mvolz
Comments8
Topic contributions4
I'm curious whether you've indicated parental care is "present" or "absent" in bees, however, I have briefly checked the documents linked and couldn't find where that lives but maybe I missed it. Can anyone link to that documentation?
(Bees provide care to young, but it's primarily done by siblings, not parents, so it's considered alloparental care, not parental care. I should think that probably counts, but wasn't sure.)
It is not uncommon, and I will even say usual, that Nazi sympathisers are at least somewhat subtle about it.
This is not particularly subtle. Here's their section on the Holocaust: https://nyadagbladet.se/tag/forintelsen/
Here's an editorial written for Holocaust Remembrance Day. Their central claim is that the way to prevent antisemitism it to stop "lying" about how many Jews were killed. https://nyadagbladet.se/ledare/sa-forebygger-vi-den-verkliga-antisemitismen/
This is very classic Holocaust denialism. I don't think it's unreasonable to call a website that actively promotes ethnonationalism and Holocaust denialism "pro-Nazi", unless you think that the literal words "pro-Nazi" must appear somewhere in order to qualify.
Good post, though I should point out that HIV entered the human population independently at least twice (HIV-1 and HIV-2), so your counterfactual world missing HIV might not be as likely as one might otherwise think.
(There are also counterfactual worlds where SARS-CoV-1 or MERS-CoV or similar took off as well with an even higher death count.)
There's a good review here (covers cost effectiveness on a wide variety of outcome metrics, including but not limited to maternal mortality): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115338/
Specifically the cost effectiveness on maternal mortality in Nigeria in one study: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-786
Maybe "Widely recognised at being cost effective at reducing unintended pregnancy" is better though - that's definitely widely recognised, but perhaps CE at reducing mortality isn't as widely recognised?
Update: The UK has released an action plan (March 3)
Re: the UK response, the UK distributed the following guidance to schools to be passed on to parents on February 26th (since updated more extensively). The original guidance was first published on Jan 23:
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/23/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-what-you-need-to-know
They've also already set up isolation pods in some hospitals (i.e. St. Mary's in London, John Radcliffe in Oxford), and are planning to expand this to every hospital with an A&E: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/29/coronavirus-isolation-pods-installed-every-ae-unit-uk-sees-confirmed-cases-12325487/
Minor editorial correction:
I would say "group" rather than "species" here (since fish aren't even a valid taxonomic group, let alone species.)
Since fish are vertebrates, I think the certainty is much higher than invertebrates in general. For invertebrates I am not convinced.
If invertebrates were conscious, it'd be very bad. For one, vertebrates typically lose consciousness very quickly when they sustain fatal wounds, due to blood loss which causes the brain to lose oxygen.
Most invertebrates' nervous system is passively oxygenated. That means the brain keeps working long past the time when the rest of the body dies... even ex situ. It's why invertebrates are used for studying neurophysiology, both because the neurons are so large compared to vertebrate neurons, and also because neural tissue continues to function after death.
If true, the wild animal suffering implications would be enormous.