portal-3

The National Statistics Institute (INE) just made public the data of the first wave of coronavirus. Only in the first 5 months (actually 3, because the first two months there is no Covid): 50,000 dead. In 3 months.

That is to say: 45,684 direct deaths from COVID + 4,218 cases in which the cause of death was not directly Covid, but rather their death was mainly due to other causes, but the virus has contributed to the death of said people.

First cause of death

Seen this way, it is the leading cause of death in Spain in that period of time... as much as adding all the deaths from all types of cancer simultaneously. It has also been analyzed where people have died: almost 14,000 people in nursing homes.

However, in general terms, Infectious diseases (include #COVID19 identified virus and suspected COVID19) were the 2nd cause of death (20.9% of the total).

Deaths according to Cause of Death January-May 2019/2020

Infectious diseases (include #COVID19 identified virus and suspected COVID19) were the 2nd cause of death (20.9% of the total)

Press release👇https://t.co/WnnhEcgO2A

Results➡️https://t.co/626yXbopvW#INE pic.twitter.com/4DYLeNR9GJ

— INE Spain (@es_INE) December 10, 2020

These are almost definitive figures, apparently things still need to be refined, so the figure could increase over time. But, for now, In Spain, 231,014 people died between January and May 2020. About 43,000 above the average for the 2016-2019 period. 47,000 above the average if we only count the period from March to May.

As of May 31, the Ministry of Health identified 27,127 deaths from coronavirus with a diagnostic test. Not all people who died in the first wave of the pandemic in Spain were tested to detect the coronavirus: the INE now numbers them at 18,557. 50,000 compared to 28,000 for Health. Almost double.

In Xataka Science

The nose is very vulnerable to COVID-19 infection: do not wear the mask halfway

Now Health says that we have about 18,000 deaths since August. Obviously, there are more. We don't know if it's double, but it's somewhere around there. If it were double, it would be 18,000 x 2 = 36,000. Which gives us a pessimistic total of 50,000 + 36,000 = 86,000 so far.

If we are optimistic and Health now counts its deaths better, perhaps there will be 10,000 fewer. If Health told the whole truth (or could do so, because technically it still cannot), then it would come out, as a hyper-optimistic figure: 68.000. So we are in an approximate range of 68,000 – 86,000. And there is almost a month left until the end of the year. The most pessimistic figure of all, although unlikely, could be close to 100,000 deaths from covid.

–
The news

Deaths in Spain from COVID-19 according to new data (almost definitive) from the INE

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

In reality, the International Space Station (ISS) moves around the Earth at about 25 times the speed of sound or about 10 times faster than a rifle bullet, so SpaceX's Dragon cargo ship docked autonomously to the space-facing side of the orbiting laboratory's Harmony module on Monday at 18:40 UTC. in a way that is difficult to imagine.

Fortunately, Space X has released images of the cargo Dragon's approach to an orbital complex moving rapidly around the Earth, as the ship approaches its docking position. You can see the video below.

Time-Lapse

Space X has released a video with spectacular images of the International Space Station taken from an approaching Dragon spacecraft that docked this week at the orbital complex. 28,000 km/h is a speed that is difficult to understand. We really can't even imagine that kind of speed. And it is not appreciated in the video, naturally.

So, when you see it, try to repeat that figure incessantly: 28,000 km/h.

Time-lapse of Dragon on approach – two Dragons now docked to the @space_station pic.twitter.com/I046jBmC7o

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 8, 2020

It is the first time that there are two Dragon ships docked at the Station: the other is a crew capsule.

The Dragon capsule It consists of a cone-shaped front cover, the traditional ballistic capsule and a non-pressurized charging module with two solar panels. The capsule uses a shield that protects the capsule during reentry even at speeds found in lunar or Martian missions.

–
The news

Spectacular Time-lapse of Dragon approaching the International Space Station

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

The classic explanation is that elaborate and complex structures must exist because they confer some functional benefit to the organism, so natural selection drives states of increasing complexity.

Clearly, in some cases complexity is adaptive, such as the evolution of the eye (complex eyes see better than simple ones). But at the molecular level, a new study has found that there are other simple mechanisms that drive the accumulation of complexity.

Complexity

He new study, conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, suggests that elaborate protein structures accumulate over time, even when they serve no purpose, because a universal biochemical property and the genetic code force natural selection to conserve them.

In Xataka Science

Three things about our body that are not very well done

Most of the proteins in our cells form specific complexes with other proteins, a process called multimerization. Many proteins, especially those with high molecular weights, have a quaternary structure, this means that they are made up of several polypeptide chains (from two to hundreds of them). Each of these chains is called a subunit, and the union of several subunits is what we have called a multimer, or multisubunit protein.

Like other types of complexity in biology, multimers are often thought to persist over evolutionary time because they confer some functional benefit favored by natural selection.

To prove it, the study analyzed the evolution of multimerization in a family of proteins called steroid hormone receptors, which assemble in pairs (called dimers). To do this, they used a technique called ancestral protein reconstruction, which allowed them to recreate ancient proteins in the laboratory and experimentally examine how they were affected by mutations that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

In Xataka Science

Why do we have less hair than before?

To their surprise, they found that the ancient proteins did not function any differently when assembled into a dimer than if they had never evolved to dimerize. There was nothing useful or beneficial in the formation of the complex. The explanation for why the dimeric form of the receptor has persisted for 450 million years turned out to be surprisingly simple, he explains. Georg Hochberg, one of the authors of the study:

These proteins gradually became addicted to their interaction, although there is nothing useful about them. The parts of the protein that form the interface where partners bind accumulated mutations that were tolerable after dimer evolution, but that would have been deleterious in the alone state. This made the protein completely dependent on the dimeric form, and it could no longer go back. Useless complexity took hold, essentially forever.

The researchers suggest, then, that simple biochemical, genetic and evolutionary principles make the entrenchment of molecular complexes inevitable. This mechanism, which operates on thousands of proteins for hundreds of millions of years, could drive the gradual accumulation of many useless complexes inside cells.

–
The news

Natural selection seems to preserve the complex even if it has no specific usefulness

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

In a homogeneous society, in which everyone has roughly the same background, religion, values, and goals, people will generally agree on what it means to be a good person and live a good life.

However, there is a whole constellation of discrepancies in the intensity of some values, even in their application; and above all there will be differences regarding data, objective information, because not everyone can or knows how to use reliable sources and ends up confused by infoxication. That explains, in part, that yesterday, on Twitter, the hashtag was TT #YoNoMeVacuno against COVID-19.

How to convince? Spoiler: you can't

The problem with excess information is that it is difficult to find the truth, but also that it is extremely easy to support any idea, theory or whim with mountains of data. As proof, a button of some of the images that were shared yesterday on Twitter under the hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno:

A key principle of liberalism is pluralism: the idea that different people, traditions, and beliefs not only can coexist together in the same society, but must also coexist together because society benefits from vibrant heterogeneity. However, hierarchies have been established regarding the sources of information to which we can turn: A study published in a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact index is not the same as a digital newspaper..

A pluralistic society fuels innovation and progress, where diverse people with unique life experiences develop and share ideas. If people remained in discrete, homogeneous communities, How many lives and ideas that would change the world would never have existed? The problem is that there are statements that, at all levels, including the epistemological level, are false.

They are statements, at least, so false that to be sustained (and respected), it is not enough to appeal to freedom of expression: the statements must be supported with the same epistemological strength as the idea that is being refuted: For example, if you say that vaccines are dangerous, provide scientific literature of the same level as that which states that vaccines are safe.

The opposite would be like asking all the passengers on an airplane, democratically, what kind of maneuver the pilot should perform to approach an impending storm.

When it comes to vaccines, we know scientifically that they are safe. Scientifically we know that they are useful. Scientifically we know that they will cause more benefits than harm. However, half of the population I would not be willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19 right now because he doesn't trust, because of fear, because of conspiracy theories, because they put the chis in it, or for whatever….

COVID deniers aside, in the percentage of the population with a negative response, it seems that the key word is not “vaccine” but “immediately.” Many trust science, but have doubts about the deadlines and, above all, fear of adverse reactions.

In Xataka Science

The online movement against vaccines in the era of COVID-19 is divided into these four groups

We could try to do pedagogy, try to inform people, even try to persuade them with the best possible rhetoric. However, if this doesn't work and we are in a hurry, if there is no time to philosophize because we have to get the vaccine and keep our mouths shut... what do we do to avoid falling headlong into a totalitarian state or to force people to take communion? with millstones? There is a more effective trick than forcing people (which sometimes leads to unexpected and counterproductive consequences): libertarian paternalism. You can learn more about him in the following video:

–
The news

Yesterday, on Twitter, the hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno against COVID-19 was TT and that is a problem

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

Let's say it now, from the beginning (especially for the purists of the original authors of the inventors, if there is such a thing): six years before Gray and Bell developed it, the Italian Antonio Meucci already had the invention of the telephone. What he did Alexander Graham Bell, in reality, was to imagine a more organic infrastructure for such an invention.

Be that as it may, in addition to this invention, the photophone is more fascinating: It is actually a kind of light phone.

The light telephone

The photophone consisted of a mirror that reflects sunlight, mounted on a support that vibrates with the voice, so that the reflected light is received by a parabolic mirror and concentrated on a selenium cell that translates the signal into audible sound in a telephone receiver, as explained Santiago Alvarez in his book Of women, men and molecules:

Thus, the inventor of the telephone was also a precursor of the optical transmission of signals, which today we call photonics.

The photophone was patented December 18, 1880, but the quality of communication remained poor and the investigation was not continued by Bell. Still, shortly before his death, he told a reporter that the photophone was "the best invention [I've ever] made, bigger than the telephone."

Later this invention served as the basis for the development of communications using fiber optics and lasers.

Understanding the phenomenon of light reflection is another story. The theory of extromission defended by Euclid and Ptlemy, among others, maintained that light comes from the eyes of the observer. In the opposite sense, the theory of intromission (light enters through the eyes) was defended by Aristotle and rescued by Avicenna in the 10th century.

If you're still a little angry about the fact that Bell is unfairly credited with inventing the telephone (or even the photophone), then you might want to watch the following video, which shows that the idea of Author has something religious or romantic, as well as the idea of Inventor; and, that given the structure of the history of innovation in the world, we should begin to give less romantic importance to inventors or discoverers, and more to the ecosystems where such inventions and discoveries occur:

–
The news

Although the telephone is one of Edison's best-known inventions, the photophone was much more fascinating.

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

A little more than Nepal's previous measurement and about four meters higher than China's: this is the new agreement about the altitude of Everest: 8,848.86 meters.

In 1856, the Great Trigonometric Survey Project established the first published altitude of Everest, then known as Peak XV, in 8840 meters. China and Nepal reached a consensus last year on jointly announcing the new height of the peak, and it is being made public now.

Everest height conflict

In 2005, China measured the mountain's altitude again and came up with a result of 8,844.43 meters. Thus began a discussion between China and Nepal that lasted five years. China argued that the measurement should be made up to the altitude of the rock, which is 8844 meters, but Nepal objected that it should be made up to the altitude of the snow, which is It is 8848 meters.

In 2010, both nations reached an agreement that the altitude of the mountain is 8,848 meters, and Nepal recognized China's claim that the altitude up to the rock of Everest is 8,844 meters. Now, in 2020, both countries have closed the matter with a commonly recognized height.

In Xataka Science

This antenna has been installed on Everest to measure its exact altitude

However, we should not confuse the highest point on Earth with the highest mountain in the world. This mountain is the Mauna Kea, is the Hawaiian Islands, which is 10,205 meters from its underwater base in the Hawaiian Depression to its summit. Of this total height, 4,205 meters are above sea level.

–
The news

The new height of Mount Everest, the highest peak in the world, is 8,848.86 meters: China and Nepal agree

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.