I am all for generating revenue using University assets to support scholarships, library projects, phone systems, etc. However, I cannot convey how utterly frustrating and demoralizing it is to have this take priority over our core mission in education and research. 🧵
Once the admin includes a building or property under this fund, generating revenue becomes the top priority for its use, period, no matter what else someone may propose.
I recently proposed the use of a major donated -- and for more than a decade, unused -- property that would have included all of the following:
1. Restoring a building to create a UofG Nature Centre, with space for research, teaching, and public engagement.
2. Establishing long-term research projects in biomonitoring, climate change, and One Health.
3. Creating accessible, affordable local field courses.
4. Experiential learning and job readiness opportunities for our new programs in wildlife biology and One Health.
5. Education about and engagement with Indigenous knowledge systems, including co-creating interactive nature walks and workshops to share knowledge and promote two-eyed seeing, and building meaningful relationships with local Indigenous communities.
6. Alumni, donor, and public engagement events.
7. Creating field biology opportunities for elementary and high school students from underserved communities.
8. Developing art-science collaborations around themes of natural history, biodiversity, conservation.
But not even a "These ideas are great, how can we help you make it happen?". It was right to "The property also needs to generate profit, so how can we do that?".
I am so done trying to do anything with this administration.
We still don't know what it will mean to have a cloud of immune-escaping variants at the same time. There are several possibilities, but for now it's looking like we're still going to be talking about what individual variants are doing rather than the cloud per se. 🧵
Here's what we mean by a "cloud" of variants. There are multiple lineages, all derived from either BA.2 or BA.5, which have independently evolved to have a similar set mutations that confer immune escape.
I've done a number of interviews about COVID evolution recently. Wanna know who has no interest in hearing from me (or any other experts)? @uofg administration.
Special props to @ErinMPrater at @FortuneMagazine who is doing a fantastic job communicating about variants. This is not an easy thing to explain but she's rocking it.
Seems like BQ.1 (Typhon) and BQ.1.1 (Cerberus) are the ones taking off most in Europe and North America, whereas it's XBB (Gryphon) in Singapore. Can someone be infected with one and then the other? Maybe. BQs are BA.5s and XBB is a BA.2.
Could someone be infected with both? Sure, if exposed to both. Coinfection and recombination is how hybrid variants like XBB arise. Might there be a wave of one in one place and a wave of the other elsewhere, then they swap and have a second wave each? Perhaps. Or something new?
Will none actually reach very high frequency now that there are multiple immune-escaping variants with convergent mutations circulating? Could be. Will each variant in the cloud infect a different subset of partially immune hosts? Might do.
I don't know that CDC is hiding variant info intentionally, but they are definitely not the best source because: 1) their tracker is only updated once a week, 2) it takes them longer than it should to update Pango designations (e.g., BQs still under BA.5).
1/
Thus, people are surprised about BQ.1* today but it's been known and stated clearly by the variant trackers on Twitter for quite a while.
2/
You do not need to be in the dark about variant evolution. Follow the people on this list. They provide up to date info and explanations everyday.