3 ms·
> If we want timely research on covid-19, we can't wait for peer-review. Nothing is an excuse for abandoning proper science. On top of that you editorialize a
by knolax 7y ago
> If we want timely research on covid-19, we can't wait for peer-review.
Nothing is an excuse for abandoning proper science. On top of that you editorialize a correspondence that doesn't even strongly support the claim the title suggests. From the correspondence itself:
> However, the genetic basis of ACE2 expression and function in different populations is still largely unknown.
> Recent reports of the ACE2 expression analysis in lung tissues from Asian and Caucasian populations are still controversial. The single-cell RNA-seq analysis reported that the Asian donor had much higher ACE2 expression cell ratio than white and African-American donors6. In contrast, the ACE2 expression analysis using the RNA-seq and microarray datasets from control lung tissues indicated there were no significant differences between Asian and Caucasian, or male and female
- DoreenMichele 7y agoPeople with life-threatening situations sometimes are less interested in proper science and more interested in timely information upon which they can base some kind of semi-informed guess as to just how much extreme paranoia seems justified.
- knolax 7y agoPeople on life-threatening situations shouldn't be relying on unreliable information. > semi-informed guess That is the last thing you should be doing in a life-threatening situation.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoThe person who posted this article has two children with a genetic disorder that makes them extremely vulnerable to respiratory infections. In one of his comments, he indicated he is considering fleeing to a summer house for six months. It's a big enough commitment that he no doubt doesn't want to jump the gun and do so with zero justification. But erring on the side of caution is absolutely the correct thing to do if you are responsible for two people at potentially very high risk (of death) due to the current situation concerning covid19.
- knolax 7y agoOP had claimed without context in the title (it seemed to have been editted now) that Asians had high predisposition to Covid-19 while Africans had low predisposition. From his comments it seems that OP's children are European. If someone in the same situation as OP had gone off from the title, they would've concluded that their children were safe because they were not Asian. This ignores the fact that according to the submission itself the eQLT variant associated with high production of ACE2 still makes up the majority in all populations including Europeans, meaning that their children are not safe as the title had suggested. This is the opposite of erring on the side of caution. One person in the comments has already concluded based of of the title that Covid-19 will not affect them because they are not Asian. This is dangerous.
- jamesblonde 7y agoI understand your point. Your interpretation of my interpretation is not giving me the benefit of the doubt - i said higher susceptibility for certain population - not that you would be safe if you came from a certain population. That is, still, the gist of the paper. It is a hypothesis that different populations will have higher risk of acquisition (Chinese) than others.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jamesblonde 7y agoACE2 expression level is an important factor for susceptability to corona virus acquisition, based on what I have read. And based on your quotation, Asians donors had much higher ACE2 expression levels than African-americans. Hence, the title. The title is meant to be interpretative for people who don't have time to dig down into the science - there are population level genetic differences that may play out in the next few months.
- knolax 7y ago> The title is meant to be interpretative for people who don't have time to dig down into the science If the situation is as serious as you purport it to be then perhaps they should actually dig into the science instead of relying on the interpretation of some random HN poster.
- hirenj 7y agoPeer review is not even a bulwark against bad data. I've seen many papers with spurious conclusions. Where peer review is critical is the first pass filter. I can't read all the literature, so I need some editorial filter in place. I may reject the findings in a peer-reviewed paper (or even worse, find the results uninteresting), but helping to decide what to read is critical. For those in the business, all papers get integrated into our mental models for how things work, and data that is a bit odd simply means we need to put more focus there. That said, an issue is present when a field systematically produces bad papers - how do you navigate that?!
- DoreenMichele 7y agoThat said, an issue is present when a field systematically produces bad papers - how do you navigate that?! It depends on what your goal is. If it is for personal edification that you don't need to justify to anyone else: 1. Collect tidbits with a high confidence level. 2. Check to see if the way the thing was tested makes sense to you. 3. Check to see if it generally makes sense and fits with what little you do know with a fairly high confidence level.