Ah, thanks.

I don't think renters would find it so hard to get their own home if there were less landlords so it would be more the solution to tax landlords to pay to construct affordable housing for local workers, than to give the landlord a tax break on their owning extra houses. I don't see the argument that it would be 'fairer' to anyone to tax homeowners on a hypothetical income if they were renting.

Do you mean that the renters should get the interest component of their rent, assuming the landlord is mortgaged on that property, deducted from their tax?

I kind of think landlords should not be able to borrow just for buy to let and maybe their should be rent controls. I could be confused about what they mean here, especially with imputed rent.

For them there should be incentives to build more affordable housing for local workers to purchase, they are priced out because of supply and demand issues, which then led to housing becomming an asset bubble which attracted investors, many overseas, to purchase up due to its scarcity. Then you have the effect of that becomes self-fulfilling, the property value or rent increases faster than other investments, and on it goes on. Something needs to be done but I don't think the issue is that home owners arent taxed enough or 'enjoy' being free of tax, its more what's not being done for renters.

Its not a closed system between renters and non-renters, the first place I would look for increasing tax revenues would be the tax avoiders with their off-shore tax loopholes. However I could be confused about what they are talking about as imputed rent.

>Moreover, the absence of a tax on imputed rent represents a subsidy, which does not discriminate between the newly built and existing housing. Thus, everyone occupying one’s own dwelling can benefit from it.

So if I don't tax something, I've subsidised it?

Not sure if I am following the logic here. Not everything is entitled to be taxed, that's just the perspective of a government. The mafia thinks you owe them protection money, but we don't normalise that mentality.

If anyone can explain imputed rent to me on your own home I'd be grateful.

Why thankyou for bringing that to my attention. I did not know allergic rhinitis was associated with reduced risk.

Well, I'm going to pour out some thoughts. Different densities of eosinophils, also release of histamine, these have been noted altered in COVID19.

It could be so many things, such as production of more neutralising mucous, different viscosity.

Mast cell stimulation is involved in allergy and these two play a key role in antigen presentation and viral recognition.....

Neutrophils too are a key part of COVID.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341103/#:~:text=Activated%20neutrophils%20may%20thus%20contribute,to%20a%20normally%20harmless%20antigen.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22918213/

Pendrin is also upregulated in asthma like allergic rhinitis and asthma seems also protective in COVID.

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/181/3/2203

It should induce antiviral effects by increasing the export of natural antiviral compounds including chloride ion and SCN.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1165/rcmb.2018-0304OC

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208616/

I would assume that the environment is already rather hostile to viruses. The existing inflamed neutrophils and the increased presence of other immune cells, the change in the thickness of the mucosal tissue in allergic rhinitis and the possible production of more antiviral mucous may be involved in a faster early response.

It might alter the chances of developing symptoms, it might alter chances of the virus establishing an infection. I would imagine it leads to a heavier early response and reduced permisiveness to infection, which protect against heavier infection.

Presumably the change in the nose is not just seen there but affects the upper and lower airway too.

Is typical for respiratory viruses influenza can do this too.

But it would also explain the anosmia as an early symptom, the olfactory bulb gets infected and then it can go up the nerve. The anosmia being presumably triggered by the immune response after recognising an infection.

I know that reactive aldehydes produced by cooking can be mopped up by grape seed extract polyphenols and there are studies published on that for protecting foods subjected to cooking.

Maybe relevant, and a cheap byproduct of another industry. I wouldn't expect the half life to be that great though.

Its been pointed out in the comments that serum magnesium is not a good biomarker for tissue magnesium.

As such high serum magnesium may result from impaired magnesium transport to tissues, perhaps?

So high and low Mg might indicate a Mg distribution/regulation problem, low serum Mg would starve the transport system to tissues, leaving tissue deficiency, whilst high serum Mg could indicate a blockage in the uptake system, also leading to tissue deficiency.

Is Mg transport energy related? Features of diabetes in the brain and impaired brain metabolism is known in dementia and Alzheimers, and diabetes is a risk factor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455825/

Serum Mg is largely controlled by kidney excretion.

Mg is known to be difficult to deliver to the brain via supplemental routes and different Mg forms may influence this.

So, if the transport barrier to brain uptake is increased in dementia then the serum level might not tell us much, and it could be that it is showing there is an issue getting it into the brain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678825/

Asside from kidney dysfunction in regulating Mg it could be that bone decay is releasing Mg. It's known that as we age the bones release elements like lead that have been absorbed throughout life, so perhaps this is an added source of high Mg.