SGU Episode 775: Difference between revisions

From SGUTranscripts
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 110: Line 110:


=== Email #1: R-Naught <small>()</small> ===
=== Email #1: R-Naught <small>()</small> ===
<blockquote>Dear Steve, Bob-1, Bob-2, Evan, and Cara, [Insert standard I love the show and all of you text here.] There has been a lot of talk about R-Naught these days, and I'm still confused. I've watched multiple videos and read multiple articles, and I still can't wrap my head around the subtleties. Wikipedia, for example, says R0 is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection in the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease." That part makes sense. But then it says R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen, as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behavior of the infected population, which seems to me to contradict the previous statement. Does it include interventions or not? I also hear talk of getting R0 below 1 to stop the spread, which also seems to go against the idea of "in absence of interventions" part of the definition. Is the R0 of measles 18 or less than 1 because we are mostly vaccinated? If R0 can change based on population behavior, wouldn't you have to list the assumptions for the number to be meaningful? Anyway, I think you get what I'm getting at. Love all of you and stay healthy! Best, Bryan Schiffner, Colorado</blockquote>


== Interview with Gerald Posner <small>()</small> ==
== Interview with Gerald Posner <small>()</small> ==

Revision as of 15:41, 21 August 2020

You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.

  Emblem-pen-green.png This is a transcript of a recent episode and it is not finished. Please help us finish it!
Add a Transcribing template to the top of this transcript before you start so that we don't duplicate your efforts.

Template:Editing required (w/links)

SGU Episode 775
May 16 th 2020
SAMPLE icon.jpg
(brief caption for the episode icon)

SGU 774                      SGU 776

Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
Guest

GP: Gerald Posner

Quote of the Week

You might use a simple model and find weird behavior and ignore it. But you shouldn’t ignore it, because that very weirdness is significant.

Dr. Robert May, physicist and ecologist

Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion


Introduction

Voiceover: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.


COVID-19 Update ()

News Items

S:

B:

C:

J:

E:

(laughs) (laughter) (applause) [inaudible]

Do Facemasks Work? ()

Carbon Dioxide and the Pandemic ()

Distrust of Expertise Online ()

Closest Black Hole to Earth ()

Who's That Noisy? ()

New Noisy ()

[Cackling animal has taken someone's phone]

Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups ()

Email #1: R-Naught ()

Dear Steve, Bob-1, Bob-2, Evan, and Cara, [Insert standard I love the show and all of you text here.] There has been a lot of talk about R-Naught these days, and I'm still confused. I've watched multiple videos and read multiple articles, and I still can't wrap my head around the subtleties. Wikipedia, for example, says R0 is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection in the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease." That part makes sense. But then it says R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen, as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behavior of the infected population, which seems to me to contradict the previous statement. Does it include interventions or not? I also hear talk of getting R0 below 1 to stop the spread, which also seems to go against the idea of "in absence of interventions" part of the definition. Is the R0 of measles 18 or less than 1 because we are mostly vaccinated? If R0 can change based on population behavior, wouldn't you have to list the assumptions for the number to be meaningful? Anyway, I think you get what I'm getting at. Love all of you and stay healthy! Best, Bryan Schiffner, Colorado

Interview with Gerald Posner ()

Science or Fiction ()

Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Item #1: Researchers find that multitasking in the office leads to greater satisfaction and decreased depression.[5]
Item #2: A new study finds that choosing leaders partly at random reduces abuse of power.[6]
Item #3: A study of teen video gamers finds that 10% display pathological video game addiction.[7]

[Rogue’s] Response

[Rogue’s] Response

[Rogue’s] Response

[Rogue’s] Response

[Host] Explains Item #[n]

[Host] Explains Item #[n]

[Host] Explains Item #[n]

[Host] Explains Item #[n]

Answer Item
Fiction Multitasking
Science {{{science1}}}
Host Result
'
Rogue Guess


Skeptical Quote of the Week ()

You might use a simple model and find weird behavior and ignore it. But you shouldn’t ignore it, because that very weirdness is significant.
Dr. Robert May, physicist and ecologist (1936-2020)

Signoff/Announcements ()

S: —and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

S: Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information, visit us at theskepticsguide.org. Send your questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. And, if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/SkepticsGuide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community. Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.

Today I Learned

  • Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference[8]
  • Fact/Description
  • Fact/Description

References

Vocabulary


Navi-previous.png Back to top of page Navi-next.png