reward than those associated with punishment, which removed points. Though that finding resembled a positivity bias, this interpretation was ruled out by trials that demonstrated participants could also learn from negative outcomes. In trials that showed the outcomes for both symbols after a choice was made, subjects learned more from their chosen symbol when it gave a higher reward and when the unchosen one would deduct a point. That is, in this free-choice situation, they learned well from obtained gains and avoided losses.
That result looked like a confirmation bias, with people embracing outcomes—positive or negative—that confirmed they were right. But there was more to it. The experiments also included “forced choice” trials in which the computer told participants which option to select. Here, though the subjects still pressed keys to make the instructed choices, confirmation bias disappeared, with both positive and negative outcomes weighted equally during learning.
This impartiality might seem optimal, yet the learning rates were slower in the forced-choice situation than they were in the free-choice one. It is as though the participants were less invested in the outcomes—showing ambivalence about learning from them somewhat like a child woodenly practicing their scales on the piano to please a parent.
Because the confirmation bias arose only during the free-choice situations, the authors dubbed it “choice-confirmation bias.” The tendency persisted in both poor and rich conditions, when rewards were scant or abundant. “Our human subjects were not capable of adjusting the bias as a function of the environment,” Palminteri says. “It seems to be hardwired.”
This observation means the brain is primed to learn with a bias that is pegged to our freely chosen actions. Choice tips the balance of learning: for the same action and outcome, the brain learns differently and more quickly from free choices than forced ones. This skew may seem like a cognitive flaw, but in computer models, Palminteri’s team found that choice-confirmation bias offered an advantage: it produced stabler learning over a wide range of simulated conditions than unbiased learning did. So even if this tendency occasionally results in bad decisions or beliefs, in the long run, choice-confirmation bias may sensitize the brain to learn from the outcomes of chosen actions—which likely represent what is most important to a given person.
“The paper shows that this bias isn’t necessarily irrational but actually a useful mechanism for teaching us about the world,” says Philip Corlett of Yale University, who was not involved in the study. He studies the origins of delusional thinking and agrees that an individual’s perception of control in a situation can shift their interpretation of the events around them. “Feeling as though you are the architect of the outcomes you experience is powerful and certainly would lead you to strengthen beliefs about those contingencies much more strongly,” he says.
The role for choice found here suggests that our sense of control in a situation influences how we learn—or do not learn—from our experiences. This insight could also help explain delusional thinking, in which false beliefs remain impenetrable to contrary evidence. An outsize feeling of control may contribute to an unflagging adherence to an erroneous belief.
Delusions can be a hallmark of psychosis, in which they may involve extreme beliefs about alien abduction or being a god. Milder delusionlike thinking also touches otherwise healthy people, such as a sports fan with a superstition about wearing a lucky shirt to ensure a team’s win. More harmfully, the current coronavirus pandemic has wrought some delusions of its own, such as one that holds that mask wearing causes sickness.
So a false belief remains fixed, and any outcomes that contradict it are not accepted by the brain. If choice is the point of reference that governs our learning style (with or without confirmation bias), then maybe something about choice or an inflated sense of control pushes people toward delusions. Perhaps individuals with delusions are choosing to have particular experiences to support a false belief and choosing to interpret information in a way that supports that belief. This possibility has not been tested. Questions for future research to answer, however, would be how beliefs are updated in a person with delusions and whether this process differs when choices are forced or made freely. To help individuals with delusions, the current findings suggest, it may be more effective to examine their sense of control and choices than to try to convince them with contradictory evidence—which, over and over, has not been shown to work.
Another question raised by this research is: What might influence a person’s sense of control? It may be an inherent feature of an individual’s personality. Or it could be more pliable, as suggested by a recent study of people in the military in Belgium published in Nature Communications. The paper reported a greater sense of control among senior cadets, who are further along in their officer training and give orders, compared to privates, who obey them. The latter individuals’ sense of control, also called agency, was equally diminished in both free-choice and forced-choice situations. “They don’t experience agency, even when they’re free to choose what to do, which should not be the case,” says study leader Emilie Caspar of the Free University of Brussels (ULB).
Whether a diluted feeling of control affected those subjects’ learning was not studied, and current work is examining whether this mindset follows participants beyond a military setting. But if a person’s sense of control influences the strength of that their choice-confirmation bias, it is interesting to consider the impact of 2020—a year battered by the pandemic and economic and political uncertainty—on an individual’s cognition.
“There’s this general sense that the rules don’t apply anymore, and that is really unmooring for people and can lead to unpredictable, irrational behavior,” says Corlett, who recently conducted a not yet published preprint study that tracked changing levels of paranoia before and during the the global spread of COVID-19.
It’s not clear whether the newfound choice-confirmation bias could inform public health messaging during a pandemic. For example, maybe voluntary mask-wearing should be encouraged and coupled with rewards for choosing to put on a face covering and occasional punishments for not doing so.
Palminteri says it is hard to extrapolate from his experiments to the messy, complicated and somewhat removed contingencies of mask wearing. But the stark bottom line is that biased thinking runs deep in the human psyche. “Even when the stakes are so high, you may think humans would behave rationally,” he says. “But that’s far from clear.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--Trump's COVID Infection Puts Him in Multiple High-Risk Categories

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have both tested positive for SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—and are quarantining , the president announced in a tweet early Friday morning .
The news came in the midst of a pandemic that has killed more than 207,000 people in the U.S. , and just weeks before the presidential election .
“ This evening I received confirmation that both President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus , ” wrote the president ’ s doctor Sean Conley in a recent statement .
“ The President and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , and they plan to remain at home within the White House during their convalescence.
” News had emerged on Thursday evening that Hope Hicks , a senior adviser to the president , had tested positive for COVID .
Earlier this week she traveled with Trump to a campaign event and to his debate with Joe Biden .
It is unclear whether the 74-year-old Trump or the first lady have experienced symptoms .
Many people infected with the virus are asymptomatic .
But some of the most severe cases have occurred in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are obese .
Men are also at higher risk of severe infection than women .
The president is exhibiting mild , coldlike symptoms , and some at the White House recently noticed that his voice “ sounded raspy , ” according to the New York Times , but it was not certain how unusual that might be .
Trump has consistently downplayed the severity of COVID-19 , calling it no worse than the flu and dismissing the use of face masks that experts say are critical to controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including hydroxychloroquine , and has even suggested dangerous ideas , such as injecting bleach into the body .
The president will continue to perform his duties from his quarantine in the White House , his doctor wrote .
According to the New York Times , Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have so far tested negative .

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have both tested positive for SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—and are isolating themselves, the president announced in a tweet early Friday morning. The news came in the midst of a pandemic that has killed more than 207,000 people in the U.S., and just weeks before the presidential election.
“This evening I received confirmation that both President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” wrote the president’s doctor Sean Conley in a recent statement. “The President and First Lady are both well at this time, and they plan to remain at home within the White House during their convalescence.”
President Trump tosses a cap at attendees as he arrives at a “Make America Great Again” rally in Duluth, Minn., on September 30, 2020. Credit: Ben Brewer Getty Images
News had emerged on Thursday evening that Hope Hicks, a senior adviser to the president, had tested positive for COVID. Earlier this week she traveled with Trump to a campaign event and to his debate with Joe Biden. On Friday Biden announced on Twitter that he had tested negative, although that does not rule out infection (the virus has a five-day incubation period on average).
“I think, unfortunately, the president would certainly be at higher risk for developing more serious symptoms and will need to be observed closely,” says Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert on pandemic preparedness. “We know this disease affects people in his age group much more seriously than younger adults. People who have underlying conditions like being overweight or having chronic artery disease need to be watched carefully.”
The news underscores the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is a serious virus and that the people who have not previously been infected are still at risk, Inglesby says. He advises people to continue to follow protections such as wearing a mask, avoiding large gatherings, physically distancing from others and washing their hands. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance states that individuals with COVID-19 may not show symptoms until two to 14 days after exposure. So anyone who has recently had close contact with the president—defined being within six feet of him for more than 15 minutes—may need to be tested and to quarantine themselves for two weeks, Inglesby adds.
“Every country has found that older age—particularly above age 50—substantially increases risk of severe disease and death [from COVID-19]. And it increases with each decade, so individuals greater than 70 years are high risk,” says Chandy John, an infectious disease expert and a professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. He points out that most data on severe disease come from people who are symptomatic and do not have the same access to frequent testing and medical care that the president does, so it is difficult to extrapolate general data to Trump’s risk. “But there is no question that the president is at higher risk for severe disease than the general population,” John says.
It is unclear whether the 74-year-old Trump or the first lady have experienced severe symptoms. Many people infected with the virus are asymptomatic. But some of the most severe cases have occurred in people older than 65 and in those who are obese. Men are also at higher risk of severe infection than women. The president is exhibiting mild, coldlike symptoms, and some at the White House recently noticed that his voice “sounded raspy,” according to the New York Times, but it was not certain how unusual that might be.
Trump has consistently downplayed the severity of COVID-19, calling it no worse than the flu and dismissing the use of face masks that experts say are critical to controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. He has repeatedly touted unproved treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and has even suggested dangerous ideas, such as injecting bleach into the body.
The president will continue to perform his duties from his quarantine in the White House, his doctor wrote. According to the New York Times, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have so far tested negative.
“I really hope that this makes clear that COVID-19 is real and that anyone can get it,” John says of the Trump’s test results. “It seems silly to have to say that, but there are many people who still insist that the whole thing is a hoax. And I hope that this terrible event makes it clear to them that it is not.”
Editor’s Note (10/2/20): This article was updated after posting to include comments from Tom Inglesby and Chandy John and to include information about Joe Biden testing negative for COVID-19.


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--'Antigravity' Sailboat Floats under the Water's Surface

In this digitally colorized image , one of two small sailboats floats on the underside of a blue layer of @ @ @ @ @ container with viscous liquid , which they vibrated vigorously at a high frequency .
The @ @ @ @ @ to “ levitate ” within the container .
Stable air bubbles lay beneath it .
@ @ @ @ @ , small objects ( up to seven grams in mass and 2.5 centimeters in length @ @ @ @ @ on the underside of the water layer , appearing upside down .
This “ antigravity @ @ @ @ @ , is created by fluctuating gravity formed within the container by the rapid vibrations .
@ @ @ @ @ new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science .
@ @ @ @ @ to see the full collection .

In this digitally colorized image, one of two small sailboats floats on the underside of a blue layer of water. Researchers filled a container with viscous liquid, which they vibrated vigorously at a high frequency. The fast vibrations caused the liquid to “levitate” within the container. Stable air bubbles lay beneath it. There, the scientists found, small objects (up to seven grams in mass and 2.5 centimeters in length or diameter) could float on the underside of the water layer, appearing upside down. This “antigravity” effect, they speculate, is created by fluctuating gravity formed within the container by the rapid vibrations.
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science. Click on the button below to see the full collection.
Science in Images


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--The Moss That Lives Under a Rock

The Moss That Lives Under a Rock

With the way this year is going , the idea of living under a rock has become—possibly for the first time in our lives—alluring .
But it turns out there ’ s a plant that beat us to it .
That plant is moss .
Yes , moss .
The fuzzy green stuff famed for its love of waterfalls , rainforests , glades filled with frolicking elves , and assorted other moist locales .
It turns out they have some hardscrabble kin that live in the desert .
Because moss has a superpower : it can survive desiccation .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , big leaves and pretty flowers have a little problem when they don ’ t get watered enough , a problem with which any houseplant owner is familiar : they die .
Not so moss .
Dehydrated mosses can linger indefinitely , but once moistened , they reanimate so speedily that it ’ s as if nothing happened .
This power is called poikilohydry , and it is possessed by only a few other relatively large creatures , like the infamously hard-to-kill tardigrade , or water bear ( not coincidentally also called moss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same habitat with the same drought-survival needs ) .
So , moss and desert are not actually the terrible match you might suspect .
In fact , moss is one of the most common plants in the driest desert in North America .
That would be the Mojave Desert , the home of Death Valley .
It gets a few inches of rain per year .
One of the dominant components of the complex communities called the BSC ( biological soil crusts , which visitors are exhorted not to bust ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syntrichia .
This plant can also live independently of BSC .
In the Sheep Creek Wash at the western edge of the Mojave near Wrightwood , Calif. , the desiccated but still very much alive bodies of Syntrichia caninervis litter the ground , along with another species called Tortula inermis .
And if you pick up a rock , you might find them living under there too .
Desert mosses are nothing if not resourceful when it comes to homestead selection .
There are those that choose to live in the shade of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on dapples of light .
Others capitalize on the sides of boulders—but only the north sides .
And there are plenty who live right out in the baking sun , and somehow make it work .
If life gives you desert , make dessert .
There are other ways desert mosses make the best of their environment .
Many have translucent leaf tip cells that may help shield the plant by reflecting light .
Others possess natural sunscreens like carotenoids , anthocyanins and flavonoids .
Or you can , you know , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any rock will do , though .
Only milky quartzes work .
Such rocks range from about one to four centimeters thick and permit just 1 to 4 percent of the sunlight that hits them to reach their bottom .
For anything underneath , it 's like living in a cave—or a very , very dim greenhouse .
A recent study in PLOS ONE by Jenna Ekwealor and Kirsten Fisher , scientists at the University of California , Berkeley , and California State University , respectively , attempted to chronicle exactly what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mojave Desert and determine what effect these have on the mosses that live under there .
They discovered that the benefits of living under a rock in the Mojave include a home that is cooler by day and in summer and warmer by night and in winter .
Temperature swings in either direction are buffered .
Because quartz warms in the sun and retains that heat longer than air , it may also prevent sheltering mosses from freezing when air temperatures suggest they otherwise would .
It ’ s also often moister .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quartz rocks was still damp two weeks after a May rainfall .
Exposed mosses may be dry within three hours of rain , though one to four days is more common .
In short , life under quartz is more temperate .
It ’ s wetter .
It ’ s cushier .
it ’ s practically the Florida of the Mojave Desert under there , except with fewer pythons and better-run elections .
Although sublithic light intensity is a shadow of its usual self , thanks to these conditions , mosses there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portion of the year than exposed mosses .
In an additional pro over actual Florida , quartz also filters out nearly all ultraviolet light , making sunscreen unnecessary .
Indeed , covered Syntrichia lacks the dark brown or black color of its sunbathing compatriots , reverting to a more standard mossy green .
Finally , there ’ s the advantage that you ’ ve staked out some real estate that pretty much no one—aside perhaps from some easily trounced cyanobacteria—is going to fight you for .
The Mojave isn ’ t even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such inhabitants have been found so many times there is even a formal name for them : hypoliths .
As in , things that live under rocks .
Scientists have reported a moss growing under a translucent rock in Death Valley and yet another moss species growing under quartz pebbles on the Kansas prairie .
( There are even some humans that may qualify : the inhabitants of Coober Pedy , Australia , an opal-mining town so sun-blasted that many live in underground homes called “ dugouts.
” ) One implication of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem trivial to us are not trivial to a large portion of this planet ’ s inhabitants .
A mountain range has well-known and well-studied effects on the life around it .
Ekwealor and Fisher argue that on the scale of a moss , a quartz chunk is no less significant .
A second not unreasonable conclusion may be that we should open our minds when we contemplate “ Places One Might Expect to Find Things Living ” both on this planet and others .
Under rocks is not generally a place you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mosses teach us that it is wise to leave no stone unturned .

With the way this year is going, the idea of living under a rock has become—possibly for the first time in our lives—alluring. But it turns out there’s a plant that beat us to it.
That plant is moss. Yes, moss. The fuzzy green stuff famed for its love of waterfalls, rainforests, glades filled with frolicking elves, and assorted other moist locales.
It turns out they have some hardscrabble kin that live in the desert. Because moss has a superpower: it can survive desiccation. Those big seed plants with their stout trunks, big leaves and pretty flowers have a little problem when they don’t get watered enough, a problem with which any houseplant owner is familiar: they die.
Not so moss. Dehydrated mosses can linger indefinitely, but once moistened, they reanimate so speedily that it’s as if nothing happened. This power is called poikilohydry, and it is possessed by only a few other relatively large creatures, like the infamously hard-to-kill tardigrade, or water bear (not coincidentally also called moss piglet for its fondness for hanging out in the same habitat with the same drought-survival needs).
So, moss and desert are not actually the terrible match you might suspect. In fact, moss is one of the most common plants in the driest desert in North America.
That would be the Mojave Desert, the home of Death Valley. It gets a few inches of rain per year. One of the dominant components of the complex communities called the BSC (biological soil crusts, which visitors are exhorted not to bust) in the Mojave is a moss called Syntrichia. This plant can also live independently of BSC.
In the Sheep Creek Wash at the western edge of the Mojave near Wrightwood, Calif., the desiccated but still very much alive bodies of Syntrichia caninervis litter the ground, along with another species called Tortula inermis. And if you pick up a rock, you might find them living under there too.
Desert mosses are nothing if not resourceful when it comes to homestead selection. There are those that choose to live in the shade of shrubs where they manage to get by on dapples of light. Others capitalize on the sides of boulders—but only the north sides. And there are plenty who live right out in the baking sun, and somehow make it work. If life gives you desert, make dessert.
There are other ways desert mosses make the best of their environment. Many have translucent leaf tip cells that may help shield the plant by reflecting light. Others possess natural sunscreens like carotenoids, anthocyanins and flavonoids.
Or you can, you know, just live under a rock.
Not just any rock will do, though. Only milky quartzes work. Such rocks range from about one to four centimeters thick and permit just 1 to 4 percent of the sunlight that hits them to reach their bottom. For anything underneath, it's like living in a cave—or a very, very dim greenhouse.
A recent study in PLOS ONE by Jenna Ekwealor and Kirsten Fisher, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and California State University, respectively, attempted to chronicle exactly what the conditions are under quartz rocks in the Mojave Desert and determine what effect these have on the mosses that live under there.
They discovered that the benefits of living under a rock in the Mojave include a home that is cooler by day and in summer and warmer by night and in winter. Temperature swings in either direction are buffered.
Because quartz warms in the sun and retains that heat longer than air, it may also prevent sheltering mosses from freezing when air temperatures suggest they otherwise would.
It’s also often moister. The scientists found that the basement of quartz rocks was still damp two weeks after a May rainfall. Exposed mosses may be dry within three hours of rain, though one to four days is more common.
In short, life under quartz is more temperate. It’s wetter. It’s cushier. It’s practically the Florida of the Mojave Desert under there, except with fewer pythons and better-run elections. Although sublithic light intensity is a shadow of its usual self, thanks to these conditions, mosses there may be able to grow for a longer portion of the year than exposed mosses.
In an additional pro over actual Florida, quartz also filters out nearly all ultraviolet light, making sunscreen unnecessary. Indeed, covered Syntrichia lacks the dark brown or black color of its sunbathing compatriots, reverting to a more standard mossy green.
Finally, there’s the advantage that you’ve staked out some real estate that pretty much no one—aside perhaps from some easily trounced cyanobacteria—is going to fight you for.
The Mojave isn’t even the only place this is a thing. Such inhabitants have been found so many times there is even a formal name for them: hypoliths. As in, things that live under rocks.
Scientists have reported a moss growing under a translucent rock in Death Valley and yet another moss species growing under quartz pebbles on the Kansas prairie. (There are even some humans that may qualify: the inhabitants of Coober Pedy, Australia, an opal-mining town so sun-blasted that many live in underground homes called “dugouts.”)
One implication of this research is that landscape features that may seem trivial to us are not trivial to a large portion of this planet’s inhabitants. A mountain range has well-known and well-studied effects on the life around it. Ekwealor and Fisher argue that on the scale of a moss, a quartz chunk is no less significant.
A second not unreasonable conclusion may be that we should open our minds when we contemplate “Places One Might Expect to Find Things Living” both on this planet and others. Under rocks is not generally a place you look for beings that require light. Mosses teach us that it is wise to leave no stone unturned.


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--Why Some People Are Still Getting Sick--but Not with COVID

On September 18 Orianna Carvalho woke up at 3 A.M. with a sore throat and the sniffles .
At first she thought her symptoms were caused by allergies .
But as the minutes ticked by , she began to worry they were caused by COVID-19 .
The following morning , Carvalho got tested at the University of Rhode Island , where she is a first-year doctoral student .
Over the next few hours she developed a fever , and the catastrophizing began in earnest .
When Carvalho finally learned that the cause of her misery was not COVID but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also surprised .
“ I have been so careful—wearing a mask every time I go somewhere , keeping at least six feet away from other people , using hand sanitizer and washing my hands , ” she says .
“ I don ’ t know how I got sick.
” Carvalho is not alone .
Many Americans have been puzzled to find that their best efforts to avoid COVID-19 have not always protected them from less troubling infections such as colds , stomach bugs and strep throat .
How have other pathogens slipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no clear-cut answers , but the work of infectious disease specialists , virologists and epidemiologists—much of it conducted decades before the current pandemic—provides some clues .
Their research shows that many microbes are more numerous , hardy and contagious than SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 .
And for many of us , even our best efforts are not good enough .
The public health measures taken to stem the spread of SARS-CoV-2 , which has been responsible for the deaths of more than 207,000 people in the U.S. to date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respiratory viruses .
This year the Southern Hemisphere essentially skipped flu season , which typically hits countries such as Australia , Chile and South Africa in May or June .
Data from Australia suggest that although pandemic restrictions pushed many non-flu viruses out of circulation , a group of cold-causing pathogens known as rhinoviruses stuck around .
A similar trend could be in store for the U.S. , according to researchers who are tracking transmission of respiratory viruses in New York State , Washington State and Texas .
Pedro Piedra , a pediatric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicine , says that although he has seen a significant decrease in many common respiratory viruses during the pandemic , he has noticed an uptick in rhinoviruses this fall .
Some virologists believe that the sheer number of viruses that cause the common cold can make it exceedingly difficult to avoid catching one : there are around 200 different pathogens .
These include four coronaviruses ( the group that includes SARS-CoV-2 ) ; four parainfluenza viruses ( which , despite their name , bear no relation to influenza viruses ) ; respiratory syncytial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Viral censuses have revealed that dozens of these rhinoviruses circulate in any one place at a given time .
“ You might be immune to the flu , but you are not going to be immune to all those rhinoviruses , ” says James Gern , a rhinovirus researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison .
“ That ’ s one unique feature of rhinoviruses—you are always going to be susceptible to some.
” But there is only one SARS-CoV-2 virus , and it has proved to be more than enough to wreak havoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhinoviruses during the pandemic may be the result of not only their impressive number but also their primitive nature , says Ian Mackay , a virologist at the University of Queensland in Australia .
Similar to the flu virus , SARS-CoV-2 is a more highly evolved virus that is enclosed in a fatty “ lipid ” membrane .
This envelope can cloak the pathogen from antibodies deployed by the human immune system , enabling it to infect cells undetected .
But it can also break down after exposure to the environment or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rhinoviruses , on the other hand , never evolved an envelope .
These so-called naked viruses , which also include the gut-distress-inducing noroviruses , are more resistant to sanitizers and disinfectants and may last longer on fingertips and surfaces .
Although it is possible to pick up respiratory viruses from contaminated surfaces , most experts say we are more likely to get sick through contact with infected people .
In 1969 half of a group of men wintering at a remote Antarctic base developed signs and symptoms of the common cold after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never identified the source of the outbreak , but Mackay and others think it is possible that the men entering the base might not have been as healthy as they looked .
Asymptomatic spread has gotten a lot of attention during the COVID-19 pandemic : studies suggest 40 to 45 percent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission comes from people not yet showing symptoms .
Many colds and flus may also be passed along by people who do not have symptoms , although to what extent this spread occurs is an open question .
At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of asymptomatic children .
“ Children , in particular , are a petri dish for transmission , ” says Arnold Monto , an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan , who studies the spread of respiratory illnesses within households .
Because kids are prone to eye rubbing and nose picking , they can quickly contaminate their home with a menagerie of viruses and bacteria .
Unlike the acute respiratory infections that typically come and go in a matter of weeks , children can harbor chronic infections with bacteria—such as Streptococcus pyogenes , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves or others sick .
Tara Smith , an epidemiologist at Kent State University , says it is unclear how such bacteria move from harmless colonizer to invasive pathogen , but the stress of the pandemic could play a role .
And kids are not the only germ factories in our homes : pets are common carriers of many pathogens .
“ People probably get sick from their animals more than we realize , ” Smith says .
Despite the myriad possibilities , many experts believe the explanation for why some of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mundane .
“ Some people may think they are better protected than they actually are , ” Smith says .
Gern agrees : “ If cold viruses are still spreading , that means we are still having person-to-person contact , ” he says .
We live in a world where once beneficial actions—such as hugging a friend or going to the gym—now pose heightened risks to our health .
For her part , Carvalho thought she was doing everything she could to be safe .
After months of staying home , she returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ martial arts .
She now suspects that it is how she got sick .
Since the beginning of the pandemic , more than 80,000 people who wondered if they had a COVID infection have called the telemedicine company Doctor on Demand , according to Prentiss Taylor , a physician and the company ’ s vice president of medical affairs .
More than half of those cases were not referred for COVID-19 testing because some other respiratory affliction was deemed more likely .
Under the circumstances , catching a cold instead of COVID might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that other viruses have been able to slip through our defenses could serve as a warning for future pandemics , Mackay says .
“ If we ever see a new rhinovirus come along , we will have even more trouble containing it than SARS-CoV-2 .
A rhinovirus pandemic would be a massive threat that would spread like that , ” he adds , snapping his fingers .
“ And there ’ s no guarantee it would only cause common colds .
”

On September 18 Orianna Carvalho woke up at 3 A.M. with a sore throat and the sniffles. At first, she thought her symptoms were caused by allergies. But as the minutes ticked by, she began to worry they were caused by COVID-19. The following morning, Carvalho got tested at the University of Rhode Island, where she is a first-year doctoral student. Over the next few hours she developed a fever, and the catastrophizing began in earnest. When Carvalho finally learned that the cause of her misery was not COVID but the common cold, she was relieved but also surprised. “I have been so careful—wearing a mask every time I go somewhere, keeping at least six feet away from other people, using hand sanitizer and washing my hands,” she says. “I don’t know how I got sick.”
Carvalho is not alone. Many Americans have been puzzled to find that their best efforts to avoid COVID-19 have not always protected them from less troubling infections such as colds, stomach bugs and strep throat. How have other pathogens slipped through our anti-COVID defenses? There are no clear-cut answers, but the work of infectious disease specialists, virologists and epidemiologists—much of it conducted decades before the current pandemic—provides some clues. Their research shows that many microbes are more numerous, hardy and contagious than SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And for many of us, even our best efforts are not good enough.
The public health measures taken to stem the spread of SARS-CoV-2, which has been responsible for the deaths of more than 207,000 people in the U.S. to date, have also affected the prevalence of other respiratory viruses. This year the Southern Hemisphere essentially skipped flu season, which typically hits countries such as Australia, Chile and South Africa in May or June. Data from Australia suggest that although pandemic restrictions pushed many non-flu viruses out of circulation, a group of cold-causing pathogens known as rhinoviruses stuck around. A similar trend could be in store for the U.S., according to researchers who are tracking transmission of respiratory viruses in New York State, Washington State and Texas. Pedro Piedra, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Baylor College of Medicine, says that although he has seen a significant decrease in many common respiratory viruses during the pandemic, he has noticed an uptick in rhinoviruses this fall.
Some virologists believe that the sheer number of viruses that cause the common cold can make it exceedingly difficult to avoid catching one: there are around 200 different pathogens. These include four coronaviruses (the group that includes SARS-CoV-2); four parainfluenza viruses (which, despite their name, bear no relation to influenza viruses); respiratory syncytial virus; and 160 different rhinoviruses. Viral censuses have revealed that dozens of these rhinoviruses circulate in any one place at a given time. “You might be immune to the flu, but you are not going to be immune to all those rhinoviruses,” says James Gern, a rhinovirus researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “That’s one unique feature of rhinoviruses—you are always going to be susceptible to some.”
But there is only one SARS-CoV-2 virus, and it has proved to be more than enough to wreak havoc on our lives. The persistence of rhinoviruses during the pandemic may be the result of not only their impressive number but also their primitive nature, says Ian Mackay, a virologist at the University of Queensland in Australia. Similar to the flu virus, SARS-CoV-2 is a more highly evolved virus that is enclosed in a fatty “lipid” membrane. This envelope can cloak the pathogen from antibodies deployed by the human immune system, enabling it to infect cells undetected. But it can also break down after exposure to the environment or a good handwashing, rendering the virus harmless. Rhinoviruses, on the other hand, never evolved an envelope. These so-called naked viruses, which also include the gut-distress-inducing noroviruses, are more resistant to sanitizers and disinfectants and may last longer on fingertips and surfaces.
Although it is possible to pick up respiratory viruses from contaminated surfaces, most experts say we are more likely to get sick through contact with infected people. In 1969 half of a group of men wintering at a remote Antarctic base developed signs and symptoms of the common cold after being isolated for 17 weeks. Scientists never identified the source of the outbreak, but Mackay and others think it is possible that the men entering the base might not have been as healthy as they looked. Asymptomatic spread has gotten a lot of attention during the COVID-19 pandemic: studies suggest 40 to 45 percent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission comes from people not yet showing symptoms. Many colds and flus may also be passed along by people who do not have symptoms, although to what extent this spread occurs is an open question. At least one study detected rhinoviruses in a third of asymptomatic children.
“Children, in particular, are a petri dish for transmission,” says >Arnold Monto, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, who studies the spread of respiratory illnesses within households. Because kids are prone to eye rubbing and nose picking, they can quickly contaminate their home with a menagerie of viruses and bacteria. Unlike the acute respiratory infections that typically come and go in a matter of weeks, children can harbor chronic infections with bacteria—such as Streptococcus pyogenes, which causes strep throat—for months before ever making themselves or others sick. Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University, says it is unclear how such bacteria move from harmless colonizer to invasive pathogen, but the stress of the pandemic could play a role. And kids are not the only germ factories in our homes: pets are common carriers of many pathogens. “People probably get sick from their animals more than we realize,” Smith says.
Despite the myriad possibilities, many experts believe the explanation for why some of us are still getting routine infections is fairly mundane. “Some people may think they are better protected than they actually are,” Smith says. Gern agrees: “If cold viruses are still spreading, that means we are still having person-to-person contact,” he says. We live in a world where once beneficial actions—such as hugging a friend or going to the gym—now pose heightened risks to our health. For her part, Carvalho thought she was doing everything she could to be safe. After months of staying home, she returned to the gym for some socially distanced martial arts. She now suspects that it is how she got sick.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, more than 80,000 people who wondered if they had a COVID infection have called the telemedicine company Doctor on Demand, according to Prentiss Taylor, a physician and the company’s vice president of medical affairs. More than half of those cases were not referred for COVID-19 testing because some other respiratory affliction was deemed more likely. Under the circumstances, catching a cold instead of COVID might feel like dodging a bullet. But the fact that other viruses have been able to slip through our defenses could serve as a warning for future pandemics, Mackay says. “If we ever see a new rhinovirus come along, we will have even more trouble containing it than SARS-CoV-2. A rhinovirus pandemic would be a massive threat that would spread like that,” he adds, snapping his fingers. “And there’s no guarantee it would only cause common colds.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-03--Sloths Slowly Cavort By Day Now

Sloths Slowly Cavort By Day Now

Somewhere in this forest you hear , there are sloths .
Those sloths live in Brazill ’ s Atlantic Forest .
If you ’ re a tourist , watching sloths isn ’ t that exciting .
But if you ’ re a scientist—well , it ’ s also not that exciting .
But there ’ s a big upside : “ So , they ’ re actually a great study animal for the wild , because you can collect a lot of data on them.
” Giles Duffield , a biologist at the University of Notre Dame , who studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecology work that i used to do several years back in Bolivia was focused on bird conservation and bird ecology and , you know , you ’ d see some parrots and you ’ d make some notes and then they were gone and you wouldn ’ t see them again for another 24 hours.
” But Duffield and colleagues now collect data on the brown-throated three-toed sloth in the Atlantic Forest .
Duffield says the sloths can stay in sight—or even in the same tree—for nearly 24 hours .
The animals are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the time .
But they ’ re coping with a damaged ecosystem .
“ The suggestion is 98 percent of that forest has been depleted…there 's a lot of human disturbance , there ’ s a lot of roads cutting through these areas in the forest…and it means the fauna and flora is depleted.
” According to new research published in the journal Mammalian Biology by Duffield and colleagues , sloths are responding to that habitat disturbance by altering their biological rhythms .
[ Diogo de Oliveira Bezerra et al , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the brown-throated three-toed sloth ( Bradypus variegatus ) in northeastern Brazil ] “ We started to see that the sloths were primarily day-active and that seemed counterintuitive from some of the literature on the species that we ’ d come across before , that suggested that they show cathemeral activity , which is kind of neither day nor night , just kind of across the whole board .
And in a few studies it was predominantly nocturnal behavior .
So this was kind of the opposite to what we ’ d expected.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any studies where researchers monitored sloths over a full 24-hour period .
This study did exactly that for 29 days .
“ Because a lot of the literature that we reviewed that was associated with sloths , had examined only a partial 24 hours and so there was some inferences about their activity profiles over the course of the entire 24 hour period…so there was a bit of guesswork there.
” Duffield believes that because predators in the Atlantic forest are extinct , and sloths don ’ t have to compete with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply taken on a daytime , or diurnal , schedule .
“ The light-dark cycle would be that primary cue , and that ’ s what ’ s kind of surprising that an animal can be nocturnal under some conditions and diurnal in the other.
” Other organisms may come along for the slow ride -- from the algae that live on sloths ’ fur to the insects that live alongside the unhurried mammals .
Duffield says it ’ s not clear if the new schedule adopted by sloths in the Atlantic forests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s something we ’ d love to examine , whether the local ecosystem and the associated organisms with the sloth , perhaps that changes ?
A lot of organisms can ’ t readily change their day to night activity .
You know , their survival strategy is based on one or the other , so it may well be that change or that association with daytime as opposed to nighttime , or cathemerality , does change some of the organisms that are associated with it.
” Duffield ’ s most important piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comfortable chair .

Full Transcript
[Sloth sounds]
Somewhere in this forest you hear, there are sloths. Those sloths live in Brazill’s Atlantic Forest. If you’re a tourist, watching sloths isn’t that exciting. But if you’re a scientist—well, it’s also not that exciting. But there’s a big upside:
“So, they’re actually a great study animal for the wild, because you can collect a lot of data on them.”
Giles Duffield, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame, who studies circadian rhythms.
“I mean the ecology work that i used to do several years back in Bolivia was focused on bird conservation and bird ecology and, you know, you’d see some parrots and you’d make some notes and then they were gone and you wouldn’t see them again for another 24 hours.”
But Duffield and colleagues now collect data on the brown-throated three-toed sloth in the Atlantic Forest. Duffield says the sloths can stay in sight—or even in the same tree—for nearly 24 hours. The animals are at rest anywhere from 75 to 90 percent of the time. But they’re coping with a damaged ecosystem.
“The suggestion is 98 percent of that forest has been depleted…there's a lot of human disturbance, there’s a lot of roads cutting through these areas in the forest…and it means the fauna and flora is depleted.”
According to new research published in the journal Mammalian Biology by Duffield and colleagues, sloths are responding to that habitat disturbance by altering their biological rhythms. [Diogo de Oliveira Bezerra et al, Activity pattern, budget and diurnal rhythmicity of the brown-throated three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus) in northeastern Brazil]
“We started to see that the sloths were primarily day-active and that seemed counterintuitive from some of the literature on the species that we’d come across before, that suggested that they show cathemeral activity, which is kind of neither day nor night, just kind of across the whole board. And in a few studies it was predominantly nocturnal behavior. So this was kind of the opposite to what we’d expected.”
Duffield says there are few if any studies where researchers monitored sloths over a full 24-hour period. This study did exactly that for 29 days.
“Because a lot of the literature that we reviewed that was associated with sloths, had examined only a partial 24 hours and so there was some inferences about their activity profiles over the course of the entire 24 hour period…so there was a bit of guesswork there.”
Duffield believes that because predators in the Atlantic forest are extinct, and sloths don’t have to compete with other species for resources, they’ve simply taken on a daytime, or diurnal, schedule.
“The light-dark cycle would be that primary cue, and that’s what’s kind of surprising that an animal can be nocturnal under some conditions and diurnal in the other.”
Other organisms may come along for the slow ride--from the algae that live on sloths’ fur to the insects that live alongside the unhurried mammals. Duffield says it’s not clear if the new schedule adopted by sloths in the Atlantic forests also affects these creatures.
“That’s something we’d love to examine, whether the local ecosystem and the associated organisms with the sloth, perhaps that changes? A lot of organisms can’t readily change their day to night activity. You know, their survival strategy is based on one or the other, so it may well be that change or that association with daytime as opposed to nighttime, or cathemerality, does change some of the organisms that are associated with it.”
Duffield’s most important piece of equipment for this research may be a comfortable chair.
—Emily Schwing
(The above text is a transcript of this podcast)


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--COVID in the White House Should be America's Wake-Up Call

With the president and first lady ’ s stunning diagnoses of COVID-19 , the couple will receive exemplary care .
They will have all the support they need to—we hope—emerge fully recovered from this potentially lethal virus .
That ’ s as it should be .
But the tens of millions of Americans who could receive similar diagnoses will be continue to be sent into spirals of uncertainty—and , for a tragically large number , death itself .
Too many of those who fall ill will not have the means or wherewithal to follow even the most basic Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have been exposed .
The news that the coronavirus has infected one of the most powerful people on the planet should serve as a sobering reminder that this pandemic knows no politics and respects no borders .
It ’ s a reminder , too , that the U.S. government , at the federal , state and local level , needs to provide support through the duration of this pandemic so that every American has what ’ s needed in the event that they , too , are struck by this virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good sense of how to control the novel coronavirus : wear masks , practice social distancing , wash your hands .
We take these actions to protect ourselves , our families and those around us .
And when someone is potentially infected , they need access to testing , a public health force trained to do contact tracing , and the ability to isolate and quarantine .
For those who are sick , high-quality health care services make a big difference .
With around 208,000 deaths and counting , however , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we embrace public health practices and follow the world ’ s top scientists at the CDC , the National Institutes of Health , and the Food and Drug Administration , our nation will fare better in the days ahead .
As we observed in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic and have seen again with the coronavirus , communities of color and low-income workers are hit hardest during public health emergencies—not because of the decisions individuals make but because of the impossible choices our nation has forced on so many .
Systemic racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then their communities , at greater risk .
The frontline workers who have kept this country afloat over the past seven months have also suffered the most because of the nature of their work and the failures of our society .
People of color are overrepresented in transportation , childcare , social services and health care in both homes and hospitals .
More than 40 percent of frontline workers are people of color , and Black , Latino and Native Americans have suffered disproportionately in infections and deaths .
During this pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out for the world to see .
At least 28 million Americans don ’ t have health insurance , and millions of others are underinsured .
Too many parents , often those in low-wage jobs , don ’ t have paid sick leave .
About 60 percent of the workforce is paid hourly , and the strains on these workers during the waves of closures and economic shutdowns have proved devastating .
The $ 2.2 trillion poured into the economy through the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : millions of Americans in lower-paid jobs have not seen those jobs come back , and the money the government sent them months ago is likely gone .
Federal protection from eviction and foreclosure doesn ’ t cover all who are at risk .
And for those who are covered , there is no support for back payments .
We must redouble our commitment in both the short- and long-term to provide the support the most vulnerable people in the U.S. need for the duration of this pandemic .
Nutrition support , expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance and support for education programs must be extended well into 2021 .
The short-term needs are acute , and the long-term system challenges must be addressed in the new year .
The first family ’ s diagnosis is just the latest indication that we are nowhere near the end of this pandemic .
More than nine of every 10 people in this country have yet to be infected by the coronavirus .
With more than 200,000 deaths already and a projection of 371,000 deaths by the year ’ s end , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out by public health experts that we know works : again , we must wear masks , practice social distancing , test and trace , and make prudent decisions for individuals and for their communities .
The hopes for a vaccine continue to rise , and I , too , am optimistic that one will emerge from the scores of efforts around the world , though that result is not a certainty .
Even a vaccine will not be enough to end the misery of this pandemic , however .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines might be , and if the U.S. were to approve one before the end of the year—and that ’ s still a big if—distributing it across the population would take much of 2021 .
In addition , children , who have been shown to be spreaders , will not be among those vaccinated early on .
That ’ s because the trials , by design , do not include them .
These factors are among the reasons the road we are on is a long one .
But it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have no choice but to take together .
The president and first lady ’ s diagnoses should serve as a wake-up call to us all .
COVID-19 will thrive if we are divided and dismissive of its dangers .
And it can only be bowed if we follow the public health road map to a better day .

With the president and first lady’s stunning diagnoses of COVID-19, the couple will receive exemplary care. They will have all the support they need to—we hope—emerge fully recovered from this potentially lethal virus.
That’s as it should be. But the tens of millions of Americans who could receive similar diagnoses will continue to be sent into spirals of uncertainty—and, for a tragically large number, death itself. Too many of those who fall ill will not have the means or wherewithal to follow even the most basic Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for those who have been exposed.
The news that the coronavirus has infected one of the most powerful people on the planet should serve as a sobering reminder that this pandemic knows no politics and respects no borders. It’s a reminder, too, that the U.S. government, at the federal, state and local level, needs to provide support through the duration of this pandemic so that every American has what’s needed in the event that they, too, are struck by this virus.
From the earliest days, we had a good sense of how to control the novel coronavirus: wear masks, practice social distancing, wash your hands. We take these actions to protect ourselves, our families and those around us. And when someone is potentially infected, they need access to testing, a public health force trained to do contact tracing, and the ability to isolate and quarantine. For those who are sick, high-quality health care services make a big difference. With around 208,000 deaths and counting, however, we must do more.
We know that if we embrace public health practices and follow the world’s top scientists at the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration, our nation will fare better in the days ahead. As we observed in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic and have seen again with the coronavirus, communities of color and low-income workers are hit hardest during public health emergencies—not because of the decisions individuals make but because of the impossible choices our nation has forced on so many. Systemic racism and embedded barriers put people, and then their communities, at greater risk.
The frontline workers who have kept this country afloat over the past seven months have also suffered the most because of the nature of their work and the failures of our society. People of color are overrepresented in transportation, childcare, social services and health care in both homes and hospitals. More than 40 percent of frontline workers are people of color, and Black, Latino and Native Americans have suffered disproportionately in infections and deaths.
During this pandemic, our societal and structural failures have been laid out for the world to see. At least 28 million Americans don’t have health insurance, and millions of others are underinsured. Too many parents, often those in low-wage jobs, don’t have paid sick leave. About 60 percent of the workforce is paid hourly, and the strains on these workers during the waves of closures and economic shutdowns have proved devastating.
The $2.2 trillion poured into the economy through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a quickly dwindling memory: millions of Americans in lower-paid jobs have not seen those jobs come back, and the money the government sent them months ago is likely gone. Federal protection from eviction and foreclosure doesn’t cover all who are at risk. And for those who are covered, there is no support for back payments. We must redouble our commitment in both the short- and long-term to provide the support the most vulnerable people in the U.S. need for the duration of this pandemic. Nutrition support, expanded unemployment benefits, eviction moratoriums, rental assistance and support for education programs must be extended well into 2021. The short-term needs are acute, and the long-term system challenges must be addressed in the new year.
The first family’s diagnosis is just the latest indication that we are nowhere near the end of this pandemic. More than nine of every 10 people in this country have yet to be infected by the coronavirus. With more than 200,000 deaths already and a projection of 371,000 deaths by the year’s end, we need to continue to embrace the guidance laid out by public health experts that we know works: again, we must wear masks, practice social distancing, test and trace, and make prudent decisions for individuals and for their communities.
The hopes for a vaccine continue to rise, and I, too, am optimistic that one will emerge from the scores of efforts around the world, though that result is not a certainty. Even a vaccine will not be enough to end the misery of this pandemic, however. We have no idea how effective any of these vaccines might be, and if the U.S. were to approve one before the end of the year—and that’s still a big if—distributing it across the population would take much of 2021. In addition, children, who have been shown to be spreaders, will not be among those vaccinated early on. That’s because the trials, by design, do not include them. These factors are among the reasons the road we are on is a long one. But it’s a road that we, as a nation, have no choice but to take together.
The president and first lady’s diagnoses should serve as a wake-up call to us all. COVID-19 will thrive if we are divided and dismissive of its dangers. And it can only be bowed if we follow the public health road map to a better day.


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--How Trump's COVID Diagnosis Could Affect Public Perceptions

President Donald Trump has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 .
First Lady Melania Trump , senior adviser to the president Hope Hicks , at least a couple of prominent Republican officials and others have also received positive results .
The president had recently attended a fundraiser with hundreds of people at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey , and he and several others were at an event on Saturday announcing the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court ( Coney Barrett herself reportedly had the virus this past summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seriousness of the viral pandemic—claiming it would go away on its own , mocking the widely recommended use of face masks and touting unproved treatments .
The president has reportedly displayed only mild , coldlike symptoms so far .
But his age , combined with the fact he is male and overweight , puts him at an increased risk of developing a severe case of the sometimes deadly illness .
How his disease will progress remains to be seen , as does any impact it might have on both the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed well more than 200,000 Americans and the November 3 presidential election .
But the situation will likely lead to greater calls for transparency about the Trump ’ s health , as well as conspiracy theories about how—or even whether—he was infected , according to Arthur Caplan , a bioethicist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine .
Scientific American spoke with Caplan about the possible effects Trump ’ s diagnosis could have on public perceptions of the disease and the White House ’ s response to it .
[ An edited transcript @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was your reaction to the news of the president ’ s diagnosis ?
And what impact do you think it could it have on the pandemic in the U.S. ?
I think it could and will change things .
How is a bit difficult to predict , but my hunch is we ’ ll get much greater calls for transparency about the president ’ s health .
We ’ ve had them in the past , when he paid that visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center [ in Bethesda , Md @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think we ’ re going to have a tsunami of interest and a huge amount of pressure .
Second , I expect the conspiracy theorists to start to spin theories such as : Is he really infected ?
Is this a ploy ?
Who infected him ?
Was it deliberate ?
So I would watch for this information to come flying out .
I think we ’ re also going to see many people say , “ Look , this just shows that the downplaying of the virus and the behavioral measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gross error on the part of the White House and Republicans and Republican governors—and that we have to recommit ourselves to protective behaviors until we get a vaccine.
” How do you think this will affect the course of vaccine approval ?
I think we ’ ll hear people say that the president ’ s touting of a vaccine coming soon was an empty promise , because it didn ’ t get to him in time .
Weirdly , it may weaken some of the pressure at the top to approve a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be raised by the president ’ s infection ?
I think it ’ ll raise questions about privacy and reporting : Who knew what , when , and where did they go ?
Who were they interacting with ( for example , Hope Hicks , as well as those who attended a fundraiser in New Jersey with the president ) ?
Who disclosed having the virus , and when did they disclose it ?
And what did they know ?
Those are tough issues .
What kind of treatment do you expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to get very sick , that will be an issue , because we ’ ll get into questions about “ Is he going to have access to experimental treatments that he ’ s been touting and sometimes promoting , such as convalescent plasma ?
” Depending on how transparent the administration is , this whole issue of unapproved interventions is going to get ratcheted up .
We ’ ll be hearing a lot about that , both to prevent him from getting sicker or if he or his wife were to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note : The president ’ s doctor wrote in a statement on Friday that Trump received a single dose of a not yet approved antibody therapy produced by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals . ]
Will Trump ’ s diagnosis affect how people view his administration ’ s response to the pandemic ?
I do I think it ’ s going to be hard to be credible , after coming out , again and again , and saying , “ COVID isn ’ t that big a deal ” or “ It ’ s on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't have to be strict with masking and social distancing.
” I mean , I think it takes away some of the credibility in downplaying both the virus and the tricks to at least try to mitigate its spread .
It makes them less credible .
This is going to throw all of the discussion about COVID into complete turmoil .
COVID was a vulnerability for the president—his biggest risk , I think , in terms of reelection—and for many senators and governors , too .
Now Trump getting infected makes it look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as credible .
I don ’ t know that his followers and supporters are all going run out and buy masks , but it just makes it harder to credit his account .
And my prediction is : it weakens him in terms of the election .
But that also has historically made him and his advisers and inner circle crazier .
Going forward , what should people be paying most attention to ?
Watch for more pressure for transparency about Trump ’ s medical condition .
Can we trust what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really trust what they told us about his health in the past .
They were opaque .
And the other thing is : watch for people , politically , to start impugning the White House ’ s and Republicans ’ approach to managing the epidemic .
You can ’ t keep the virus out of the White House .
And now all those who are infected : it ’ s a long list , and it ’ s growing .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of magazines here .

President Donald Trump has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. First Lady Melania Trump, senior adviser to the president Hope Hicks, at least a couple of prominent Republican officials and others have also received positive results. The president had recently attended a fundraiser with hundreds of people at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey, and he and several others were at an event on Saturday announcing the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court (Coney Barrett herself reportedly had the virus this past summer). Trump has spent months denying the seriousness of the viral pandemic—claiming it would go away on its own, mocking the widely recommended use of face masks and touting unproved treatments. The president has reportedly displayed only mild, coldlike symptoms so far. But his age, combined with the fact he is male and overweight, puts him at an increased risk of developing a severe case of the sometimes deadly illness.
How his disease will progress remains to be seen, as does any impact it might have on both the government’s response to a pandemic that has killed well more than 200,000 Americans and the November 3 presidential election. But the situation will likely lead to greater calls for transparency about the Trump’s health, as well as conspiracy theories about how—or even whether—he was infected, according to Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Scientific American spoke with Caplan about the possible effects Trump’s diagnosis could have on public perceptions of the disease and the White House’s response to it.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What was your reaction to the news of the president’s diagnosis? And what impact do you think it could it have on the pandemic in the U.S.?
I think it could and will change things. How is a bit difficult to predict, but my hunch is we’ll get much greater calls for transparency about the president’s health. We’ve had them in the past, when he paid that visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center [in Bethesda, Md.] in November 2019. But I think we’re going to have a tsunami of interest and a huge amount of pressure. Second, I expect the conspiracy theorists to start to spin theories such as: Is he really infected? Is this a ploy? Who infected him? Was it deliberate? So I would watch for this information to come flying out. I think we’re also going to see many people say, “Look, this just shows that the downplaying of the virus and the behavioral measures that help reduce its spread were a gross error on the part of the White House and Republicans and Republican governors—and that we have to recommit ourselves to protective behaviors until we get a vaccine.”
How do you think this will affect the course of vaccine approval?
I think we’ll hear people say that the president’s touting of a vaccine coming soon was an empty promise, because it didn’t get to him in time. Weirdly, it may weaken some of the pressure at the top to approve a vaccine.
What sorts of questions are likely to be raised by the president’s infection?
I think it’ll raise questions about privacy and reporting: Who knew what, when, and where did they go? Who were they interacting with (for example, Hope Hicks, as well as those who attended a fundraiser in New Jersey with the president)? Who disclosed having the virus, and when did they disclose it? And what did they know? Those are tough issues.
What kind of treatment do you expect Trump will get?
If the president were to get very sick, that will be an issue, because we’ll get into questions about “Is he going to have access to experimental treatments that he’s been touting and sometimes promoting, such as convalescent plasma?” Depending on how transparent the administration is, this whole issue of unapproved interventions is going to get ratcheted up. We’ll be hearing a lot about that, both to prevent him from getting sicker or if he or his wife were to get very sick. [Editor’s Note: The president’s doctor wrote in a statement on Friday that Trump received a single dose of a not yet approved antibody therapy produced by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.]
Will Trump’s diagnosis affect how people view his administration’s response to the pandemic?
I do I think it’s going to be hard to be credible, after coming out, again and again, and saying, “COVID isn’t that big a deal” or “It’s on its way out” or “We don't have to be strict with masking and social distancing.” I mean, I think it takes away some of the credibility in downplaying both the virus and the tricks to at least try to mitigate its spread. It makes them less credible.
This is going to throw all of the discussion about COVID into complete turmoil. COVID was a vulnerability for the president—his biggest risk, I think, in terms of reelection—and for many senators and governors, too. Now Trump getting infected makes it look like his advice and his suggestions are not as credible. I don’t know that his followers and supporters are all going run out and buy masks, but it just makes it harder to credit his account. And my prediction is: it weakens him in terms of the election. But that also has historically made him and his advisers and inner circle crazier.
Going forward, what should people be paying most attention to?
Watch for more pressure for transparency about Trump’s medical condition. Can we trust what the doctors are saying? Because we didn’t really trust what they told us about his health in the past. They were opaque. And the other thing is: watch for people, politically, to start impugning the White House’s and Republicans’ approach to managing the epidemic. You can’t keep the virus out of the White House. And now all those who are infected: it’s a long list, and it’s growing.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--Coronavirus News Roundup, September 26-October 2

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter .
At Science magazine , Jon Cohen reports on progress made by two companies that are developing treatments called monoclonal antibodies for people infected with SARS-CoV-2 .
On 9/29/20 , Regeneron Pharmaceuticals released early data from its ongoing placebo-controlled experiment showing that its monoclonal antibody “ cocktail ” reduced symptoms and the amount of virus in the nasal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To make these treatments , company researchers clone antibodies harvested from mice infected with the virus or from people who recover from COVID-19 ( the cloning involves pulling out the genes that make the antibodies and then using them to grow bulk quantities in other rodent cells ) .
A University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , infectious diseases researcher and physician called the Regeneron results “ provocative ” and said they echo findings released two weeks ago by Eli Lilly on its ongoing research on a similar antibody treatment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the companies has published its findings yet in a journal .
But if the studies continue to go well , it sounds like some doses of these treatments could be available by the end of this year ( 9/30/20 ) : https : //www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/provocative-results-boost-hopes-antibody-treatment-covid-19 .
A growing number of medical centers now offer “ post-COVID ” care for people who have recovered from the disease but still suffer from lingering problems such as shortness of breath , chest pain , and depression or anxiety , reports Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are overcome , the clinics reportedly could provide a revenue boost to medical centers .
Outside of such clinics , some COVID-19 survivors are told that their lasting symptoms are imagined , the story states .
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American reports on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid , frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University ( 9/23/20 ) .
Institutions ’ experiences with the program so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to testing “ could be a model for reopening colleges and institutions nationwide , ” Lewis writes .
The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students , faculty and staff , the story states .
The story includes comments from users of the Broad program , including representatives from Tufts University , Bowdoin College , and University of Massachusetts Amherst , where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a health center for testing for SARS-CoV-2 .
Adults could get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 by next summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to until fall 2021 , reports Carl Zimmer for The New York Times ( 9/21/20 ) .
No experiments ( trials ) have begun in the U.S. to test a vaccine candidate ’ s safety and effectiveness in children , the story states .
“ Vaccinating children could help reopen society , ensuring that schools do not become hot spots for superspreading events , ” according to the story .
Children are less affected than adults are by SARS-CoV-2 because their immune systems respond differently to the virus , according to research published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times ( 9/25/20 ) .
A fast-response component of the immune system , called the innate immune system , responds strongly to SARS-CoV-2 in children .
But the same component of the immune system is muted in adults , the researchers reportedly found .
Pediatric immunologist Dr. Michael Mina at the Harvard Chan School of Epidemiology says that if SARS-CoV-2 ends up circulating continually in the coming years ( becomes “ endemic ” ) , like the coronaviruses that cause colds , children ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it that protect them into adulthood , the story states .
“ We will eventually age out of this virus , ” the story quotes him as saying .
For some vaccine developers , a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 `` could meet the companies ' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19 , but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe '' cases nor the risk of hospitalization , intensive care admission or death , according to an essay published 9/22/20 in The New York Times .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by Pfizer , and by AstraZeneca , the essay states .
The benchmarks should be higher — evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases , write Peter Toshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Eric Topol at Scripps Research .
The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases .
For an excellent newsletter about how Black people are experiencing and being affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic , subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus News for Black Folks.
” An app called the “ MIT COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline ” allows users to adjust parameters such as mask usage , ventilation , and room size to estimate the indoor transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 among a given number of people in various types of spaces .
The app is based on a mathematical model developed by Martin Z. Bazant and John Bush at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology .
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times notes the app above in a 9/27/20 story on the effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are called air purifiers ) for reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 , particularly in colder weather .
Martin Z. Bazant , the app co-author , is described in the piece as saying that regardless of such precautions to protect people from the virus in larger buildings , it is optimal to wear a mask indoors .
The story also quotes a building safety expert at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health as advising people in buildings and cars to leave windows for ventilation .
As for air purifiers and filters , don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details , and keep it simple .
The story states that “ even the most stripped-down devices can help bring down the microbial burden in the air.
” As for ultraviolet lights , they “ are regulated mostly for use as pesticides and are not well studied for use around people , '' according to epidemiologist Saskia Popescu at the University of Arizona , who is quoted in the story .
If you are interested in installing them in an office , school , or home , hire a professional , the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An open letter to my lactose intolerant friend regarding my COVID intolerance , ” by Johanna Levene for McSweeney ’ s ( 9/30/20 ) .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here. Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter.
At Science magazine, Jon Cohen reports on progress made by two companies that are developing treatments called monoclonal antibodies for people infected with SARS-CoV-2. On 9/29/20, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals released early data from its ongoing placebo-controlled experiment showing that its monoclonal antibody “cocktail” reduced symptoms and the amount of virus in the nasal passages of infected patients, Cohen reports. To make these treatments, company researchers clone antibodies harvested from mice infected with the virus or from people who recover from COVID-19 (the cloning involves pulling out the genes that make the antibodies and then using them to grow bulk quantities in other rodent cells). A University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, infectious diseases researcher and physician called the Regeneron results “provocative” and said they echo findings released two weeks ago by Eli Lilly on its ongoing research on a similar antibody treatment for the coronavirus, Cohen reports. Neither of the companies has published its findings yet in a journal. But if the studies continue to go well, it sounds like some doses of these treatments could be available by the end of this year (9/30/20): https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/provocative-results-boost-hopes-antibody-treatment-covid-19.
A growing number of medical centers now offer “post-COVID” care for people who have recovered from the disease but still suffer from lingering problems such as shortness of breath, chest pain, and depression or anxiety, reports Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News (9/30/20). Once start-up costs are overcome, the clinics reportedly could provide a revenue boost to medical centers. Outside of such clinics, some COVID-19 survivors are told that their lasting symptoms are imagined, the story states.
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American reports on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid, frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University (9/23/20). Institutions’ experiences with the program so far are positive, and such an approach to testing “could be a model for reopening colleges and institutions nationwide,” Lewis writes. The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students, faculty and staff, the story states. The story includes comments from users of the Broad program, including representatives from Tufts University, Bowdoin College, and University of Massachusetts Amherst, where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a health center for testing for SARS-CoV-2.
Adults could get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 by next summer, but children might not be able to until fall 2021, reports Carl Zimmer for The New York Times (9/21/20). No experiments (trials) have begun in the U.S. to test a vaccine candidate’s safety and effectiveness in children, the story states. “Vaccinating children could help reopen society, ensuring that schools do not become hot spots for superspreading events,” according to the story.
Children are less affected than adults are by SARS-CoV-2 because their immune systems respond differently to the virus, according to research published 9/21/20 in the journal Science Translational Medicine, reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times (9/25/20). A fast-response component of the immune system, called the innate immune system, responds strongly to SARS-CoV-2 in children. But the same component of the immune system is muted in adults, the researchers reportedly found. Pediatric immunologist Dr. Michael Mina at the Harvard Chan School of Epidemiology says that if SARS-CoV-2 ends up circulating continually in the coming years (becomes “endemic”), like the coronaviruses that cause colds, children’s adaptive immune systems will develop strong defenses to it that protect them into adulthood, the story states. “We will eventually age out of this virus,” the story quotes him as saying.
For some vaccine developers, a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 "could meet the companies' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe" cases nor the risk of hospitalization, intensive care admission or death, according to an essay published 9/22/20 in The New York Times. This pertains to vaccines being developed by Moderna, by Pfizer, and by AstraZeneca, the essay states. The benchmarks should be higher — evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases, write Peter Toshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Eric Topol at Scripps Research. The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases.
For an excellent newsletter about how Black people are experiencing and being affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, subscribe to journalist Patrice Peck’s “Coronavirus News for Black Folks.”
An app called the “MIT COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline” allows users to adjust parameters such as mask usage, ventilation, and room size to estimate the indoor transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 among a given number of people in various types of spaces. The app is based on a mathematical model developed by Martin Z. Bazant and John Bush at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times notes the app above in a 9/27/20 story on the effectiveness of ventilation and air cleaners (some are called air purifiers) for reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in colder weather. Martin Z. Bazant, the app co-author, is described in the piece as saying that regardless of such precautions to protect people from the virus in larger buildings, it is optimal to wear a mask indoors. The story also quotes a building safety expert at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health as advising people in buildings and cars to leave windows for ventilation. As for air purifiers and filters, don’t sweat the MERV and HEPA details, and keep it simple. The story states that “even the most stripped-down devices can help bring down the microbial burden in the air.” As for ultraviolet lights, they “are regulated mostly for use as pesticides and are not well studied for use around people," according to epidemiologist Saskia Popescu at the University of Arizona, who is quoted in the story. If you are interested in installing them in an office, school, or home, hire a professional, the story advises.
You might enjoy, “An open letter to my lactose intolerant friend regarding my COVID intolerance,” by Johanna Levene for McSweeney’s (9/30/20).