At that time, there still will be a "A100/H100/successor replacement specialist" probably necessary. Or any other variant of a data centre hardware admin
It's worth noting that, at least on the electronics manufacturing side (which is indeed what we're talking about here) the undeniable success story of TSMC was very much a government-led capital structure from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History
Government can often be a failure-prone capital allocator, but it can also result in improved alignment when an entire industry with wide socioeconomic implications is about to be born.
In this case, subsidies (and incentives) are 'governments throwing money at engineering problems'. The US does the same for SpaceX, EV manufacturers, and the entire military industrial complex – with the latter making tech controlled by the government
mRNA will eventually save the day for everyone, including for perfectly healthy individuals, but to me as a healthy 40yo person, with no known immunity issues, not overweight etc. etc. it is in my opinion still too risky to take just like that.
It's an interesting take. From what we know so far, the risk from taking vaccine is much smaller than from covid infection. You might counter this with highlighting the "so far" part, but keep in mind that many studies keep coming out with surprises not only regarding vaccine side effects, but also negative long term effects of covid.
It's not a dichotomy. The vaccine is effectively only for a couple of months so you have to compound the effects of the vaccine PLUS the effects of infection. You also don't know if the effects of the vaccine are cumulative with each new booster.
And that's even assuming it's effective in the first place. The "it reduces symptoms" mantra is gaslighting since the whole point of its accelerated approval and forced application was for the reduction of transmission.
I'll tell that to my colleague that got Covid vaccine induced blood clots, and has been told he will be on blood thinners for life.
While this is anecdotal, the amount of people I know personally that have told me they had significant health issues with a Covid vaccine or covid booster is weird.
Blood clotting in COVID is higher than instances of Vaccine induced clotting, in every measure. For every example like your colleague, there are many more for COVID itself.
Which begs the question, how do they know that it was vaccine induced blood clots and not covid or any other possible cause of blood clots?
Since at the same time mass vaccination rolled out, essentially all lockdowns were lifted and at least speaking for myself, that is when I caught Covid (and got sick in general again, no colds for almost two years was nice).
It would take a specific study isolating people that got the vaccine but never tested positive for COVID, which of course is open to some misreporting (1/3 of COVID cases are asymptomatic and most likely never identified).
Yes. The vaccine trains your immune system to create antibodies used to fight off the disease. Already having those antibodies when the virus appears means that it will not last as long and the symptoms will not be as severe.
Without the vaccine, your body has to create those antibodies while you are already sick, and that takes time. This gives the virus a huge head start.
Plus, the trick that this virus uses to kill is that it kicks off a cytokine storm, which is far more likely if your body is racing the virus to eradicate it than if your immune system is already primed and squashes the virus when its infection volume is small and localized.
We're not just talking the flu-like symptoms here, the most relevant symptoms are "risk of death decreased."
There's a key difference here that cancer mRNA vaccine you are taking after you've been diagnosed with cancer.
Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks.
If there's a 1/10,000 chance of giving you a sore shoulder that would be worse in the calculations if you are for sure to be isolated from being anywhere near the virus.
Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks.
Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.
> Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.
What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
> What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
The biggest whine from anti-vaxers was that they were being told they needed a vaccine to do social things they enjoyed , like air travel or coughing on the elderly.
I don't think you're hypothetical neo-hermit would being doing either of these, so itseems unlikely they'll be "forced" to get a vaccine.
I don’t think anyone would care about such a person opting not to get a vaccine. But this describes, pretty much by definition, a very small portion of a society.
For an individual it is a formula of should_vaccinate = (risk_of_getting_covid_19 * bad_outcomes) - (bad_outcomes_from_vaccines + risk_of_getting_covid_19_after_vaccine * bad_outcomes_of_covid_19_after_vaccine) > 0
On the group level you would have to consider the damage on the group level as well from not getting vaccinated due to increase of covid-19 spread, and increased hospitalisation levels.
On the global communication and messaging level I agree you should tell everyone to vaccinate as you can't easily provide everyone with those calculators. And not to mention people not being able to come up with correct values for those factors themselves.
However, pretty much any real world person doing those calculations and arriving at the conclusion that they're better off not getting the vaccine is engaging in motivated rationalization rather than reasoning. Almost no one is actually living as a hermit, unlikely to ever be exposed to covid. And just about everyone who will be exposed will be safer having had the vaccine, considering all the risks and probabilities you listed.
1. Age. Not all age groups were recommended the vaccine.
2. Last time or where you have had Covid-19 at all.
3. General pattern of activity and the amount of contacts with other people.
4. Last time you have had the vaccine.
E.g. in my country through it's technical systems didn't allow you to get a Covid-19 vaccine when you had the virus within last 6 months. While US recommended the vaccine much shorter period of time after having had Covid-19.
> Almost no one is actually living as a hermit
Also consider that in 2021, there were actually many people living as hermits, including I, as I really didn't want to get the virus. At the time I was terrified of getting it. In 2020-2021, I did live with my partner, but we worked remotely, worked out outside away from other people and we did cardio/gym, but with home made equipment or outside keeping distance to other people.
Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.
That's also a weird assumption. The sedentary part. My dream life is owning large amount of land with a house where I can be completely self sustainable, including various automations and this includes having an in-built gym.
I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
No, it's a myth (albeit a popular one) that the human immune system benefits from being "toughened up" by actual pathogens. It's more about calibration by non-pathogens we co-evolved with.
What about the isolated populations, e.g. Sentinelese that are documented to die because they don't have the immune system developed to protect themselves against the viruses rest of the World has?
Although I would agree that 10 years later in your life is unlikely to create an issue.
> The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation 1956[9] prohibits travel to the island, and any approach closer than 5 nautical miles (9.3 km), in order to protect the remaining tribal community from "mainland" infectious diseases against which they likely have no acquired immunity. The area is patrolled by the Indian Navy.[10]
A: What behaviors or environments lead to adult immune systems calibrated to minimize autoimmune dysfunctions.
B: Comparing populations that already/ haven't developed inherited countermeasures against certain diseases.
C: (In some cases) Specific pathogens where it is less-damaging to encounter them at different phases of life.
In particular, I'd point out that sometimes a population strong against a particular disease does not necessarily have "better" immune systems... Sometimes it's literally survivorship bias, where all of the vulnerable individuals they used to have already died in tragic ways.
Don't you think there is big difference between moving files to some users' devices vs moving files to literally half a billion users with almost 100% uptime? Not considering problems associated with the scale of Spotify and instantly dismissing the task of managing that as something trivial (or at least easier than your work) makes you sound arrogant.
They did correct for multiple testing - "P-values were multiple-test corrected
using the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure and a cutoff of 0.1 was applied to select the differentially abundant genera". However, they used Wilcoxon test which has unacceptably high FDR [1].
Thanks for that great write-up. I wonder if there are microbiome studies with actually large effect sizes in diseases which we do not typically associate with infectious factors (e.g. diabetes).
That doesn't solve the problem of funneling public money to elsevier/springer nature. The model in which volunteers perform 95% of editorial work yet private publishing companies charge abhorrent prices for OA is absolutely disgusting.
