Another good reason for universal mask wearing?
Reading “How to stop superspreaders” reminded me of an experience I had the other day when at lunch with a friend (8 August, p 10). Although elderly, he refuses to wear a mask 鈥� but, of course, you can’t wear a mask when eating anyway.
I suddenly noticed a cooling effect on my skin when my friend was speaking, even though he was sitting a good metre away. I realised that 鈥� at that moment, at least 鈥� he was a “sprayer”, projecting saliva as he spoke. Some people I have met do this whenever they speak. Could they be among the superspreaders?
Another good reason for universal mask wearing? (2)
Your article raises more questions than the title suggests. Every test and trace case should provide valuable information about the spread of the virus. How did person A contract it? How did they pass it on to person B? And why didn’t they infect persons C, D and E, with whom they were also in contact?
Statistical evidence from just a few days in any one country should give us incredibly useful data about how the virus is spreading. Yet our knowledge seems to be confined to a relatively small number of cases. Am I missing something or is test and trace just a mirage?
Why some people may be reluctant to toe the line
Why is mask wearing so divisive? Maybe because we are connected in large communities and must trade some personal freedom for the benefits of cooperation (8 August, p 8). Some of us highly value what we gain from this and will sacrifice more freedom. We forgo comforts and conveniences to save the environment, modify our behaviour to avoid annoying our neighbours, give up wealth to help the less fortunate and wear masks to protect others from covid-19.
Others value personal freedom above such benefits and make the opposite trade-offs. Maybe mask-resisters tend to recycle less and drive large cars?
Perhaps the majority were right after all
Your promotional piece for The Brain: A user’s guide refers to the “better-than-average effect”, or “the statistically impossible effect in which the majority of people rate themselves more favourably than average” ().
Assuming average here means the mean rather than the median, it isn’t impossible for a majority to be above or below it. This depends on the distribution. For example, the majority of people have more legs than the mean number of legs per person.
The editor writes The Brain: A user’s guide, a 快猫短视频 compilation, is on sale now.
A possible reason for the X chromosome conundrum
Sharon Moalem’s explanation for differences in life expectancy between men and women raises another question (1 August, p 42). Why has natural selection led to the X chromosome being the location for so many genes related to our immune system? Why aren’t they on chromosomes 1 to 22, where both men and women will have two active versions of each gene?
Perhaps there is a reason. When a new, deadly pathogen emerges, the immune system needs to act fast. Suppose there is just one active version of an immune gene that gives protection. If it is on any of chromosomes 1 to 22, the death rates of men and women will be equally high and half of children will inherit the protective gene.
If it is on the X chromosome, men will die out at a greater rate than women, but those surviving will probably have more children. For these men, the critical gene will be on their X chromosome, which they will pass on to all their daughters, while women will pass it on to only 50 per cent of daughters and sons. Overall, resistance to the pathogen in the population will be accelerated.
Weird rings could be like space rainbows
You report that “odd radio circles”, or ORCs, have been detected (11 July, p 14). They are “symmetrical and their edges are brighter than their interiors”. I know nothing about radio astronomy, but I can tell you what that description reminds me of: a rainbow. Of course, I am not suggesting that reflection inside water droplets is responsible, but perhaps some analogous process might be. If so, the original source would be in the opposite direction from the ORC, as seen from Earth.
The cosmos may only have meaning because of us
In her review of The End of Everything, Leah Crane writes: “What all the endings have in common is to highlight the vastness of the universe, and the banality of our everyday existence (1 August, p 24).”
I think it is our existence that gives meaning to the universe. Without us, it is just a machine grinding on and on. Perhaps when we have all gone on to another world of consciousness, this “universe” will no longer be real, will no longer exist. Maybe that is its end.
Zeroing in on the best spot for the origin of life
You report suggestions that life may have originated in hydrothermal systems on land (8 August, p 34). This brings to mind earlier research by Pascal Lee and Gordon Osinski, who, among others, have studied the hydrothermal systems at the Haughton impact crater in the Canadian Arctic archipelago. Hydrothermal systems are usually formed in these asteroid impact craters. The asteroid also brings some raw ingredients for life.
So it is possible that researchers John Sutherland and David Deamer may have been talking about the same situation when you reported the following: “Sutherland has developed a scenario involving streams of water running down a meteorite impact crater. Deamer favours geothermal ponds in volcanic settings and is focusing research on these.”
The speed of light spoils the black hole party
The front cover, flagging up the feature on discoveries resulting from the first direct image of a black hole in a galaxy that is about 55 million light years away, should have read: “Last year we saw our first black hole (1 August, p 30). Now we know it will be seeing us too (in about 55 million years)”.