SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A high-salt diet is not only bad for one's blood pressure, but also for the immune system. This is the conclusion of a current study under the leadership of the University Hospital Bonn. Mice fed a high-salt diet were found to suffer from much more severe bacterial infections. Human volunteers who consumed an additional six grams of salt per day also showed pronounced immune deficiencies. This amount corresponds to the salt content of two fast food meals. The results are published in the journal "Science Translational Medicine".
Five grams a day, no more: This is the maximum amount of salt that adults should consume according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). It corresponds approximately to one level teaspoon.
In reality, however, many Germans exceed this limit considerably: Figures from the Robert Koch Institute suggest that on average men consume ten, women more than eight grams a day.
This means that we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us. After all, sodium chloride, which is its chemical name, raises blood pressure and thereby increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.
But not only that: "We have now been able to prove for the first time that excessive salt intake also significantly weakens an important arm of the immune system," explains Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts from the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Bonn.
Journal Reference
Katarzyna Jobin, Natascha E. Stumpf, Sebastian Schwab et al. A high-salt diet compromises antibacterial neutrophil responses through hormonal perturbation [$], Science Translational Medicine (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3850)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @02:11PM (14 children)
But still, you'll put your absolute unquestionnable blind trust into a narcissistic mentally unstable child-molesting psychopath who's been pathologically lying through his teeth again and again and again, for decades.
You don't even have to tell that you're a Trump supporter. Trumptards have this unmistakable stinch that can be smelled from miles away.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2020, @02:37PM (8 children)
WHO says CV-19 drops like a rock with a 1 meter range: https://www.ibtimes.com/covid-19-fact-check-what-who-says-about-coronavirus-airborne-theory-2948790 [ibtimes.com]
MIT makes that 8m: https://www.wired.com/story/they-say-coronavirus-isnt-airborne-but-its-definitely-borne-by-air/ [wired.com]
One must wonder why the WHO is giving this 1m advice when it is self-evident that fine mists float in air currents. Anyway, trust and credibility is easily lost and the WHO has managed to lose it handily.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday March 30 2020, @04:26PM (6 children)
It's one thing to call the WHO bad scientists - "previous modeling might have suggested that 5-micron droplets can travel only a meter or two".
It's something else completely to insinuate they know better and are actively lying to us. Why? Who knows. Probably something sinister.
Let's keep this about scientific quality, which can be discussed rationally. Leave the boogeyman and the wishy-washy "trust and credibility" talk out of it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday March 30 2020, @05:26PM (2 children)
The WHO went out of their way to say this was not a pandemic and that everyone was over-reacting because Chyna had it under control. As soon as Chyna claimed they had no more cases WHO said it was a global pandemic and that the rest of the world wasn't trying hard enough and that Chyna did a great job.
Fuck the WHO
Taiwan reported the virus back in December and were ignored because of CCP influence over the WHO
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3904054 [taiwannews.com.tw]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 [bbc.com]
Fuck the CCP
China lied, people died
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @08:41PM (1 child)
If it was only affecting China then, by definition, it was not a pandemic yet.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday March 30 2020, @09:19PM
This virus was a clear danger, we saw cases outside of China, yet until it was claimed to no longer be a continuing problem for China the WHO chose to downplay the effects. While we were fortunate in that we ignored the WHO and closed our borders early, most of the world was unwilling to act because of WHO lies. The CCP learned the risk of allowing a non-controlled WHO to exist with SARS. WHO honesty in 2002 cost the Chinese economy ~1% due to SARS, they increased their investment in and control of the WHO since that time to ensure that the WHOs "mistake" did not happen again. We see the results from this control in Italy and the remainder of Europe who thought the WHO to be independent. Hell, the WHO even named it in a way that was friendly to the Chinese propaganda. This is SARS-nCoV-2, but recognizing it as a SARS virus would cause civil unrest in China where any mention of SARS causes a panic.
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 [who.int]
They waited until there were 114 countries with confirmed cases before they said it was a pandemic, what the fuck.
Past pandemics had a lower bar to reach to get that qualifier than SARS-nCoV-2 did, and were less infectious. They slow walked this one to protect their benefactors and thousands are dying because of it. They are ignoring places in the world that are currently autonomous but the Chinese claim as their own (Taiwan). Taiwan warned about the danger of this in late January and were ignored. The interview the other day for a HK outlet asked about whether Taiwan should be able to join the WHO, interviewer was ignored and when asked a second time hung up. When the interviewer called them back the WHO official said they have already discussed China and do not need to cover the issue again.
As the CCP said this was no issue they bought PPE in Australia to ship home to China
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/90-tonnes-of-supplies-shipped-to-china/3983282/ [thechronicle.com.au]
Now Australia and other countries are having shortages and being shipped "PPE" from China we are finding to be defective
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-netherlands-recalls-600000-faulty-face-masks-20200330-o6wnrp55rre7piqmrhtvbs2tei-story.html [nydailynews.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2020, @07:49PM (2 children)
The WHO is repeating a line as if it is authoritatively true when the evidence that people in real world situations experience airborne contagions is long standing. And people die: https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/dozens-from-skagit-valley-chorale-have-covid-19-and-two-died/ [heraldnet.com]
And then of course there is the MIT study referenced above which demonstrates the obvious -- micorfine globs of mist float.
So I wonder -- why is the WHO so hell bent on keeping people crammed together? I don't know the answer, but I wish I did.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday March 31 2020, @02:36PM (1 child)
I'm with you until that last line. For one thing, 1m apart is not "crammed together". As to why?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [wikipedia.org]
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2020, @10:38PM
I suppose it depends on where you come from -- 1m is definitely jammed to me. For people from NY or similar, maybe that isn't what they might consider jammed based on being conditioned out of having personal space, but it sure is inside exhalation range. Even pre-corona, a person within a meter of me would have me taking backward steps. Way too close.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday April 01 2020, @01:03AM
It is possible that the WHO and the MIT researchers are operating at different levels of probability of spread. The WHO is all about reducing spread over a population to below unity per vector (thus causing the number of affected people to continually reduce until the zero line asymptote is reached), whereas the MIT study is all about how far to be to get that probability close to zero.
This means that the 1m proposed by the WHO and the 8m proposed by MIT are not aiming for the same result, and therefore are only tangentially related. The WHO clearly realise that expecting people to stay 8m apart is not possible for the vast majority of cases, and therefore the advice will not be useful and be ignored. They may have chosen 1m because it reduces the probably significantly compared to direct contact. The probability clearly goes down the further away you are, and there will be a point of diminishing returns where the advice is either ignored or doesn't significantly change the contagion rate. The trick for epidemiologists is to find the optimum value that will achieve their goals (which I presume are not nefarious).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @05:50PM (4 children)
China lying about coronavirus: Bad
Trump lying about coronavirus: Good
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:59PM (3 children)
Please give evidence of US "Lies" that were not in reality just bad information we had to rely on because of LIES from the CCP and the WHO
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @08:38PM
"Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion"
"It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle – it will disappear"
"Anybody that needs a test gets a test. We – they’re there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful"
"I’ve always known this is a real – this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. I’ve always viewed it as very serious"
(Score: 4, Informative) by pipedwho on Monday March 30 2020, @09:45PM
The public may have had 'bad' information due to inept and non-expert reporting. However, actually epidemiologists who study this stuff knew almost immediately:
1. They knew it was a coronavirus (details irrelevant except that it was more virulent and more severe than a usual cold or flue)
2. They knew what a coronavirus was and have long since spent huge amounts of effort modelling and testing contagion vectors (contact, airborne, etc)
Also, an epidemiologist deals at multiple levels of probability and statistical modelling (containing techniques when possible, and reduction once that is no longer possible). Different advice is given for different levels of containment. ie. There is no point in half measures if total containment is required (and possible), and there is no point into total 100% quarantine if that is not possible.
The spread of a virus is based on how easily and how fast it can be spread. The number of people that on average are infected by a single contagious vector can be called the 'gain'. When the 'gain' is below unity, the spread is continuously reducing and the virus 'dies off'. When the 'gain' is high, it spreads faster and wider exponentially until the number of susceptible hosts is close to exhausted.
Various techniques of isolation, distancing, detection/tracing, PPE, herd immunity, vaccination, and quarantining have a positive effect in reducing this 'gain'. We don't need to take the 'gain' to zero to eradicate the virus. And likewise, hovering around unity just slows the growth to a point where other more effective methods (eg. vaccination) or controls (eg. hospital capacity) can be prepared or brought into play.
With an epidemic, there are also the consequences of various actions taken, either individually (maximise the benefit for the self), or as a coordinated effort (maximise the benefit for the population as a whole). Too drastic and the measures may be ignored or lead to psychological problems, too little and the 'gain' is not sufficiently reduced. There is of course the 'financial' impact which in itself may not seem like a problem - except for potentially worse problems that it can lead to (wars, authoritarian takeover, famine, health care collapse, etc).
The epidemiologists at the WHO/CDC/etc already know this, the problem is that their political masters may not like what they have to say. Blaming China for 'bad' information is a red herring designed to distract from the real decisions that have been or are being made. Too many stupid people, on the one hand running around like headless chooks screaming that world will end if we don't go full martial lockdown, and on other "it's just a flu, business as usual". The reality is in between, and it is the job of the governments to listen to the experts in these areas, weigh up the repercussions, and implement a coordinated plan for their regions/countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @10:00PM
Please give evidence of WHO "Lies" that were not in reality just bad information they had to rely on because of LIES from China.