Live data from Hacker News

Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#12
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (1973) is probably the most important part of the title...

Why do you feel that? Being old doesn't somehow invalidate results.

Because just like me thousands reading the title would think this has something to do with coronavirus.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (1973) is probably the most important part of the title...

Why do you feel that? Being old doesn't somehow invalidate results.

Nobody's saying that, the point is seeing this title is very different knowing that it's from 1973 rather than the present day.

This is Hacker News after all, it's important to know what is and isn't current events because without a date, it's kinda assumed that it is a current event.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#14
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (1973) is probably the most important part of the title...

Why do you feel that? Being old doesn't somehow invalidate results.

You don't see that someone might read the title and infer there's a current outbreak of Covid-19 in Antarctica? The title seems like deliberate clickbait without a year.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#15
Does anybody else here have tonsilloliths? By their awful smell I assume that they may contain all kinds of bacteria or virii. Is it possible that they can survive in there and reactivate several months later again?

Warning: You will need a strong stomach if you intend to search for "tonsilloliths" on Google or Youtube.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#16
post #4

Whenever I see a paper from this long ago, I immediately check to see how often it's been referenced in the literature. Google Scholar says this study has been cited by a measly 16 papers since it was published in 1973: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1453678737796934715... Without any other context, I would assume that the relative lack of studies that reference this paper suggests that there might be issue…

"There have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.

"The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.

"He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

"Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using-- not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.

"I looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic example of cargo cult science."

- Richard Feynman

http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html

Maybe it's one of those papers that, by a less charitable interpretation than Feynman, invalidates an entire field of study and undercuts it's central assumptions, so it just gets ignored.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#17
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel that? Being old doesn't somehow invalidate results.

You don't see that someone might read the title and infer there's a current outbreak of Covid-19 in Antarctica? The title seems like deliberate clickbait without a year.

Didn't make that connection but it's obvious in hindsight. sigh

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#18
I wonder if after 17 weeks of isolation their immune systems atrophied due to limited exposure to pathogens, making them more susceptible to relatively a 'small' initial exposure?

Are there implications for the millions of folks isolating and reducing their daily exposure to pathogens?

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#19
post #4

Whenever I see a paper from this long ago, I immediately check to see how often it's been referenced in the literature. Google Scholar says this study has been cited by a measly 16 papers since it was published in 1973: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1453678737796934715... Without any other context, I would assume that the relative lack of studies that reference this paper suggests that there might be issue…

"There have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rat…

The method of the experiment can be more ground breaking the immediate result. We really should be putting strong effort into level of science itself. Just like we would say a database in some nth-normal form, we should science the same way.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#20
I noticed this in my own family of four. We've been in isolation for 2 months and we've all had colds for a week. You'd expect after 4 weeks for it to stop but nope. We've been social distancing and only one person goes out to pick up groceries curb side. We've been wiping stuff down too. I think this is one reason they say sars-cov-2 aka covid-19 is inevitable..
Post reply on HN