Thursday Throughout: No, the Other Simpsons Pandemic Edition

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

79 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    ThTH8 – I don’t know how revolutionary these really are since they are built on 10 years of research and vaccine testing from the original SARS outbreak. Good to see folks looking around for other ways to apply the technology though.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

      It’s revolutionary in the sense that it’s a significant departure from how we’ve been making vaccines for 100+ years. And it’s the first time the technique has been used on a wide scale and shown efficacy.

      Ergo, it may spark a revolution in how we develop vaccines. Imagine if we no longer needed chicken eggs to make the flu vaccine every year.

      The fact that it’s been in development for a decade doesn’t really enter into it.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        One of the real problems we have now is limited manufacturing capability, i.e. that ‘wide scale’ thing.

        The world is something like 15% vaccinated. The US is going to have all adults do a boaster (or two, or whatever), which is a big FU to the concept of vaccine equality.

        The huge bonus to the flu vaccine would be having one that actually works. There are hundreds of variations on the flu, the CDC basically guesses on which 3 might be around in a year and if (when) they’re wrong we get vaccine(s) that aren’t especially well targeted to that year’s virus.

        “Not especially well targeted” is a LOT better than “no vaccine”, but having a specifically targeted vac would be a lot better.Report

          • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Moderna, IIRC, is now trialing an HIV vaccine. HIV is a hard darn target, and pretty much the only hope is something like mRNA vaccines.

            I suspect vaccines against Herpes (both versions) as well will be entering trials soon.

            Even to those who already have the disease, vaccination is likely to heavily arm the immune system — preventing HIV viral loads from rising with less medication, and preventing Herpes outbreaks.

            Being able to pinpoint a specific protein on a virus and say “That, that’s the bit you need to recognize and kill” is game changing. Like “invention of antibiotics” game changing.Report

    • JS in reply to Philip H says:

      Ah, no. You have the cart before the horse. It’s mRNA technology that’s revolutionary, not the COVID-19 vaccine — or the SARS work before it.

      Or rather, finally seeing it in practice.

      This stuff is akin to “the invention of antibiotics” in terms of game-changing, and we’re not talking “in theory, in a lab, in a paper somewhere” anymore.

      You can use this to program the human immune system to look for something INCREDIBLY specific and kill it.

      The human immune system that handles everything from viruses and bacteria to cancer.

      And it’s incredibly fast and easy to do. They created the mRNA vaccines in a weekend, needing only the sequenced DNA of COVID-19 to do. And now that we’ve real world results, future vaccines based on this tech will be faster to authorize.

      After all, the conspiracy nuts aside, mRNA vaccines are incredibly safe. They’re just mRNA in lipid packets — any that don’t get into a cell and start pumping out their target protein dissolve quickly. No adenoviral vectors that can cause an immune response on it’s own, no immune system coming up with the wrong target on it’s own based on a dead viral sample.

      This stuff has the potential to cure HIV, herpes, even a lot of cancers (your immune system ALSO handles cancerous cells, after all). And if you already have HIV or herpes, massively mitigate the outbreaks. No more daily drug regimens as your immune system has been taught exactly how to squash outbreaks effectively.Report

  2. Brandon Berg says:

    ThTh8: Would mRNA be a useful way to deliver biological drugs at a lower cost, and also perhaps to allow the development of true biological generics that don’t need the lengthy and expensive regulatory process needed for biosimilars?Report

  3. Oscar Gordon says:

    ThTh5: It’s interesting to me how we seem to be getting away from fusion that is a “sun in a bottle”, and moving towards a “baby nova in a bottle”.

    In either case, I am left wondering how we intend to harvest the energy. Right now, it feels like trying to harvest a lightning strike.Report

    • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Fusion always frustrated me. I mean it’s *points upward* right there. The model is right there. Then I actually learned about stars. It’s so… inelegant. You just pile almost inconceivable amounts of hydrogen into a utterly gigantic heap and gravity does the rest. It’s basically brute force fusion and, obviously, useless for replicating on Earth.Report

      • JS in reply to North says:

        I keep telling scientists “figure out gravity and just replicate that” and they’re all like “That’s a lot harder than lasers, mate” and “stop watching star trek” and “How did you even get in here? Why do we even pay for security?” and “Are you wearing a beer hat?”Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

        Well, since we can’t do gravity, we cheat and use magnetic fields and lasers.

        But make no mistake, even if we manage to surpass the break even point enough to generate power, there is still the problem of capturing that power, and the problem of waste heat (I sincerely hope someone is working hard on boosting the efficiency and/or scalability of Seebeck devices).Report

        • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Yeah my gloom around fusion deepens. Too bad too because it’s soooooo cool!Report

          • JS in reply to North says:

            Eh, they’ll crack it. Probably long after it’d have been really useful.

            We might end up building the stupid things in a century just to handle large-scale desal plants, although some of the tech on those looks to massively reduce energy costs.

            It’s getting real hard to compete with “free” when it comes to “what’s your power plant’s feedstock”.

            The current bottleneck is storage, but there’s so many ways around that and it’s becoming more and more feasible to build it as solar and wind push more and more cheap energy into the grid.Report

            • North in reply to JS says:

              Yeah except for the storage, Ms. Lincoln, how is your renewable power grid workin out?Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

                IMHO, the problem with storage is not, “Can we do it?”, it’s that any storage scheme will involve considerable capital costs, and there are so many options right now, and on the immediate horizon, that people are playing a waiting game.

                No one wants to be the utility that spends hundreds of millions of dollars digging out a reservoir for pumped hydro, only to have some crazy efficient and affordable battery tech appear 5 years later that would give them the same storage for a fraction of the cost.Report

              • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I’ll defer to your expertise on the matter. It just doesn’t seem like that storage cost is factored into the cheapness of renewables and when you bring up base power questions they shrug and say “we’ll power people on ecological virtue alone if the sun doesn’t shine”.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

                It’s more complicated than that.

                Maybe a topic for a Tech Tuesday…Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

                Storage is only one way of working the intermittency problem. Unfortunately, it’s the only way the people in charge of reliability for the US power grids seem to want to work with.Report

              • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Would the other way be piping power in from places where the sun is shining/wind is blowing?Report

              • JS in reply to North says:

                One way is simply massively overbuilding production capacity and ensuring your grid is geographically “wide” enough, diverse enough, and robust enough.

                It might, bluntly, be cheaper than most storage solutions. (Although places where there are already hydro plants should see fairly cheap storage costs).

                And renewables really are getting cheap.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

                At some point, in the (probably) not too distant future, photovoltaic panels will be cheap enough and durable enough that even places that aren’t AZ or southern CA will be able to cover every roof with them. At that point, the only major obstacle will be utilities being obstinate and building codes that are written to give electricians the ability to charge extra for something.Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Down here in Houston they’re surprisingly effective, and the biggest problems are the upfront costs and the fact that builders generally don’t orient roofs with solar in mind.

                If you’re lucky, you’ve got a good chunk of roof facing the right way.

                We’re considering moving and building a house from scratch (in a few years, not now) and will plan solar, and a south facing roof, from the start.

                In all fairness, I’m likely to replace battery storage with an NG generator for blackouts though, and rely on solar to supplement or replace my grid draw on a day to day basis.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

                Having just got back from Hawai’i (and having been there a number of times), the deployment of solar there is astounding. Even the crappiest looking shacks have a PV panel or two on the roof. Which makes sense, given that importing fuel is expensive and all that.Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I’m waiting for parking lots and parking structures to start building solar roofs. Shade the top level/lot with some solar panels.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to JS says:

                I regularly drive by a new south-facing apartment building. The “awnings” that shade the windows have PV panels. The covered parking has PV panels on top. I can’t see the roof — five-story building — but am told that it’s got as many PV panels as will comfortably fit.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

                I’m already thinking about it on my south facing roof. Even if we don’t feed back to the grid, it’s getting more and more worth it every year.Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I’m iffy on whether I’m staying in this house or moving in the next few years, or I’d be considering it.

                Right now I’m dealing with my house deciding what it really wants is water damage, and trying it’s hardest to find new ways to leak water into my walls.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

                All your CPVC getting brittle and cracking on you?Report

              • JS in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                A combination of factors, starting with a poorly sealed joint in a dehumidifier line that led to a failing shower wall, and of course a stupid AC drain line that won’t stop sweating no matter what I do to the point where I think there’s a crack in it somewhere in the wall….

                Could be worse, but it’ll probably cost me upwards of 6k to fix everything.

                But in Houston, you can’t really let water damage sit.Report

    • Well, there’s the National Ignition Facility. Then there’s also, over the last couple of years, the Chinese announcing major development of their own “sun in a bottle” reactor, the Koreans, the Germans, and of course ITER continues on its merry way.

      And of course none of them have actually demonstrated the ability to capture the kinetic energy of the neutrons produced in the reactions to heat a medium and actually drive a turbine. That’s the experimental result I’m waiting to hear: breakeven between the energy put into the reaction(s) and energy captured in a working fluid.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Exactly, it can’t just be energy in < energy out, it has to be energy in <<< energy out*. *For those who are symbolically challenged, energy in has to be a significant order of magnitude less than the energy out, because entropy is a persistent bastard and we will never capture all the energy of the reaction.Report

  4. InMD says:

    ThTh1 seems to me like we are really in a pinch between the anti-vaxxers and the vaccine theater types pushing for a return to strict social distancing and making mandates. Both are using the same information and operating from the same premise: the vaccines don’t work. Of course the data keeps showing over and over again that it is an excellent and easy mitigator.Report

  5. fillyjonk says:

    THTh5: I remember HUGE excitement when the news of “cold fusion” came out in the late 80s (in fact, I remember my organic chem lab prof talking about it, I remember thinking “wow this could change everything for the better”). I remember my prof talking about how maybe a trashcan sized fusion reactor could provide all the power a household would ever need….

    then it came out that that study at least, was fraud. Probably should have primed me for the next 30 or so years…

    I do think controllable fusion might be the game changer in terms of clean, cheaper energy, but I’m not holding my breath.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to fillyjonk says:

      Don’t hold your breath, and as I say far too often, don’t delay getting rid of fossil fuels waiting for fusion either. I also add that in a warming world, thermal power plants of any sort are not necessarily a good idea. Southern Company has spent billions converting their thermal plants in the US Southeast from pass-through to consumptive cooling because they were making the rivers too warm. During the last big Texas drought a decade or so ago, the state had to throttle back the nukes near Dallas because the cooling pond was too warm.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Water is a great working fluid because it’s so abundant.

        But it’s not really the best working fluid for spinning turbines.Report

        • No matter what the working fluid is, all the various power cycles include some sort of cooler for the working fluid. For closed cycles, the most common is a heat exchanger that transfers heat to water (which is then circulated or evaporated to transport the heat away). That’s the water use that’s causing problems.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

            Sure, but how much heat do you need to bleed off through the cold exchanger from the working fluid before it can return the hot exchanger?

            One of the reasons modern plants have to move so much heat away is because we don’t really have an economical way to extract the heat energy remaining in the water, and the boiler needs to have a supply side at a specific temperature or the efficiency starts to tank.

            Ideally, we need a working fluid that leaves the turbine as close to the optimum return temp as possible, or we need something else to extract the heat energy for use (rather than just dumping it to the environment).

            Or we need a way to dump the heat outside of the environment*.

            *PS There is a group in CA testing this out as an AC system for a store. Can’t recall if it’s this polymer exactly, but it’s the same concept.Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              Sure, but how much heat do you need to bleed off through the cold exchanger from the working fluid before it can return the hot exchanger?

              Consider a typical commercial fission power plant today. 30% of the heat is converted to electricity. Maybe 5% goes into heat in other ways. 65% of the heat gets dumped through the condenser (assuming steam turbines). Palo Verde in Arizona during the summer evaporates an acre-foot of water every five minutes dumping waste heat.

              When Fort St. Vrain nuclear was running in Colorado, with the helium at an exit temperature of ~1400 °F, it had almost 40% heat to electricity. Still more than half of the reactor heat was simply dumped.

              The best thermal plants we have today are combined-cycle gas-fired. We are approaching 60% of the heat to electricity in those and 35% dumped out the condensers for the steam portion of the cycle.

              The DOE is sponsoring a small modular reactor plant at the INL in Idaho. It is only feasible because the federal government is able to preemptively take (ie, pay nothing for the rights) Snake River water.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

                You aren’t telling me anything I don’t know (we studied the various heat cycles pretty in-depth in Thermo).

                Let’s get back to the problem at hand, thermal power production has to dump heat. We call it waste heat, because we are wasting it. This isn’t loss due to pumps, or valves, or pipe friction, it’s just heat we don’t have an economical way to harvest. When I was in the Navy, waste heat was a huge concern, in that we really did not want to waste the heat from the turbines. We had waste heat boilers and other things in the exhaust stacks just so we could capture that heat and use it, and also to reduce the thermal bloom 4 massive turbines create.

                But that was the Navy.

                Fusion power will ratchet this problem up… I don’t know how many orders of magnitude. If we manage to get a viable plant running, we may stop emitting CO2, but still warm the world just by having to dump the waste heat.

                So we either have to figure out how to economically harvest the waste heat, or we need a way to get it off planet. But we can’t just keep dumping it to the oceans or atmosphere.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Detroit Edison Nuclear Power and BakeryReport

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

                You joke, but using the waste heat to drive an industrially useful endothermic reaction is one option.

                Just gotta find enough useful endothermic reactions…Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Pittsburgh Energy, Steel, Autoclave, and Medical Waste Destruction.

                (Why isn’t turning more water into steam to turn more turbines more attractive, again? Is there a hard limit of the useful number of turning turbines?)Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

                You should look at a cross section of a steam turbine sometime, the last few rows of blades are very long, which means the turbine has extracted as much energy as is economically efficient; i.e. diminishing returns, another stage of even longer blades will simply result in an even more expensive turbine, for little gain, if not a loss of efficiency (it takes more energy to turn the last row of blades than can be extracted from the steam).

                There is still heat in that steam, or the water that typically starts to condense out by that point, but a turbine is no longer an economical way to extract the energy. Without some other work for it to do, all you can do it cool it down to the temperature the boiler needs at the input for it’s maximum efficiency.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                So there’s no room for another turbine entirely? There’s extra heat but not a turbine’s worth?Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

                Room in the physical sense?

                But yes, there is extra heat, but not a turbine wheels worth of it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                So a lot of heat left over but not enough for it to be useful for the job that is already going on.

                Ugh.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird says:

                This problem is inherent in every heat cycle, be it steam, gas turbine, piston engine, etc. There is considerable heat left over after the work is done that has to be discarded because capturing it in some other way is too expensive. That is why the efficiency rarely breaks 50%.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                Denver, CO has the longest continuously operating district-heating system in the world. Something over 120 buildings in downtown get their heat from the steam pipes. For many many years, the steam was a byproduct of the Zuni Generating Station.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Not sure if it’s still doing this, but UW-Madison has a coal fired power plant on campus (rail line runs right to it and it has an impressive coal yard). The waste steam was pumped to a number of nearby campus buildings for winter heat.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Ann Arbor’s UofMich used to do this. Might still.

                Supposedly the dorms had to pay according to the amount of heat they were NOT using… so when the students weren’t there the dorm would crank up the heat.

                The years I was there, over winter break we had issues with turn-top records breaking and candles melting. I told a few people to crack their windows open when they went home.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                City of Angels, Eight Cylinder Radial Steam Powered Aelectric Generator

                https://www.instagram.com/p/COG1o6WMXu5/Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Aelectric?Report

      • JS in reply to Michael Cain says:

        “During the last big Texas drought a decade or so ago, the state had to throttle back the nukes near Dallas because the cooling pond was too warm.”

        Fun fact, while our government was blaming wind for the grid shutdown during the Texas freeze, the nuclear plants had to shut down.

        Their turbines weren’t weather protected and couldn’t handle the cold.Report

  6. PD Shaw says:

    THTH1: The implication of including the omitted variable (age as known significant risk factor) is that there does not appear to be any waning of the vaccines. 81.1% to 100.0% efficacy against severe disease is well within the expected range of vaccine efficacy upon full vaccination. The analysis did not break out another known risk factor, various pre-existing conditions. Almost certainly the appearance of waning efficacy is driven by the fact that those at greatest risk from COVID (either at risk of infection or severe disease) were vaccinated earliest.Report

  7. Kazzy says:

    ThTh2 is a little bit of a “No duh.” I mean, we have a cohort children who’s first 3/6/9/12/18 months on Earth were unlike any other cohort’s over the last century and we’re surprised that they’re exhibiting differences? I’d be shocked if they weren’t! As you said, what matters most is how we respond. We have tons of evidence of how to help kids overcome early obstacles in their development and hopefully we put all that to good use in the coming months and years. So, we need to roll up our sleeves to get that happening as soon as possible and make sure it happens as thoroughly as possible.Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to Kazzy says:

      Both my brother (b. 1974) and his kid (b. 2012) caused minor alarm from pediatricians because they were slow to talk, and from teachers, because they were slow to read.

      they caught up (Well, my niece is still catching up on reading, but she’s getting better at it; she has the added difficulty of the terrible eyesight some of us have). I don’t like how sometimes parents are unnecessarily panicked that they’re doing something wrong because their child just has their own timetable for stuff.

      It’s not like any of us humans need more stress during this time, or parents who have parented through a decidedly unfavorable climate for parenting to feel like they failed.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to fillyjonk says:

        There’s this weird phenomenon where we vacillate between stigmatizing developmental differences and over diagnosing differences as disorders. We can’t seem to find a balance between, “You shouldn’t panic if your kid is on a different pathway. It may self-correct and/or can be supported through non-invasive, proven approaches,” and “Everyone gets an SLP/OT recommendation.”Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy says:

          IMHO it’s a problem if my kid isn’t at LEAST average (and ideally she should be one of the better kids in the class).

          Part of this is positional. Part is it builds self confidence. Part is I don’t trust the teachers happy talk that everyone is a winner; Elementary school rules don’t last beyond elementary school.

          My experience has been that the school system drops the ball every now and then. My job as parent is to step in when that happens.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy says:

          I think it is confluence of the ancient problem of parents not accepting their children for who they are rather than who we wish they were, and the medicalization of behavior and personality.

          In the pre-medical era it was just accepted that some people just had quirky personalities, oddities that caused them to be just a bit different than most other people. Now there is a desire to establish some ideal norm of behavior and development and see anything else as a medical problem to be fixed.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            +1 to you.

            We have fewer paths forward to success.

            “Fixing” ADHD means a big difference on the SAT and probably high school GPA. That means a better college, or even better, a bigger scholarship.Report