Does anybody know a good review article that can serve as an introduction to virology, preferably focused on the medical and public health aspects rather than on the evolution, that is suitable for non-science university students without any scientific background?
Perhaps some extra details on what I'm looking for would help. Basically it should explain what viruses are and how they infect organisms/cells, give a sense of their variety (without going into the Baltimore classification though, which is already too complicated for that
audience), explain how organisms react to infection and how they cause diseases, talk about properties that are relevant from a medical and public health point of view (virulence, transmissibility, etc.), say a few things about how they mutate and their evolution. In 30-50 pages.
Several people mentioned Vincent Racaniello. I watched every lecture in his virology course at the beginning of the pandemic and I thought it was great, but it's way too long and a bit too complicated for the audience I have in mind, who just need a quick, superficial review.
However, if he did a one-hour long video or something in which he does that kind of review, that would probably be perfect even though it wouldn't be an article, because I think he is very clear and his lectures are fun to watch and the format isn't essential.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I found those observations by Gregory the Great particularly insightful, because they might explain why I was unable to comfort people I care about in the past, since I couldn't feel the way they did while I was trying to comfort them.
It's easier said than done though, because in the cases I have in mind, doing so would have required that I see the world in the same way they did, which is not something you can do at will. So I felt bad because they felt bad, but I couldn't really feel bad *with* them.
I expect that Omicron's transmission advantage will also fluctuate wildly across time and place, but one thing that suggests to me it really is more transmissible than Delta or more capable of evading prior immunity is that incidence in SA was very low when it started expanding.
Indeed, the theory I proposed to explain why Alpha's and Delta's transmission advantages had eventually collapsed requires a large outbreak associated with the variant somewhere, as I explained back then.
Thus, if Omicron is taking over in Europe despite low seeding from South Africa (which seems to be the case now and is what you'd expect with low incidence in South African before borders closure), it doesn't work.
Looking back on the lockdown debate, it's funny that it started as a debate between people in favor of letting it rip to get it over with quickly and people in favor of "flattening the curve", but everyone was wrong since no matter what you do more or less the same thing happens.
We have kind of forgotten that, because it has been almost 2 years since the pandemic started and we have gradually changed our positions without noticing, but it's really striking if you go back to the debates from last March.
For instance, I was briefly a "flatten the curve" guy, then after the first wave I became a "let it rip" guy and after the summer I became convinced that non-pharmaceutical interventions didn't make a big difference anyway so they weren't worth it, which is still my position.
It's amazing how the idea that mass rapid-testing would somehow make a significant difference has become an article of faith among the sophisticates, when there is not a shred of evidence that it would. I hate the FDA as much as the next guy, but this is just magical thinking.
Smart people keep coming up with technocratic plans that totally ignore political/social realities, feed them into bullshit models that obviously don't capture the underlying transmission process and make unrealistic behavioral assumptions, which find it will save a ton of lives.
I'm unambiguously pro-vaccine, but this articulates very precisely something I have found deeply concerning, and that I think everyone should find concerning.
It's very bad to countenance propaganda, even if you think it's for a good cause, because propaganda has a deeply corruptive effect on the public debate that is never limited to the issue at hand.
But more fundamentally, I think that even if the effects could be contained, it would still be wrong to tolerate propaganda in the public forum. It seems to me that it degrades us in a way. This is the sort of cases that have led to me to reject consequentialism in recent years.
Cette affaire est devenu mon nouveau détecteur à cons. Dès que j'entends quelqu'un défendre Bouleau au motif qu'il n'avait pas à faire preuve de complaisance vis-à-vis de Zemmour, j'en conclus immédiatement qu'il est débile, car seul un débile peut sortir un argument aussi con.
Débile ou tellement aveuglé par sa haine pour Zemmour qu'il est incapable de reconnaître l'évidence, ce qui est aussi une forme de connerie 🤷♂️
Exactement, on peut éviter de faire preuve de complaisance sans pour autant poser uniquement des questions débiles et sans intérêt, même si les journalistes et les cons d'une façon générale ont du mal à le comprendre.