Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Cannot have a meeting AND discuss rethinking an approach. Nope, that must be absolute and entrusted to someone who is not an expert in infectious disease, production, distribution.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Posted
8 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

This ought to be mentioned.

image.thumb.png.a1c3c9e4e665812e9601ba1809cb9657.png

That shit ain't happening on a Friday at the end of the month when the working class gets paid.

Posted
Just now, immamac said:

The flu vaccine failed? Fucking news to me. Are you completely braindead? 

Effectiveness rates range historically from like 20-60%. Last year was not very good, and varied depending on what outcomes you look at (secondary infection vs. hospitalization).  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Effectiveness rates range historically from like 20-60%. Last year was not very good, and varied depending on what outcomes you look at (secondary infection vs. hospitalization).  

Yeah, that's pretty fucking good even when it's "bad". Stop trolling holy fucking shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

Yeah, that's pretty fucking good even when it's "bad". Stop trolling holy fucking shit. 

Are you braindead? Get stoked over social media outrage over a redundant meeting getting cancelled. The strain selection process will proceed and flu vaccines will come to market. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
But it is wild that any rethinking of the process, one that has multiple redundancies and fails to meet the objective goals is automatically rejected.

Classic red herring. The basis for concluding that is happening is…nothing.
If the meeting was repurposed to have that discussion, you might be on to something.
It wasn’t.
Because that’s not why the meeting was cancelled. And the thing you suggest…is not happening.
You’re cooking up excuses for this admin that even THE ADMIN isn’t cooking up.
“See guys, this is happening because Trump loves us SO MUCH, And he’s probably developing a super-flu vaccine all on his own, and the flu will go away forever!”
That’s a plausible an explanation as yours.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

We're just going to do this social media induced outrage over everything including the timing of strain selection for the flu vaccine. Man this is going to be exhausting. Hey look, if the delay in strain selection results in a meaningful delay in vaccine to market over prior years, I will come back and eat the crow.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We're just going to do this social media induced outrage over everything including the timing of strain selection for the flu vaccine. Man this is going to be exhausting. Hey look, if the delay in strain selection results in a meaningful delay in vaccine to market over prior years, I will come back and eat the crow.  

Maybe, Just maybe the concern is valid due to Mr Antivax brainworm being in charge?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
We're just going to do this social media induced outrage over everything including the timing of strain selection for the flu vaccine. Man this is going to be exhausting. Hey look, if the delay in strain selection results in a meaningful delay in vaccine to market over prior years, I will come back and eat the crow.  

Why did they cancel the meeting?
I mean, an actual reason, not the one you completely fabricated because you simply must, in every possible circumstance, stan for this admin. Give us that. Or fuck off and go simp for this admin somewhere else.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

It's not like delaying the selection of the strains for inclusion is a novel concept.  

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/1/131/7455219

DISCUSSION

Our study investigated the potential benefit of revising the current selection and formulation schedule for the next generation of influenza vaccines. We systematically assessed past influenza vaccine decisions (2012–2020), identifying 2 seasons where antigenically drifted viruses emerged postdecision, with detectable activity before the season started.

The antigenic characteristics of new variants and the timing of when new variants emerged were highly variable in the past, emphasizing the challenges faced in improving vaccine effectiveness. For example, in February of 2014, WHO recommended no change to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine strain for 2014–2015 season, based on the observation that a majority of A(H3N2) viruses detected in the surveillance system were antigenically similar to the 2013–2014 vaccine reference virus (A/Texas/50/2012) [38]. However, antigenically drifted viruses belonging to the 3C.2a subclade began appearing in May 2014 and accounted for >80% of A(H3N2) viruses detected in the influenza vaccine effectiveness network in 2013–2014 [38, 39]. Similarly, B/Victoria viruses in 2019–2020 showed increasing diversity with emergent viruses poorly inhibited by the recommended vaccine component. [40]. These 2 seasons exemplify the case where additional data collected after February could have informed the selection of a more antigenically similar vaccine virus and improved vaccine effectiveness.

Additional samples collected close to influenza season can improve vaccine effectiveness and consequently reduce the influenza burden. The epidemiological impact of a delayed vaccine selection and production schedule depends on many factors, including the degree to which vaccine effectiveness can improve when the vaccine and circulating viruses are antigenically similar and the relative frequency of the influenza subtype or lineage during the season. Our simulation showed that updating the A(H3N2) vaccine component of the 2014–2015 season in the Northern Hemisphere could have resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of hospitalizations in the US. However, updating the B/Victoria component of the in the 2019–2020 vaccine did not yield a similar benefit, even under the assumption of greatly improved vaccine effectiveness with an antigenically more similar vaccine virus. The discrepant benefit of updating the relevant vaccine component in these 2 seasons resulted in part from the fact that A(H3N2) accounted for 83% of influenza cases in 2014–2015 whereas B/Victoria accounted for only 36.5% of influenza cases in 2019–2020 [30–36]. These results highlight the importance of improving vaccine effectiveness, especially for the subtypes or lineages that are more likely to predominate in the season, such as A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) that have predominated the historical influenza seasons [30–36].

WHO has twice postponed selection for A(H3N2) component by 1 month—once in 2003 and again in 2019—to enable review of additional information on emergent influenza viruses [41]. Non-egg-based vaccines, with their capacity for rapid production, potentially allow more time to assess emerging influenza viruses before selecting candidate vaccine viruses. On the other hand, the proposed timeline with delayed decision on vaccine strain entails the risk of delaying the supply and delivery of influenza vaccine. The influenza vaccine supply shortage due to license suspension of a major vaccine manufacturer in 2004, for instance, underscores the need for careful examination of risks and benefits of revising vaccine formulation schedules [42]. Even after the vaccine formulation recommendation is made and vaccines are produced, the remaining steps for regulatory approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and distribution can take an additional 3–4 weeks [43]. Potential delays in availability of influenza vaccine may result in missed opportunities for vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine uptake. Hence, the benefits of delaying strain selection need to be balanced with providing adequate and timely influenza vaccine supply.

This study quantifies the modeled impact of delaying influenza vaccine selection but acknowledges several limitations. First, the transition away from the egg-based platform, as envisioned in our study, may take a significant amount of time due to the current heavy reliance on egg-based vaccines [18]. In addition, even if the influenza surveillance period were shifted to reduce the period between decision making and the subsequent season, updating vaccine formulation would only be possible if a suitable candidate vaccine virus (CVV) were available. WHO Collaborating Centers annually identify several potential CVVs grown in both eggs and qualified mammalian cell lines. Ideally, these potential CVVs or another virus from the same genetic group are raised in ferrets and tested in hemagglutination inhibition against circulating viruses and are also used in serological assays to assess whether antibodies induced by current vaccines inhibit growth of these viruses. These processes take time and require advanced identification of a new antigenically distinct group soon after it emerges, which may not be realistic. Second, our assumption that increased antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating viruses leads to higher vaccine effectiveness does not consider factors such as vaccine type, age, or prior vaccination status, which can influence the degree of improvements [44–46]. We varied the relative vaccine effectiveness values in our analysis to address this limitation. Additionally, we studied 2 past influenza seasons where only 1 vaccine component could have potentially been updated, offsetting its benefit by increased circulation of the other subtype or lineage of which vaccine component was not changed. However, additional surveillance data are likely to improve all vaccine components. Last, our estimation of the impact of delaying vaccine decision making is specific to US influenza epidemics. Given the hemisphere-wide nature of vaccine decisions, considering substantial heterogeneity in predominant subtypes and lineages and in the predominant clades within each subtype or lineage is crucial for a comprehensive assessment [47].

As innovative influenza vaccines emerge with the potential for improving production speed and vaccine effectiveness, the current formulation, production, and regulatory process for seasonal influenza vaccines need to be carefully reassessed. Our study investigated the potential benefit of delaying vaccine formulation decisions to enable the use of more up-to-date surveillance data, which could be feasible with next-generation vaccines. Importantly, the additional time afforded by a later decision could increase the number of potential candidate vaccines available, which may enable selection of a better candidate. Our study concluded that revising the timeline for vaccine selection could result in substantial epidemiological benefits, particularly at times when additional data help improve the vaccine effectiveness through better antigenic match between vaccine and circulating viruses. However, the uncertainty in timing of antigenic variant emergence and the risk of delaying vaccine decision, along with the harm of transitioning away from egg-based vaccines, should be carefully examined.

Posted
It's not like delaying the selection of the strains for inclusion is a novel concept.  
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/1/131/7455219
DISCUSSION
Our study investigated the potential benefit of revising the current selection and formulation schedule for the next generation of influenza vaccines. We systematically assessed past influenza vaccine decisions (2012–2020), identifying 2 seasons where antigenically drifted viruses emerged postdecision, with detectable activity before the season started.
The antigenic characteristics of new variants and the timing of when new variants emerged were highly variable in the past, emphasizing the challenges faced in improving vaccine effectiveness. For example, in February of 2014, WHO recommended no change to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine strain for 2014–2015 season, based on the observation that a majority of A(H3N2) viruses detected in the surveillance system were antigenically similar to the 2013–2014 vaccine reference virus (A/Texas/50/2012) [38]. However, antigenically drifted viruses belonging to the 3C.2a subclade began appearing in May 2014 and accounted for >80% of A(H3N2) viruses detected in the influenza vaccine effectiveness network in 2013–2014 [38, 39]. Similarly, B/Victoria viruses in 2019–2020 showed increasing diversity with emergent viruses poorly inhibited by the recommended vaccine component. [40]. These 2 seasons exemplify the case where additional data collected after February could have informed the selection of a more antigenically similar vaccine virus and improved vaccine effectiveness.
Additional samples collected close to influenza season can improve vaccine effectiveness and consequently reduce the influenza burden. The epidemiological impact of a delayed vaccine selection and production schedule depends on many factors, including the degree to which vaccine effectiveness can improve when the vaccine and circulating viruses are antigenically similar and the relative frequency of the influenza subtype or lineage during the season. Our simulation showed that updating the A(H3N2) vaccine component of the 2014–2015 season in the Northern Hemisphere could have resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of hospitalizations in the US. However, updating the B/Victoria component of the in the 2019–2020 vaccine did not yield a similar benefit, even under the assumption of greatly improved vaccine effectiveness with an antigenically more similar vaccine virus. The discrepant benefit of updating the relevant vaccine component in these 2 seasons resulted in part from the fact that A(H3N2) accounted for 83% of influenza cases in 2014–2015 whereas B/Victoria accounted for only 36.5% of influenza cases in 2019–2020 [30–36]. These results highlight the importance of improving vaccine effectiveness, especially for the subtypes or lineages that are more likely to predominate in the season, such as A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) that have predominated the historical influenza seasons [30–36].
WHO has twice postponed selection for A(H3N2) component by 1 month—once in 2003 and again in 2019—to enable review of additional information on emergent influenza viruses [41]. Non-egg-based vaccines, with their capacity for rapid production, potentially allow more time to assess emerging influenza viruses before selecting candidate vaccine viruses. On the other hand, the proposed timeline with delayed decision on vaccine strain entails the risk of delaying the supply and delivery of influenza vaccine. The influenza vaccine supply shortage due to license suspension of a major vaccine manufacturer in 2004, for instance, underscores the need for careful examination of risks and benefits of revising vaccine formulation schedules [42]. Even after the vaccine formulation recommendation is made and vaccines are produced, the remaining steps for regulatory approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and distribution can take an additional 3–4 weeks [43]. Potential delays in availability of influenza vaccine may result in missed opportunities for vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine uptake. Hence, the benefits of delaying strain selection need to be balanced with providing adequate and timely influenza vaccine supply.
This study quantifies the modeled impact of delaying influenza vaccine selection but acknowledges several limitations. First, the transition away from the egg-based platform, as envisioned in our study, may take a significant amount of time due to the current heavy reliance on egg-based vaccines [18]. In addition, even if the influenza surveillance period were shifted to reduce the period between decision making and the subsequent season, updating vaccine formulation would only be possible if a suitable candidate vaccine virus (CVV) were available. WHO Collaborating Centers annually identify several potential CVVs grown in both eggs and qualified mammalian cell lines. Ideally, these potential CVVs or another virus from the same genetic group are raised in ferrets and tested in hemagglutination inhibition against circulating viruses and are also used in serological assays to assess whether antibodies induced by current vaccines inhibit growth of these viruses. These processes take time and require advanced identification of a new antigenically distinct group soon after it emerges, which may not be realistic. Second, our assumption that increased antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating viruses leads to higher vaccine effectiveness does not consider factors such as vaccine type, age, or prior vaccination status, which can influence the degree of improvements [44–46]. We varied the relative vaccine effectiveness values in our analysis to address this limitation. Additionally, we studied 2 past influenza seasons where only 1 vaccine component could have potentially been updated, offsetting its benefit by increased circulation of the other subtype or lineage of which vaccine component was not changed. However, additional surveillance data are likely to improve all vaccine components. Last, our estimation of the impact of delaying vaccine decision making is specific to US influenza epidemics. Given the hemisphere-wide nature of vaccine decisions, considering substantial heterogeneity in predominant subtypes and lineages and in the predominant clades within each subtype or lineage is crucial for a comprehensive assessment [47].
As innovative influenza vaccines emerge with the potential for improving production speed and vaccine effectiveness, the current formulation, production, and regulatory process for seasonal influenza vaccines need to be carefully reassessed. Our study investigated the potential benefit of delaying vaccine formulation decisions to enable the use of more up-to-date surveillance data, which could be feasible with next-generation vaccines. Importantly, the additional time afforded by a later decision could increase the number of potential candidate vaccines available, which may enable selection of a better candidate. Our study concluded that revising the timeline for vaccine selection could result in substantial epidemiological benefits, particularly at times when additional data help improve the vaccine effectiveness through better antigenic match between vaccine and circulating viruses. However, the uncertainty in timing of antigenic variant emergence and the risk of delaying vaccine decision, along with the harm of transitioning away from egg-based vaccines, should be carefully examined.

Awesome.
I can post a recipe for an apple tart, or perhaps some Star Trek fan fiction. They would be equally relevant to this discussion.
There is no evidence that your lengthy copy and paste has ANYTHING to do with an antivaxxer dude with literal brain worms canceling a vaccine planning meeting.
You are just flailing to try to come up with an excuse for an admin you support more vigorously and consistently than the folks around here support Texas football.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

"You can and should absolutely discuss 'free markets' and 'personal liberties,' but anything that has even a whiff of 'but also maybe have reasonable restraints on those things in the public interest' is grounds for immediate termination."

Liberty to grab women by the pussy, and rape them?  Write me that editorial!  An opinion that maybe, just maybe, it's wrong to grab women by the pussy and rape them, and we should have and enforce laws against those things?  You're fired.

Bezos is evil, film at 11:00.

Today I’ve written the editorial team with our new posture: Jeff Bezos should get to do whatever he wants.  We will of course discuss other ideas, like how all of Jeff Bezos’ friends should also get to do what they want; and how Jeff Bezos and his friends should have all your money.  But the core of our writing will be to defend the simple idea that Jeff Bezos should get to do whatever he wants. 
 

I of course recognize the right to other opinions and stances.  However, they will not be printed here. Allowing them to be conflicts with other core value of Jeff Bezos doing whatever he wants. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is good to see Anastasis in his bag fighting the “semi-anti-vaxxer” fight vice foreign policy and defense policy knower. Adcom? 

Yeah but look at all the attention he gets out of it. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If you are unable to get a flu vaccine this september I will come back and eat the crow. 

Make it a bat and you're on

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

The fucking Tate thing is infuriating. The new face of America, pushing to have rapists and sex traffickers escape accountability because their audience is MAGA.  What a disgusting, repulsive image to present to the world. 

 

I want to think that this would embarrass people who voted MAGA but I know it won’t.  The libs don’t like rape, so rape is now MAGA-adjacent.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Maybe, Just maybe the concern is valid due to Mr Antivax brainworm being in charge?

Pure coincidence 

Posted

Texas did have that state rep, Jonathan Stickland, who made the comment on a message board: "Rape is non existent in marriage, take what you want my friend!" so MAGA is not only not embarrassed, these are just the type of males they endorse. Stickland chose not to run in 2020 and pivoted to working for GOP groups in the state. You could say he turned trolling and hate into a pretty lucrative career (just like the Tates). Not bad for a HS dropout. Here's an article for some background and it's a good five minute read because one should pay attention to who is active behind the scenes and the groups that are bankrolling them.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/10/jonathan-stickland-texas-conservative/

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

No one is suggesting this here. But it is wild that any rethinking of the process, one that has multiple redundancies and fails to meet the objective goals is automatically rejected. If you want to really wild, look at what offit has said about the covid vaccine strategy and the role the FDA and CDC played in mucking that shit up. 

You keep talking about this “rethinking of process”, has there been any indication that this is what they are doing? Every article I read is that was an abrupt cancellation without any explanation. Where are you seeing this “rethinking of process” stuff? You seem to automatically think every action is benevolent in nature

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You seem to automatically think every REPUBLICAN ADMIN action is benevolent in nature

fify

Did you completely overlook his criticisms of Fauci during the pandemic?

Just now, Sawbonz said:

I gave up on Ana and put him on ignore a few weeks ago. The rest of y’all should as well. Sad really

I did but people kept quoting him.  I gave up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You keep talking about this “rethinking of process”, has there been any indication that this is what they are doing? Every article I read is that was an abrupt cancellation without any explanation. Where are you seeing this “rethinking of process” stuff? You seem to automatically think every action is benevolent in nature

Certainly a few factors point that direction imo. Makary's pending confirmation, the egg situation and how it relates to flu vax production and potential need to lean more heavily on other tech, the H5N1 situation, the generally poor performance of early strain selection post-COVID, etc. FDA may or may not be remiss for not providing an indication of the timing for reschedule and the rationale. But just barking out "RFK bear worms" and "it's all burned down good work" I guess would be more acceptable and enlightening to this board. Advisory committee meetings get rescheduled. One on lip fillers was just pushed.

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Advisory committee meetings get rescheduled. One on lip fillers was just pushed.

Good thing our winter/spring economic productivity don’t face significant seasonal risk from thin lips, but at least that meeting was rescheduled. Let us know when the Flu meeting has a date. 

  • Like 1
Posted
We're just going to do this social media induced outrage over everything including the timing of strain selection for the flu vaccine. Man this is going to be exhausting. Hey look, if the delay in strain selection results in a meaningful delay in vaccine to market over prior years, I will come back and eat the crow.  

Define “meaningful”.
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You keep talking about this “rethinking of process”, has there been any indication that this is what they are doing? Every article I read is that was an abrupt cancellation without any explanation. Where are you seeing this “rethinking of process” stuff? You seem to automatically think every action is benevolent in nature

Everyone needs to understand that Annie posts are just chaff. He floods the zone with decoy arguments to distract from real issues and derail legitimate discussion. And he’s done this for fucking years on this site. 

Stop taking the bait. Put him on ignore. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

DOGE’s Chaos Reaches Antarctica


Daily life at US-run Antarctic stations has already been disrupted. Scientists worry that the long-term impacts could upend not only important research but the continent’s delicate geopolitics.

Few agencies have been spared as Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has ripped through the United States federal government. Even in Antarctica, scientists and workers are feeling the impacts—and are terrified for what’s to come.

The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) operates three permanent stations in Antarctica. These remote stations are difficult to get to and difficult to maintain; scattered across the continent, they are built on volcanic hills, polar plateaus, and icy peninsulas.
But to the US, the science has been worth it. At these stations, over a thousand people each year come to the continent to live and work. Scientists operate a number of major research projects, studying everything from climate change and rising sea levels to the cosmological makeup and origins of the universe itself. With funding cuts and layoffs looming, Antarctic scientists and experts don’t know if their research will be able to continue, how US stations will be sustained, or what all this might mean for the continent’s delicate geopolitics.

“Even brief interruptions will result in people walking away and not coming back,” says Nathan Whitehorn, an associate professor and Antarctic scientist at Michigan State University. “It could easily take decades to rebuild.”

The USAP is managed by the National Science Foundation. Last week, a number of NSF program managers staffed on Antarctic projects were fired as part of a wider purge at the agency. The program managers are critical for maintaining communication with the infrastructure and logistics arm of the NSF, and the contractors for the USAP, as well as planning deployment for scientists to the continent, keeping track of the budgets, and funding the maintenance and operations work. “I have no idea what we do without them,” says another Antarctic scientist who has spent time on the continent, who along with several others WIRED granted anonymity due to fears of retaliation.

“Without them, everything stops,” says a scientist whose NSF project manager was fired last week. “I have no idea who I am supposed to report to now or what happens to submitted proposals.”

Scientific research happens at all of the stations. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, scientists work on the South Pole Telescope and BICEP telescope, both of which study the cosmic background radiation and the evolution of the universe; IceCube, a cubic-kilometer detector designed to study neutrino physics and high energy emission from astrophysical sources; and the Atmospheric Research Observatory that studies climate science and is run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Mass firings are also expected at the NOAA.)

“The climate science [at the South Pole Station] is super unique,” an Antarctic scientist says. “The site has so little pollution that we call it ‘the cleanest air on Earth,’ and they have been monitoring the ozone layer and CO2 content in the atmosphere for many decades.”

Other directives from the Donald Trump administration have directly affected daily life on those stations. “Gender-inclusive terms on housing documents” have been removed from Antarctic staffer forms, a source familiar with the situation at McMurdo Station tells WIRED. “It asked if you had a preference with which gender you housed with,” the source says. “That’s all been removed.”

Staffers have already pushed back. “People have been painting waste bins saying “Antarctica is for ALL” in rainbow, people’s email signatures [have] pride additions, [others] keep adding preferred pronouns to emails,” the source says.

“There’s a sense of unease on the station like people have never felt before,” they add. “The job still has to get done, even though people feel like the next shoe can drop at any moment.”

That unease extends to their own job security. “There are some people currently at the South Pole that are worried about losing their jobs any day now,” a source with familiarity of the situation tells WIRED. Workers present at the station aren’t able to physically leave until October, and a midseason firing, or loss of funding, would present a unique set of challenges.

Sources are also bracing for at least a 50 percent reduction in the NSF’s budget due to DOGE cuts. These cuts are sending Antarctic scientists with assistants and graduate students scrambling. “We didn’t know if we could pay graduate students,” says one scientist. While research is conducted on the continent, scientists bring their findings back to the US to process and analyze. A lot of the funding also operates the science itself: For one project that requires electricity to run detectors, the scientist “was paranoid we would not be able to literally pay bills for an experiment starved for data.” That hasn’t come to fruition yet, but as funding cycles restart in the coming weeks and months, scientists are on tenterhooks.

Sources tell WIRED that Germany, Canada, Spain, and China have already started taking advantage of that uncertainty by recruiting US scientists focused on Antarctica.

“Foreign countries are actively recruiting my colleagues, and some have already left,” says one Antarctic scientist. “My students are looking at jobs overseas now … people have been coming [to the US] to do science my whole life. Now people are going the other way.”

“Now is a great time to see if anyone wants to jump ship,” another Antarctic scientist says. “I do worry about a brain drain of tenured academics, or students who are shunted out.”

“The damage caused by gutting the [Antarctic] science budget like this is going to last generations,” says another.

Throughout DOGE’s cuts to the federal government, representatives have said that if something needs to be brought back, it could be. In some cases, reversals have already happened: The US Department of Agriculture said it accidentally fired staffers working on preventing the spread of bird flu and is trying to rehire them.

But in Antarctica, a reversal won’t necessarily work. “One of the really scary things about this is that if the Antarctic program budget is cut, then they’ll very quickly get to the point where they can’t even keep the station open, much less science projects going,” an Antarctic scientist tells WIRED. “If the South Pole [station] is shut down, it’s basically nearly impossible to bring it back up. Everything will freeze and get buried in snow. And some other country will likely immediately take over.
Others share this fear of a station takeover. “Even if science funding is cut back, there is an urgent need for the US to invest in icebreakers and polar airlift capability otherwise at some point the US-managed South Pole station might not be serviceable,” says Klaus Dodds, an Antarctic expert and professor of geopolitics at Royal Holloway University of London.

Experts are concerned that countries like Russia and China—who have already been eagle-eyed on continental influence—will quickly jostle to fill the power vacuum. “Presumably it would be humiliating for anyone who wishes to promote ‘America First’ to witness China offer to take over the occupation and management of the base at the heart of Antarctica. China is a very determined polar power,” says Dodds.

The political outcome of the US pulling back from its Antarctic research and presence could be dire, sources tell WIRED.

Antarctica isn’t owned by any one country. Instead it’s governed by the Antarctic Treaty System, which protects Antarctica and the scientific research taking place on the continent, and forbids mining and nuclear activity. Some countries, including China and Russia, have indicated that they would be interested in rule changes to the Treaty system, particularly around resource extraction and fishing restrictions. The US, traditionally, has played a key role in championing the treaty: “Many of the leading polar scientists and social scientists are either US citizens and/or have been enriched by contact with US-led programs,” says Dodds.

That leadership role could change quickly. The US also participates in a number of international collaborations involving major Antarctic scientific projects. A US pullback, Whitehorn says, “makes it very hard to regard the US as a reliable partner, so I think there will be a lot less interest in accepting US leadership in such things … The uncertainty will drive people away and sacrifice the leadership the US already has.”

“If the NSF can’t function, or we don’t fund it, projects with long lead times can just die,” another scientist says. “I’m sure international partners would be happy to partner elsewhere. This is what it means to lose US competitiveness."

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wow, huge shock Ana is justifying putting an anti vaxxer in charge of Health and Human Services, on the topic of…vaccines. 

And yet he wonders why everyone knows he's a joke. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, LTbear said:

And yet he wonders why everyone knows he's a joke. 

My favorite part he thinks the guy who has spent the last 20 years saying vaccines are dangerous should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to vaccine processes. Absolutely fucking insane.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wow, huge shock Ana is justifying putting an anti vaxxer in charge of Health and Human Services, on the topic of…vaccines. 

Yeah.....I mean, CLEARLY, someone who has issued the unambiguous statement within the past 24 months that "there's no safe and effective vaccine" would be cancelling vaccine planning meetings.....in order to make sure the process was better focused and more likely to successfully identify the incoming flu virus strain so that a...safe and effective vaccine or that strain could be developed.  And there's just no basis to think that it's for the reason of opposing all vaccines, because, in his own fucking words, "there's no safe and effective vaccine."

The RFP apologists like Ana are fucking Orwell come to life: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...