Here's more on the new mitigation scenario for 1.5C. How does it work? What would society look like? Are we willing to do what's required to stop climate breakdown? See thread.
•a shift from private cars to public transportation
•reduction in flights
•smaller average house size
Meanwhile, consumption in the global South (non-Annex 1 countries) rises to converge.
•Meat consumption in high-income nations falls by about two-thirds (with specific focus on beef).
•Significant reduction in food waste.
•Global transition from industrial farming to regenerative agricultural methods to restore soils and biodiversity.
•Universal public services
•Shorter working hours
•Basic income and maximum wage
•Radical reduction in inequality
These measures ensure that all people have access to the resources they need to live flourishing lives even as aggregate economic output declines.
More from Science
💥💥 Situation Update, Dec. 7th – DNI John Ratcliffe, the bogus science of PCR testing and China’s GMO super soldiers
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
