The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.
I remember a professor of mine (I forgot in which class) saying that humans generally make up 3 kinds of explanations about a system's behavior: 1. When a system is very simple, we explain its actions in terms of its properties and external forces acting on it. 2. When it's a medium complexity system, we tend to explain its actions in terms of its design, putting ourselves in the designer's shoes. 3. When it's a comp…
Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
41–50 of 154 posts
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Medium article was written on March 10 [1]. "Put simply, medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better than those treated indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented deaths among patients; and infections among medical staff.[1] There is scientific support for this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu vir…
Yes but can it kill viruses and bacteria in vivo?
If it produces better outcomes in vivo, does it matter whether or not the proposed mechanism is correct?
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#43They found out that some genes related to ACE in comparison to genes related to ACE2 are more 'expressed' in Covid patients than normally and they conclude that that must have resulted in too much bradykinine. Hmm - that strikes me as kind of roundabout - why they couldn't just measure bradykinine levels directly? Is that too hard? "Here, we perform a new analysis on gene expression data from cells in bronchoalveolar…
> They analyzed the human genome and SARS-CoV-2 genome to find out that some genes related to ACE in comparison to genes related to ACE2 are more 'expressed' by the Covid-19 virus than normally and they observed known biochemical pathways that are hypothesized to lead to too much bradykinine.
FTFY. They didn't measure patients. They modeled genomic interactions to make some predictions about biochemical effects on patients. Then they noted that some of those predicted effects correlate with symptoms of Covid patients. They went further and shotgunned a list of treatments which are known to affect the same biochemical processes. The farther along the path of inference, the weaker the conclusions get, but it sounds like a promising arrow for research to me.
> why they couldn't just measure bradykinine levels directly? Is that too hard?
Don't need nearly as much permission or human resources to run computer simulations on offline data as you do to take measurements of patients in the hospital.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#44Seems like it should be really straightforward to determine if this hypothesis is right by measuring bradykinin levels in Covid patients versus non-Covid patients. One thing that I think strongly suggests that this hypothesis is wrong is that there is no strong relation between ACE-inhibitors and Covid mortality. Indeed, most of the studies that I've seen suggest that ACE-inhibitors have a somewhat protective effect…
> One thing that I think strongly suggests that this hypothesis is wrong is that there is no strong relation between ACE-inhibitors and Covid mortality. Perhaps you can clear up something for me. We've all heard how obesity and hypertension are risk factors for covid morbidity. But I could never get a clarification regarding treated vs. untreated hypertension. AFAIK, many obese people take ACE inhibitors to treat hyp…
I had this same question early on and I recall reading somewhere that treated hypertension reduced risk. Ostensibly, even if that was from a credible source, it may not mean much though.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#45Am I the only one bothered by the use of “theory” when this is a hypothesis and, in particular, the back and forth flipping between the two terms in the article?
It doesn't matter much, but it's annoying when the conflation carries over to evolution-creationism debates. "That's just a theory!!" and the like.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe to test the algorithms and results, so that next time something like this happens there can be a list of suggested treatments ready far sooner.
The issue is that, from what I can tell, the authors just used R to analyze some data, with no explicit parallelism. You would do a better job just renting time on AWS, saving money for everybody.
R handles statistics.
It does not simulate complex biochemical interactions in different parts of the body.
From the description, they did something that requires a lot more horsepower.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#47The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.
Not just the computer.
> Covid-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor window and starts to ransack your house.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#48Am I the only one bothered by the use of “theory” when this is a hypothesis and, in particular, the back and forth flipping between the two terms in the article?
It's perfectly reasonable that both terms are used. The article is talking about the bradykinin hypothesis as the basis of a theory of COVID-19 function.
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#49[deleted]
Re: Supercomputer analysis of Covid-19 leads to new theory
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Medium article was written on March 10 [1]. "Put simply, medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better than those treated indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented deaths among patients; and infections among medical staff.[1] There is scientific support for this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu vir…
Yes but can it kill viruses and bacteria in vivo?
Aytu BioScience is working on an ultraviolet device to kill viruses in vivo. Initial results look promising but it's too early to say whether that would be an effective therapy.