Jase Gehring Profile picture
Feb 9, 2020 3 tweets 2 min read Read on X
⁦⁦@CDCtravel⁩ advisory ⁦@SeaTacAirport⁩ goes against my understanding of #2019n_CoV. Seems to suggest a parallel outbreak of the virus in “animals” (which species???) and only provides the unhelpful “DON’T be near sick people”. Image
The outbreak begins with novel mutations leading to increased virulence in humans. These mutations are selected and amplified in humans. Any data on the extent of this virus in animal populations? Any data on tropism?
Basically, is there any reason to interact with “animals” differently than before? Seems like an unlikely source of this virus. Not quite my field, so please correct me if I’m mistaken.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jase Gehring

Jase Gehring Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JaseGehring

Sep 12, 2020
This is a thread on ENDING TEMPORARY POSITIONS IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.

I wrote this in response to some comments. I’m fleshing out my thoughts and shaping my opinions. I share to provoke discussion and introspection. It's ~500 words.
First, it is entirely rational to compete within the current system based on your CV. I recognize this is how I will be judged, and I act accordingly. I don't blame others for doing the same. But, “you get what you select for”; so, are we selecting for CV builders or scientists?
Here is the root cause our dilemma: PhD students, postdocs, and assistant professors are all in *artificially* temporary jobs.

Artificial meaning they are only temporary jobs because we say so.
Read 24 tweets
Aug 30, 2020
the most successful grad students have tons of experience *before* starting their PhDs. Essentially, they don't need to be trained, and they flourish in a system that explicitly avoids directly training them.
background:

- went from undergrad after 1.5 yrs great training
- trained mostly by grad students during rotations
- switched labs after 4 yrs (to a way better situation!)
- probably would not have been successful as a grad student in my current postdoc lab
meaning i did not take the gap years that i would recommend. intellectually i was on par with my peers but my lack of experience was evident once i started my own project.
Read 7 tweets
Jul 17, 2020
as a biologist who is usually not suuper interested in human health projects and very not interested in rodents, i default to telling those who are that i am a chemist.

it's so much easier than trying to explain my views.
ooofff this is turning into a thread.
i told a Harvard prof (malaria bigshot) that i'm not interested in curing cancer and asked if he's found it difficult to find support and funding for research on various neglected diseases.

he looked at me like i'm fucking crazy and ended the convo.
Read 8 tweets
Jun 21, 2020
great thread! so how we doing? imo personal testing is nearing sufficiency nationwide. that's the 'anyone who wants a test' crowd.

a bigger question is if testing will be *asked* of people who aren't sick. this remains very limited at this time. still controversial
some prevalence studies exist, like SCAN in Seattle, and some mitigation testing is being done like at Amazon, sports leagues, and certain major transmission chains. 2/4
the barriers to mitigation testing haven't changed since March. 1) cost is very high 2) logistics are extremely complex 3) regulatory hurdles - it's hard to find patient samples, distributed approval/implementation process, new tech not encouraged. 3/4
Read 5 tweets
Jun 13, 2020
this error is subtle to non-experts, but it is Day 1 qPCR stuff, and a second major blunder in the CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay after the contaminated standards.

@cdc can issue new DNA sequence design recommendations - will they?

incredible quote below
"It is somewhat puzzling that a primer/probe set that is frequently used to determine copy number variation in the human genome ended up as a control for RNA extraction and/or RT efficacy, since it is clear from the design that background gDNA will pose a major problem."

WOW 😮
thanks to the authors for detailing the problem and releasing this manuscript.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 9, 2020
This is pathetic. If you were pissed at Angewandte before, this excuse gives you zero reason to submit your articles to this journal. There is no institutional accountability and no self-awareness. Most importantly, there are no steps to prevent further incidents.
In short, you have no reason to believe that Angewandte is not just as discriminatory as their recent article except 1) Dave's words 2) they don't like that guy Hudlicky now, and 3) a couple editors are on leave (but they weren't racist anyway so nbd)
I'm actually ok with the 'we all make mistakes' line, but it's completely hollow without any steps to avoid more 'mistakes'. You could start by articulating exactly how this mistake occurred and how it will be avoided.

pretty basic stuff here.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(