Recent comments in /f/science

TheFrenchFryWarrior t1_jdnccuv wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Depressed, and Aging Fast. People with higher levels of aging-associated proteins were more likely to have high blood pressure, and multiple medical problems. The accelerated aging was also associated with worse performance on tests of brain health such as working memory and other cognitive skills. by Wagamaga

You’ll likely take less long-term healthy decisions and die much sooner than your equivalent that is not extremely super depressed.

0

Troutkid OP t1_jdnbmy7 wrote

Reply to comment by derphurr in Assessing (US) COVID pandemic policies and behaviors and their economic and educational trade-offs. by Troutkid

You are still not quite grasping the reason for controlling for pop density. Policy makers ARE concerned about pop density, along with age distributions and comorbidities, some of the other factors controlled for in the study. They were controlled for because it is already known how those affect the impact of a pandemic and the researchers wanted to study decisions that could help everyone. Controlling for factors isn't ignoring them. It is factoring in their respective impact and seeing if the variables of interest are still impactful.

So, now we can see which rules and implementations would be irresponsible to apply across varying pop densities. If they analyzed a policy whose efficacy was highly contingent on pop density, the statistical confidence would drop significantly, and we would conclude that it is not a generally-applicable policy.

We know a policy aspect works across all pop densities because we controlled for it and found it to be statistically significant. It achieved exactly what you want. Does that make sense?

So don't call something stupid and irresponsible if you don't know what is going on. It's a very common method to isolate specific causes of variance in data so that proper analyses can be made. Maybe approaching it in good faith and inquiring about why it concerns you would yield a more productive conversation. Through colleagues I have over at that institution, I've heard about the peer-review responses of this paper. There were minor edits, but reviewing health economists would have pointed out a problem as glaring as "ignoring" a factor as important as population. Not controlling for population and having sweeping generalizations across pop densities would have prevented this paper from being published in the first place, because that would be poor science.

3

AutoModerator t1_jdnapgp wrote

Reply to Mindfulness has positive effects on body image, sexual self-esteem, and reduces sexual shame and anxiety by ludwig_scientist

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

AutoModerator t1_jdnal9t wrote

Reply to Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer: according to an analysis of data by researchers at Oxford, progestogen-only hormonal contraceptives may increase breast cancer risk by 20-30%; the use of combined contraceptives may also slightly increase breast cancer risk. by aiaaidan

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

terekkincaid t1_jdn74zk wrote

Reply to comment by 3rddog in SARS-CoV-2 restructures host chromatin architecture - Nature Microbiology by Monochromaticeye

That's kind of my point. These cells wouldn't stick around long enough to be involved in long COVID. It's like saying peanut butter is found in crunchy and creamy varieties. This might help us unravel why waffles are so popular. If you're going to speculate in your discussion, you have to have some kind of hypothesis that links them logically (that leads to your next paper).

3

Fthat_ManaBar t1_jdn5xb3 wrote

Reply to comment by UnionOfSexWorkers in Individuals with secure emotional attachment are more likely to forgive and to be forgiven, study finds by chrisdh79

Exactly. Time is the best indicator for whether or not a person actually changed. A charade only lasts for so long. The amount of love you have for the person will be what determines whether or not you stick around long enough to see if they change or not. It's what determines whether or not to give a second chance. Some deserve it some don't.

2