#as compared to when they interact with nt population

[onecooooooolcat]

i feel like what rubs me most wrong abt a lot of blanket nd vs nt statements is tht for the love of the creators of the universe neurodivergency has no standard behaviour except tnt it's not 'standard' behaviour. so ur shitting on nt for doing whatever n glorifying and exalting nd bc they are the opposite and better and Superior is most times actually just shitting on a human quality exhibited to some degree by a large number of humans nd n nt alike. n the nd subset reading tht are just gonna wrongly feel bad abt themselves. i wld add tht the nt ppl are also gonna wrongly feel bad abt themselves but tht was your goal all along so you already know tht.

[soulvomit]

Man, my feelings about Empathy and where Empathy fits into Modern Autism Discourse are... so generational and probably borderline Boomer

I am an empathy impaired person who uses an interior *algorithm* to navigate situations where the right display of empathy is required.

I have interacted with so many people who claimed to be "more empathic than the norm" - ranging from autists who genuinely experienced themselves this way, to flaming narcissists, to predators and woo woo hucksters.

Nobody in my life who's ever claimed to have more empathy, has actually *shown* that they have it. Sometimes they think they're more empathic *because* they're empathy impaired. Sometimes, people are just projecting their own emotions and reactions onto other people. And sometimes what they think is having empathy, is just having really poor boundaries and... I've been there.

I am facing some generational stuff here because I grew up with a solid cultural overlay of "love is a verb." And also I've taken a lot of shit for my empathy impairment and faced potential loss of a social support system, which for anyone poorer than the average ND author or speaker (which means 90% of the population or more in the US), would mean homelessness.

I have gotten absolutely nothing from persisting in any belief that I have deeper, more meaningful emotions than NTs. I had to learn to better *approximate* empathy, to do *empathetic actions* *despite* not recognizing within my emotions or body what I am feeling when I do them as anything but an intensely delayed reaction.

And I have been often deeply and powerfully hurt, and my boundaries intensely violated, by people who claimed to have deeper feelings or more empathy than other people.

You can feel all the feelings in the world but if you're impaired to act on them, you're impaired. All the world around you knows is how you act. It does not know how you feel, and very little of it cares.

And sometimes lots of empathy discourse in ND discourse just demonstrates... a lack of empathy, or confusion around what empathy is. It's weirdly defensive: "we don't lack empathy, how dare you say that!"

Except yes often people who say this do lack empathy and in my own case yes it has been part of my impairment in my own life and what do I get exactly from not seeing myself as impaired, especially when I don't have the luxury of surrounding myself with a handpicked elitist group of Ph.D.s who will validate in me the same affluenza they all share?

And if they want to say "yes, we have empathy, no more or less than other people, and sometimes more" yes I can argue that's the case - comparing them with allistic rich people. But not with the general population.

[metamemory]

What would the roles of each MBTI type have been when humanity as a species were still largely hunter-gatherers?

To lay down some groundwork for context before I begin:

First of all, I suspect that the reason why SJs represent 40% of the population is because Si as a function lends itself to traditional and ‘safe’ behaviors. SJs don’t really want to venture too far outside of their comfort zone; the caution-seeking component of Si would much rather be safe than sorry. This type of built-in aversion to risk would have led to SJs being much more likely to survive long enough to propagate their genes, and pass on their Si tendencies (assuming that personality traits can, at least to some extent, be passed on genetically).

Likewise, the same logic that explains why high Si users (SJs) would have been more likely to survive environmental risks can also be used to explain why low Se users (NJs) are four of the rarest types. Se is the function that notices and responds to external sensory stimuli - like, for example, an angry tiger defending her young; and higher-order Se users (SPs) process and react to this input much more quickly than lower-order Se users (NJs) do. My younger brother and one of my best friends are both Se-doms (ESTP and ESFP, respectively), and in the time I can even begin stumbling my way through trying to figure out what’s going on around me, they’ve already managed to both process and respond to whatever it is that’s just happened. In humanity’s early world of survival based on the ability to adapt and respond to threats, it’s not hard to imagine how being cognitively less aware of your environment could put you at a disadvantage when it comes to avoiding danger. I suspect that a huge part of the reason why Ni-doms are so rare comes down to the fact that we just simply aren’t as efficient as other types are when it comes to being aware of life-threatening situations.

Contrary to NJs, SPs - who are high Se users - thrive in environments that necessitate a quick response. ‘High risk, high reward’ is the name of the game for Se; because the same adventurous spirit that helps them find new resources while they roam far and wide can also contribute to their downfall in the form of their compunction for diving head-first into novel - yet potentially dangerous - sensory experiences. This trait is helpful during times of scarcity, but it can also make them impulsive, and prone to placing themselves in harm’s way. Personally, I suspect this is the reason why ESTPs are the rarest sensor type - their foolhardy and devil may care attitude towards risk sees them placing themselves in harm’s way more than any other type.

I think the large disparity between thinking and feeling functions for men and women (75% of women are feelers, compared to only 45% of men - despite the fact that all other dichotomies (I/E, N/S, and P/J) are relatively even) can be explained by how they’ve adapted differently in response to selective pressures. Women have always had a greater incentive for learning and displaying pro-social behavior: getting along with other women (and members of your tribe in general) was imperative to early humans, who used to raise their children communally (a tendency which can still be observed in non-Western cultures even today). Women are also, and always have been, the primary caregivers when it comes to child-rearing - it isn’t hard to figure out why it would’ve been advantageous for them to have a more natural and inborn capacity for emotional intelligence when they essentially have to devote half of their entire existence to interpreting and responding to the needs of another person (especially when that person is a small child who depends upon you entirely for their survival, all while trying to learn how to human). The much greater female requirement for being empathetic, nurturing, and understanding is, I think, why 3 in 4 women are feelers. At the same time, if you bothered to take a look at the second chart that I posted above, you may have noticed that the type ratio for men is much more even than the type ratio for women. Yes, some types are more common than others (although I think that can mostly be explained by type-specific strengths and weaknesses), but it’s clearly much more evened out. Personally, I think this phenomenon can be explained by two different things: a) the fact that men (who are generally the “doers” of the human race) probably require a broader skillset in order to venture out in search of resources to bring home for the group, and b) because natural diversity in men likely increases their individual chances of finding a mate, since they won’t be competing with each other over women who all have a preference for the exact same type of men.

This is kind of a random and subjective (and mostly unfounded) observation, but based on distribution- and gender-related type statistics, it seems like the most “ideal” type to be (in terms of social and environmental survival) is ISFP. Most of the reason why I think this is because of how evenly balanced the type seems to be among both men and women - ISFPs represent about 7.6% of men, and 9.9% of women.

People seem to gravitate towards romantic partners who “complete” them, in the sense of having strengths in the areas where they’re weak. For some reason, though, there seems to be a different pattern here for sensors and iNtuitives: sensors tend to stick to dating within their Kiersey temperament cluster (ex. SJs date other SJs, and SPs date other SPs), whereas iNtuitives seem to cross the aisle between NTs and NFs more often than not. I’m not really sure why this is (outside of a post I wrote about the symbiosis between Ne users (NPs) and Ni users (NJs); here it is, if you want to read it), so it’s hard for me to speculate; but my Se-dom brother (ESTP) and closest female friend (ESFP) joke together all the time about how complementary our skill sets are, despite how dramatically different we are on the outside. I’ve also noticed the same thing when it comes to introversion and extroversion, and (tentatively) enneagram types as well - there seems to be a natural affinity there for being attracted to people who naturally complement our personalities.

I could be completely wrong about this (if interacting with other people online has given me the false impression that iNtuitives are more common in this day and age than they’ve been at any other point in human history), but it seems to me like the population (at least in Western countries) is starting to become more evenly proportionate in terms of the balance between sensors and iNtuitives. If this perception is correct, then this phenomenon may just come down to the fact that mankind has NEVER been as peaceful and prosperous as we are at this point in history. Our current quality of life as a species is completely unprecedented - medical, technological, social, and agricultural advances mean that more people are surviving into adulthood than ever before, and the types that would have been less likely to avoid the culling process of natural selection (i.e. iNtuitives in general) are now surviving much more easily in the modern world of comforts and conveniences. If I’m right about this, then the historical and biological tide may be shifting towards evolution favoring iNtuitives over sensors in future generations.

Cultural shifts traditional gender roles may also influence the type ratios between men and women.

[essayreviewserviceus-blog]

Social Effects of the Internet

engineering science is of each time evolving. We ar open(a) to it in save near any view of our recognizes. star of the reasons for this has been the constant quantity pressurize in the articulate of the lucre. The inception of the net income has make kindly fundamental interaction very much less(prenominal) ain. What erstwhile was a magic trick fashion to f in wholly place(p) with others has fulfill a gate track, and in nigh ship go offal a necessity, for things we do on a passing(a) basis.\n esteem abide when vie a halting with title-holders meant physically macrocosm in the comparable populate? Well, this is no eternal the case. retri neverthelessive identify on a headset and join online. This has taken the personal interaction discover of soak up down the simplest kids games. almost kids apply to sexual love departure extraneous to run slightly cont fetch up games with friends in the neighborhood. They would suffer bring out all sidereal day until the streetlights came on. at one time all kids seem to do is go online to run for cancel of vocation with a friend who may live proper(ip) succeeding(prenominal) door. It is non unless the kids though. telecommuting has increase dramatically in the onetime(prenominal) some age. We no agelong until instantaneously aim to start out the suffer to go to change by reversal! This has fundamentally make us lazy. We no bimestrial go into medicine stores to obtain a CD by and by sense of hearing a pains on the radio. why would we when we can simply pull out our phone, demoralise that air and be earshot to it in a be of proceeding? No pauperism to believe with gross sales clerks who may end up laborious to move us something else. medication stores get down all exactly been eliminated in the forebode of convenience. obtain use to be something that we had to physically go out and do. Now on that point be serve that bequeath re nt us to flush do our marketplace rat from the shelter of our dental plate and declare it delivered that same(p) day. These things constitute changed the steering we live. We fall in fare to confront this convenience.\nThe meshing has non merely touch the behavior we shop but the way we turn back as well. The deviance amongst ten-spot years past and now in how procreation is integrated with the internet is astounding. punt wherefore in that location was not regular(a) an excerption of...

[sheerdarwinism]

Taiwan’s New Animal Shelter Laws, and Why They’re More Harmful than Helpful

Tomorrow, 4th of February 2017, marks the onset of new laws in Taiwan, setting regulations for how shelter staff, veterinarians, and the public manage abandoned and unwanted animals. This is a delicate story for many reasons, not least amongst them the fact that it comes off the back of the tragic suicide of Dr Chien Chih-cheng on the 5th of May, 2016. It is my hope that by discussing these issues, it will bring attention to several important considerations, and help people understand the complex backgrounds involved.

What are the new regulations?

It will now be illegal to euthanise abandoned animals

Anybody who wishes to abandon their pet at a shelter will have to pay a fee as high as NT$3887 (£100 / US$125 / AUS$163)

I would like to discuss these and their risks a little more thoroughly.

Law against euthanasia

In 2015, around 10,900 animals in Taiwanese shelters were euthanised. In some shelters, this equates to about 50% of all animals admitted. That is a high amount, and it’s easy to look at these numbers and say, “That needs to change.” And it does, absolutely. So, why elect to simply ban the practice?

You can check any number of studies internationally, the consensus is clear - veterinarians have a disproportionately high rate of suicide, even amongst other health professionals. This tends around twice as high as human doctors and dentists, which makes it four times higher than the general population. You can see this in the UK, Canada, and Australia, as just a few examples. While it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly why the risk is so high, some suggestions include the lack of support post-education and during career, long hours (over 50 and even 60 hours per week is not uncommon), high job stress, and ready access to drugs including barbiturates. Furthermore, the risk may increase due to high distress in the job - including high rates of euthanasia. On the lower end of the risk scale, job turnover at shelters is much higher when rates of euthanasia is high, so it stands to reason this could severely impact the mental health of our veterinary professionals.

So, it might seem that if you remove the reasons for higher mental health risks, such as by simply eliminating euthanasia, you’ll solve that part of the problem. Unfortunately, there are more causes of distress to animal shelter workers and veterinarians than just euthanasia, and some of that is to do with the ongoing overexposure to welfare concerns vets have to deal with on a daily basis.

First, let’s consider reasons for euthanasia, and the consequences of an absolute (that is, for absolutely any reason) ban on euthanasia. Animals are euthanised for any number of reasons - under normal veterinary circumstances this is chiefly due to illness, but also senility, injury, behavioural issues, unwanted animals or those unable to be cared for by owners, and cost of treatment. Injury, illness and behaviour are risk factors in shelters as well, amongst other factors related to adoptability.

Now imagine that you can not euthanise an ill or injured animal. Now your shelters are full of animals who can pass on mild or even severe illnesses to other residents, and to their human carers. Now your shelters are full of animals in pain, who may not be able to move or eat properly because of it. And your shelters are now also filled with animals who will not be adopted due to behavioural issues. All of these issues increase ongoing costs of care and facility maintenance, while reducing space for animals who can be safely adopted out in a society which already has a low adoption rate (less than 1% of dogs were obtained by families from shelters at one point). 

A reminder - veterinarians have an ethical (and often legal) requirement to euthanise animals they deem to be  distressed, diseased or disabled to a point where they cannot be satisfactorily relieved by their veterinary care. Preventing euthanasia regardless of professional opinion may increase mental health risks for these vets.

Fortunately, the new Taiwanese law does allow for euthanasia for incurably ill or injured animals, but this still leaves a lot of space for other sick animals and those with behavioural issues. Other sources have identified a large animal hoarding issue in Taiwan, and here the risk is that no-kill shelters, to help free up space for more incoming animals, may compound hoarding issues by resorting to ‘rehome at all costs’ tactics.

In addition, this doesn’t consider the risks associated with not being able to euthanise any abandoned animal, which includes those strays roaming the streets. Strays are typically less adopted than surrendered animals, and are at higher risk of injury (via fighting or human-animal interactions), illness, and malnutrition. Taiwan already has a law under the Animal Protection Law that prohibits euthanasia of animals taken by shelters for at least 7 days after a public announcement or notice of this animal is given - this reduces the risk of accidental euthanasia of escaped, lost or stolen pets. Increasing this time indefinitely is a huge strain on resources.

Abandonment Fee

The introduction of a fee for surrendering animals to a shelter is likely designed to reduce the overall number of animals being held in these shelters. In a lot of ways, it’s complementary to the first law - if the number of animals outgoing from shelters is low, the incoming number must be reduced. Adding a fee to owners surrendering their animals is, theoretically, a deterrent, and should encourage owners to instead keep their pets.

Will it work in Taiwan? Probably not.

First, consider the number of dogs in Taiwan, and the number of strays. Very general estimates put the 2009 household dog population at 1,565,156 and the number of strays in that year at 86,244 (actually comparatively low, but this is correlated with an increase in euthanasia over the 10 years previous). In some studies, a whopping 42% of owners had “a history of losing and/or abandoning dogs”, despite massive fines discouraging abandonment.

The problem is, Taiwanese dog owners already have a resistance to euthanising dogs, or relinquishing them to shelters. Introducing a further deterrent is more likely to increase the rate of “lost” dogs, rather than ensuring owners keep their animals.

So, what are some other options?

The same options as everywhere else.

Increase funding to animal shelters and facilities that take in strays - increased space, increased facility staff, increased provisions for animals. Fortunately the Taiwanese government has proposed a NT$1.9 billion (US$58.18 million) budget to improve shelter facilities and improve animal protection. Unfortunately, this is a short-term response that doesn’t reduce the cause of the problem.

Encourage more adoptions from shelters, rather than pet acquisitions as puppies/kittens from friends and relatives - the number of adoptions has increased in Taiwan recently, which certainly helps reduce animal overpopulation. Alone, however, this cannot reduce the overall population.

Enforce spaying/neutering of pets - this is easily the most important factor, and cannot be stressed enough. Laws in Taiwan, though recent, already exist requiring the spaying and neutering of pets. However, the BBC reports “only 30% of the island's 1.7 million dogs have been spayed or neutered”, and there are no immediate imposing of fines for those who break this law. Spaying and neutering pets is vital. It reduces the number of new animals being introduced to the total population, and increases the need for new animals for families being sourced from shelters. In addition, spaying and neutering of pets comes with health benefits and the reduction of behaviours that cause owners frustration and may result in abandonment or surrender.

Support for veterinarians and animal shelter staff - these jobs are stressful (which is a massive understatement). Not only are there huge responsibilities placed on these people, often they are targeted in harassment campaigns by the public. I have already discussed the risks to vets - putting them in a position to see on a daily basis, sick, injured, malnourished and overcrowded animals, without providing them support and methods to professionally counteract these welfare concerns will compound mental heath risks in these professionals.

Additional options like targeting of breeders and pet stores, and application of Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release programs should also be considered.

Reducing the unwanted animal population is hard, but it seems little consideration for the massive consequences has gone into these new laws. They currently appear short-sighted and more of a ‘seen to be doing something’ reaction than a real, long-term, sustainable response. Hopefully in the coming few years we’ll see more intensive and appropriate effort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Photo Credit: Gaston (A1298707) by Brian Kelly | CC BY 2.0

[kathleenseiber]

COVID-19 news and trends

The numbers

Rising COVID-19 numbers in the US and Europe are alarming national leaders (in most cases) and leading to new lockdowns and predictions of winter case peaks.

In the US, cases are reported increasing in 41 states – the biggest surge since August – and insufficient testing may be contributing to under-reporting of new infections.

Across Europe, an average of more than 100,000 cases per day was reported in the past week. Yesterday France’s president Emmanuel Macron declared a state of emergency, including a 9pm–6am curfew starting on Saturday in nine cities.

The New York Times reported Macron as saying: “The virus is everywhere in France.”

On Monday, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a media briefing: “Around the world, we’re now seeing an increase in the number of reported cases of COVID-19, especially in Europe and the Americas.

“Each of the last four days has been the highest number of cases reported so far. Many cities and countries are also reporting an increase in hospitalisations and intensive-care bed occupancy. At the same time, we must remember that this is an uneven pandemic. 

“Countries have responded differently, and countries have been affected differently. 

Almost 70% of all cases reported globally last week were from 10 countries, and almost half of all cases were from just three countries.”

Global

As at 16:14 CEST on Wednesday 14 October, cases confirmed worldwide by national authorities stood at 38,002,699 (287,031 of them reported in the preceding 24 hours). 1,083,234 deaths have been recorded (4108). (Source: WHO Coronavirus Disease Dashboard)

Johns Hopkins University’s Centre of Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) reported (at 15:00 AEST on Thursday 15 October) 38,441,934 confirmed cases and 1,091,439 deaths. 

Australia

The Department of Heath reported on 7 October that national confirmed cases stood at 27,341, a rise of 25 in 24 hours. 904 deaths have been recorded.

State by state: ACT 113 total cases (first case reported 12 March); NSW 4310 (25 January); NT 33 (20 March); Qld 1161 (29 January); SA 479 (2 February); Tas 230 (2 March); Vic 20,311 (25 January); WA 704 (21 February).

Research 

Pause for safety – and definitions

Earlier this week US pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson confirmed it was temporarily pausing its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials due to an unexplained illness in a study participant. J&J did not elaborate on the illness, citing respect for the participant’s privacy.

Credit: Paul Biris

In a statement, J&J stressed the priority it gives to “the safety and well being of the people we serve every day around the world”, and the difference between the terms “study pause” and a “regulatory hold”.

It says the former, “in which recruitment or dosing is paused by the study sponsor, is a standard component of a clinical trial protocol”. The latter “is a requirement by a regulatory health authority, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

The study pause follows a similar study pause in September by British-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. Their trials have since resumed. 

Australian vaccine experts backed the company’s action and emphasised that such a pause isn’t unusual.

“It is not unusual to suspend a clinical trial if there is an adverse-reaction reported during testing,” wrote Murdoch University’s Jeremy Nicholson. “This is all part of checking that the vaccine (or drug) is safe. 

“People can fall ill in clinical trials by chance and it may have nothing to do with the vaccine itself, this is especially likely in a large trial. Each case has to be investigated thoroughly to evaluate the cause and likelihood of it being trial related.”

“It does not mean the trial will not continue, and is required under ethical standards governing clinical trials,” wrote Australian Catholic University’s Roger Lord.

More safety = less carbon

The COVID pandemic has profoundly affected human activities – a state of affairs that ought to be reflected in energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Now, an international team has presented daily estimates of country-level CO2 emissions for different sectors – for instance residential, transport and aviation – based on near-real-time activity data. The results have been published in Nature Communications.

The key result is an abrupt 8.8% decrease in global CO2 emissions in the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. This decrease is of a magnitude larger than during previous economic downturns or World War II. The timing of emissions decreases corresponds to lockdown measures in each country.

The research reveals that by 1 July, as lockdown restrictions relaxed and some economic activities restarted, especially in China and several European countries, the pandemic’s effects on global emissions diminished. But substantial differences persist between countries. In the US, for instance, where coronavirus cases are still increasing, emission declines have continued.

The study’s author’s write that the “absolute decreases in CO2 emissions are larger than any in history, including those that occurred during the recent 2008–2009 global financial crisis” and emphasise the message their results sends.

“At face value, an 8.8% relative reduction of emissions seems to be small when compared to the magnitude and extent of the disturbance of human activities that the COVID produced. This means that the long-term emissions decreases needed in this century to achieve [carbon reduction] targets must be based on structural and transformational changes in energy production systems, de-carbonisation of transportation and improved building energy use efficiency, that is an improvement of the carbon intensity of economies rather than decreases of human activities.”

Is SARS-CoV-2 here to stay?

Worldwide, only a few repeat SARS-CoV-2 infections have been verified since the pandemic began. But in a Perspective article in Science, Jeffrey Shaman and Marta Galanti suggest that it’s likely the virus will become endemic – that it will be able to re-infect humans who’ve had it before.

Shaman and Galanti write that in many respiratory viruses (such the flu and the common cold) a number of processes – including particularly insufficient adaptive immune response, waning immunity and immune escape – can allow subsequent reinfection. While many questions remain about the nature of these immune responses and trajectories in the case of SARS-CoV-2, insight from other respiratory viruses points to the possibility of reinfection with it.

Shaman and Galanti note that cyclic persistence of COVID in human populations may be affected by ongoing opportunities for interaction with other respiratory pathogens – it’s possible infection with a different virus could provide some short-lived protection to SARS-CoV-2. But there will need to be greater monitoring of the clinical and population-scale interactions of it with other respiratory viruses, particularly influenza, before we’ll know.

At the population scale, a possible overlap between influenza and COVID outbreaks poses a serious threat to public health systems. But the authord note that non-pharmaceutical interventions adopted to mitigate COVID transmission – such personal protective equipment, social distancing and increased hygiene – may reduce the magnitude of seasonal influenza outbreaks.

Credit: Sebastian Condrea

Based on modelling of post-pandemic scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 to date, a duration of immunity similar to that of the other betacoronaviruses (about 40 weeks) could lead to yearly COVID outbreaks, whereas a longer immunity profile, coupled with a small degree of protective cross-immunity from other betacoronaviruses, could lead to apparent elimination of the virus followed by resurgence after a few years.

“Other scenarios are, of course, possible, because there are many processes at play and much that remains unresolved,” write Shaman and Galanti.

Research bites

A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics reports that mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection rarely transmit the virus to their newborns when basic infection-control practices are followed. The findings – the most detailed data available on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between mothers and their newborns – suggest that more extensive measures like separating COVID-19-positive mothers from their babies and avoiding direct breastfeeding may not be warranted. “Our findings should reassure expectant mothers with COVID-19 that basic infection-control measures during and after childbirth – such as wearing a mask and engaging in breast and hand hygiene when holding or breastfeeding a baby – protected newborns from infection in this series,” says study senior author Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, of NewYork-Presbyterian / Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

A new study of beliefs and attitudes toward COVID-19 in five different countries – the UK, US, Ireland, Mexico and Spain – has identified how much traction some prominent conspiracy theories can gain. Published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, the research reveals “key predictors” for susceptibility to fake pandemic news, and critically finds that a small increase in the perceived reliability of conspiracies equates to a larger drop in the intention to get vaccinated. The Cambridge University-led study asked participants to rate the reliability of several statements, including six popular myths about COVID-19. While a large majority of people in all five nations judged the misinformation to be unreliable, researchers found that certain conspiracy theories have taken root in significant portions of the population. The conspiracy deemed most valid across the board was the claim that COVID-19 was engineered in a Wuhan laboratory. “Certain misinformation claims are consistently seen as reliable by substantial sections of the public. We find a clear link between believing coronavirus conspiracies and hesitancy around any future vaccine,” says study co-author Sander van der Linden, of Cambridge.

Sudden permanent hearing loss seems to be linked to COVID-19 infection in some people, warn doctors, reporting the first UK case in the journal BMJ Case Reports. While the side-effect is uncommon, awareness of it is important because a prompt course of steroid treatment can reverse this disabling condition. “Despite the considerable literature on COVID-19 and the various symptoms associated with the virus, there is a lack of discussion on the relationship between COVID-19 and hearing,” say the report authors. “Given the widespread presence of the virus in the population and the significant morbidity of hearing loss, it is important to investigate this further.”

A new study led by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University, US, suggests that for every two deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the US, a third American dies as a result of the pandemic. The results are published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study shows that deaths between 1 March and 1 August increased 20% compared to previous years, but deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for only  67% of those deaths. “Contrary to sceptics who claim that COVID-19 deaths are fake or that the numbers are much smaller than we hear on the news, our research and many other studies on the same subject show quite the opposite,” said lead author Steven Woolf. The study also contains suggestive evidence that state policies on reopening early in April and May may have fueled the surges experienced in June and July.

COVID-19 news and trends published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/