• 2015-2024close
• Open Access close
• Open Source close
• Publications close
• Research software close
• Other research products close
• CN close
• DE close
• BR close
• IE close
• Corona Virus Disease close

AbstractThe design principles of institutions that visibly and significantly affect citizens’ lives are likely to be politically salient. Popular support for these principles is in turn crucial for institutional viability and effectiveness. Transboundary pandemics are a case in point. Understanding citizens’ preferences regarding the design of international alliances set up to mass-produce and distribute vaccines is likely to determine citizens’ subsequent cooperation with vaccination campaigns. This study explores Germans’ preferences for international COVID-19 vaccine alliance design principles. We conducted a conjoint experiment at a recurring cognitive moment in many pandemics’ cycles, between the initial outbreak and a more devastating but still-unknown second wave, when infection rates were very low, yet no policy solutions had been developed. We analyzed preferences regarding four building blocks: (1) alliance composition (size; EU-centrism), (2) alliance distribution rules (joining cost; vaccine allocation), (3) vaccine nationalism (cost per German household; coverage in Germany) and (4) vaccine producer confidence (origin; type). Distribution rules, political ideology and personal perceptions of pandemic threat matter little. But a larger alliance size and dominant EU-country composition increase alliance support. And vaccine nationalism is key: support increases with both lower costs and larger coverage for own-nation citizens. Moreover, support goes down for Chinese and American producers and increases for Swiss and especially own-nation producers. In sum, a realist and technocratic outlook is warranted at the cognitive stage in pandemic cycles when no solutions have been found, yet the worst already seems to be over, as national self-interest reigns supreme in popular attitudes.

Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) is the causal agent of postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS), causing large economical losses of the global swine industry. Nitric oxide (NO), as an important signaling molecule, has antiviral activity on some viruses. To date, there is little information on the role of NO during PCV2 infection.We used indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), TCIDOur findings indicate that the form of NO

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial effect on mental health and work productivity of early-career researchers working in Radiation Oncology (RO). However, the underlying mechanisms of these effects are unclear. The aim of the current qualitative study was therefore to achieve a better understanding of how these effects arose and could be managed in the future. Methods This study was conducted jointly by RO and qualitative health researchers. Data was collected in four online Focus Groups with 6-11 RO researchers (total N = 31) working in Europe. The transcripts were analysed through a qualitative cross-impact analysis. Results Causal relations were identified between seventeen variables that depict the impact of disrupted working conditions. Mental health and work productivity were indeed the most important affected variables, but relations between variables towards these impacts were complex. Relations could either be positive or negative and direct or indirect, leading to a cascade of interrelated events which are highly personal and could change over time. We developed the model 'impact of disrupted working conditions' depicting the identified variables and their relations, to allow more individual assessment and personalised solutions. Conclusion The impacts of disrupted working conditions on RO researchers varied due to the complexity of interrelated variables. Consequently, collective actions are not sufficient, and a more personal approach is needed. Our impact model is recommended to help guide conversations and reflections with the aim of improving work/life balance. The participants showed high levels of personal responsibility towards their own mental health and work productivity. Although being an individual issue, a collective responsibility in developing such approaches is key due to the dependency on organizational variables.

The latest study observed that KTRs with COVID‐19 had a higher early mortality than persons with COVID‐19 in the general population[1]. To date, there is no specific drugs. Previous studies showed convalescent plasma could help patient recovery from SARS[2, 3]. However, only a very limit evidences has been showed it is effective in COVID‐19 treatment[4, 5]. Here, we describe the first successful recovery of case of COVID‐19 in a KTR treated with convalescent plasma therapy.

Im Tagesreport werden täglich aktuelle Kennzahlen aus dem DIVI-Intensivregister (www.intensivregister.de) berichtet. Es werden die aktuell gemeldeten Anzahlen der COVID-19 Intensivfälle sowie die gemeldeten intensivmedizinischen Behandlungskapazitäten angezeigt. Der Tagesreport liefert dabei ausschließlich einen Blick auf die Daten gemäß dem Stand des betrachteten Tages. Die Daten sind im situationsbedingten Kontext aufbereitet, damit sind verschiedene Tagesreports u.U. nicht direkt miteinander vergleichbar. Die aktuellsten Meldungen werden im gewählten Betrachtungszeitfenster über alle Meldebereiche und Standorte aufsummiert. Weitere Informationen sind zu finden unter https://www.intensivregister.de/#/faq

AbstractMisinformation has been a pressing issue since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening our ability to effectively act on the crisis. Nevertheless, little is known about the actual effects of fake news on behavioural intentions. Does exposure to or belief in misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines affect people’s intentions to receive such a vaccine? This paper attempts to address this question via three preregistered experiments (N = 3463). In Study 1, participants (n = 1269) were exposed to fabricated pro- or anti-vaccine information or to neutral true information, and then asked about their intentions to get vaccinated. In Study 2, participants (n = 646) were exposed to true pro- and anti-vaccine information, while Study 3 (n = 1548) experimentally manipulated beliefs in novel misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines by increasing exposure to the information. The results of these three studies showed that exposure to false information about the vaccines had little effect on participants’ intentions to get vaccinated, even when multiple exposures led them to believe the headlines to be more accurate. An exploratory meta-analysis of studies 1 and 3, with a combined sample size of 2683, showed that exposure to false information both supporting and opposing COVID-19 vaccines actually increased vaccination intentions, though the effect size was very small. We conclude by cautioning researchers against equating exposure to misinformation or perceived accuracy of false news with actual behaviours.