Google doing its job here. Our revelations about the Koch funded libertarian think tanks behind the discredited Herd Immunity theory is public interest journalism

Google is censoring The Great Barrington Declaration. When you search for it you’re directed to a conspiracy theory from Byline Times

Alfred Moore and Michael K MacKenzie argue that greater openness about disagreement among diverse types of experts makes it harder for political leaders to politicise expertise

10.1136/bmj.m4039

Policy making during crises: how diversity and disagreement can help manage the politics of expert advice

Objectives. Written benefit finding has been associated with improvements in psychological and physical health in a range of patient groups. In the present study, we aimed to test the efficacy of written benefit finding, delivered online during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, on self-reported anxiety, depression, stress and physical symptoms. We also sought to investigate the moderating role of perseverative thinking on these effects. Design. A quantitative longitudinal design was employed. Methods. Participants (n = 91, 33 males, Mage = 37.6, SDage = 15.5; 58 females, Mage = 40.0, SDage = 13.7) completed self-report measures of anxiety, depression, stress and physical symptoms at baseline, and again two weeks after being randomised to complete three consecutive days of writing about the positive thoughts and feelings they’ve experienced in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic (written benefit finding condition) or to unemotively describe the events of the previous day (control condition). Self-reported state anxiety was measured immediately before and after writing. Perseverative thinking was also measured at baseline. Results. There was a significant reduction in state anxiety in the written benefit finding condition, relative to the control condition. Anxiety and depression decreased between baseline and the two week follow-up, but this did not differ significantly between the two conditions. Perseverative thinking was negatively associated with changes in anxiety, depression and stress, but did not moderate any writing effects. Conclusions. Written benefit finding may be a useful intervention for improving wellbeing, specifically state anxiety, in the general population.

Written benefit finding for improving psychological health during the Covid-19 pandemic first wave lockdown

10.31234/osf.io/b42jq

10.31234/osf.io/4bw97

It has been a decade since the WEIRD label was coined in psychology but little seems to have changed. I contend that one of the reasons is the invisibility of researchers from peripheral (henceforth non-WEIRD) countries, which has been unintended reinforced by the vagueness of the label and subsequent discussions on high profile journals. Moreover, I argue that, by only focusing on diversifying samples instead the research community, well intended researchers may worsen several structural problems in these communities. In this commentary I hope to present compelling evidence in support of these two arguments and offer suggestions on how we can attempt to overcome the invisibility of non-WEIRD scientists.

Commentary on Apicella, Norenzayan & Henrich (2020): Who is going to run the global laboratory of the future?

10.31234/osf.io/fet6z

Many challenges faced by humans require large-scale cooperation for communal benefits. We examined what motivates such cooperation in the context of social distancing and mask wearing to reduce the transmission intensity of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). We hypothesized that collectivism, a cultural variable characterizing the extent that individuals see themselves in relation to others, contributes to people’s willingness to engage in these behaviors. Consistent with preregistered predictions, across three studies (n=2864), including a U.S. nationally representative sample, people’s collectivist orientation is positively associated with intentions, positive beliefs, norm perceptions, and policy support for the preventive behaviors. In separate analyses at the country level (n=69 countries), more collectivist countries demonstrated lower growth rate in both COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths. Together, these studies demonstrate the positive role of collectivism at the individual- and country-level in reducing COVID-19 transmission, and highlight the need to consider culture in public health policies and communications.

Cultural influence on COVID-19 cognitions and growth speed: the role of cultural collectivism

10.31234/osf.io/3qdnx

Humans exhibit distinct risk preferences when facing choices involving potential gains and losses. These preferences are subject to neuromodulatory influence, particularly from dopamine and serotonin. As these neuromodulators manifest distinct circadian rhythms, this suggests decision making under risk might be affected by time of day. Here, in a large subject sample (N = 26,899), we tested the hypothesis of a diurnal modulation in risk taking for gains and losses. We found that risky options with potential losses were increasingly chosen over the course of the day, but observed no such change for how often risky options with only potential gains were chosen. Using a computational modelling approach to obtain a more fine-grained account, we show this diurnal change in risk preference reflects a decrease in sensitivity to increasing losses, but no change in the relative impacts of gains and losses on choice. This diurnal sensitivity, present across two different task designs, was robust to between- and within-subject analysis, to country (i.e., UK and US samples), age, and gender. Thus, our findings reveal a striking diurnal modulation in human decision making, a pattern with potential importance for real-life preferences that include voting, medical decision making, and global stock market investments.

Risk taking for potential losses but not gains increases with time of day

I think of strength of inference resting on P(not E|not H) (for coronavirus case). Search determines the conditional probability (and by total probability of course prob of evidence) but it isn't itself the evidence. So, was siding with R. against what I thought you meant ;-)

2/2 Having conducted experiments on lay understanding of arguments from ignorance, in my experience, people intuitively understand probabilistic impact of factors, such as quality of search, that moderate strength. Rather than build on that, we work against it with slogan!

you absolutely did (and I would have been disappointed if you hadn't ;-)! It was a general comment prompted by the fact that the title of the article you linked to doesn't (as is widespread), and I actually genuinely think this is part of the "problem" in pedagogical terms. 1/2

Hospital workers who got vaccinated were significantly less likely to develop COVID than those who did not

Biologists​  love abbreviations, but we often use them clumsily. What may sound like catchy acronyms to one group of researchers are tiresome jargon to colleagues in related fields. Fruit fly geneticists have taken whimsy to absurdity: MAD stands for ‘Mothers Against Decapentaplegic’. The ‘decapentaplegic’ bit comes from a mutant fly that doesn’t correctly form fifteen (deca-penta) important structures that go on to become legs, wings, antennae etc. The ‘Mothers Against’ bit is a joke that may have been funny in 1995. Immunologists tend towards the impenetrably boring. We’ve named messenger molecules between white blood cells ‘interleukins’, and given each of them a natural number. Logical enough, but we’ve now got up to IL38, and it’s almost impossible to recall what each of them does. Not to be outdone, molecular epidemiologists have come up with such names as B.1.1.7. That’s the Sars-CoV-2 variant now dominating the pandemic in the UK (and Ireland, Denmark, Israel and soon Germany and much of the rest of the world). The variant that’s dominating in South Africa is B.1.351, or 20H/501Y.V2 if you prefer. At least in Brazil what would have been B.1.1.28.P1 has been allowed to drop its cumbersome honorific and become plain old P1.

Eeek!

A thing I feel is weird about how we are all reacting to this pandemic: mourning is still so individual & private. It surprises me there aren’t campaigns for armbands, ribbons, wreaths on doors, or some sort of flag in the window to say “a loved one was lost to COVID here”.

10.1093/aje/kwj275

Low birth weight (LBW) infants have lower infant mortality in groups in which LBW is most frequent. For example, in 1991, US infants born to smokers had higher risks of both LBW and infant mortality than infants born to nonsmokers. However, among LBW infants, infant mortality was lower for infants born to smokers (relative rate = 0.79). There are competing theories regarding this so-called “paradox.” One is that maternal smoking is beneficial for LBW infants. The authors use causal diagrams to show that, even in the absence of any beneficial effect of smoking, an inverse association due to stratification on birth weight can be found. This variable is affected by the exposure of interest and shares common causes with the outcome. That is, LBW infants born to smokers may have a lower risk of mortality than other LBW infants whose LBW is due to causes associated with high mortality (e.g., birth defects). Under realistic causal diagrams, adjustment for birth weight is unwarranted when the analytical goal is to estimate overall effects of prenatal variables on infant mortality. Even for estimating direct effects of prenatal variables, adjustment for birth weight may be invalid when there is an unmeasured common cause of LBW and mortality. An appropriate justification for conditioning on birth weight requires specifying 1) the causal question motivating this analytical approach and 2) the assumptions regarding the proposed underlying biologic mechanisms.

The Birth Weight “Paradox” Uncovered?

10.1007/s11229-014-0525-z

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox displays how the use of a 𝑝pp value (or number of standard deviations 𝑧zz) in a frequentist hypothesis test can lead to an inference that is radically different from that of a Bayesian hypothesis test in the form advocated by Harold Jeffreys in the 1930s and common today. The setting is the test of a well-specified null hypothesis (such as the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, possibly with “nuisance parameters”) versus a composite alternative (such as the Standard Model plus a new force of nature of unknown strength). The 𝑝pp value, as well as the ratio of the likelihood under the null hypothesis to the maximized likelihood under the alternative, can strongly disfavor the null hypothesis, while the Bayesian posterior probability for the null hypothesis can be arbitrarily large. The academic statistics literature contains many impassioned comments on this paradox, yet there is no consensus either on its relevance to scientific communication or on its correct resolution. The paradox is quite relevant to frontier research in high energy physics. This paper is an attempt to explain the situation to both physicists and statisticians, in the hope that further progress can be made.

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox and discovery criteria in high energy physics

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the usual number of sixes.

Gambler's fallacy

10.1093/aje/kwu025

The “prosecutor's fallacy” (the assumption that Pr [probability] (A|B) = Pr (B|A)) arises often in epidemiology but is often unrecognized as such, in part because investigators do not have strong intuitions about what the fallacy means. Here, we help inform such intuitions and remind investigators of this fallacy by using visualizations. In figures, we demonstrate the prosecutor's fallacy, as well as show conditions under which Pr (A|B) can be assumed to be equal to Pr (B|A). Visualizations can help build intuition around statistical concepts such as the prosecutor's fallacy and should be more widely considered as teaching tools.

Epidemiology Visualized: The Prosecutor's Fallacy

10.1038/s41467-020-19478-2

Numerous observational studies have attempted to identify risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease outcomes. Studies have used datasets sampled from patients admitted to hospital, people tested for active infection, or people who volunteered to participate. Here, we highlight the challenge of interpreting observational evidence from such non-representative samples. Collider bias can induce associations between two or more variables which affect the likelihood of an individual being sampled, distorting associations between these variables in the sample. Analysing UK Biobank data, compared to the wider cohort the participants tested for COVID-19 were highly selected for a range of genetic, behavioural, cardiovascular, demographic, and anthropometric traits. We discuss the mechanisms inducing these problems, and approaches that could help mitigate them. While collider bias should be explored in existing studies, the optimal way to mitigate the problem is to use appropriate sampling strategies at the study design stage.

Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity

10.1093/ije/dyr041

Background In a famous article, Simpson described a hypothetical data example that led to apparently paradoxical results.Methods We make the causal structure of Simpson's example explicit.Results We show how the paradox disappears when the statistical analysis is appropriately guided by subject-matter knowledge. We also review previous explanations of Simpson's paradox that attributed it to two distinct phenomena: confounding and non-collapsibility.Conclusion Analytical errors may occur when the problem is stripped of its causal context and analyzed merely in statistical terms.

The Simpson's paradox unraveled

Previous posts[a],[b],[c] of mine have considered Lord’s Paradox. To recap, this was considered in the form described by Wainer and Brown[1], in turn based on Lord’s original formulation: A large university is interested in investigating the effects on the students of the diet provided in the university dining halls : : : . Various types of data are gathered. In particular, the weight of each student at the time of his arrival in September and his weight the following June are recorded. [2](p. 304)

S. Senn: Red herrings and the art of cause fishing: Lord’s Paradox revisited

10.1038/scientificamerican0577-119

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247647698Stein's Paradox in Statistics

In 19th century Europe, suicide rates were higher in countries that were more heavily Protestant,the inference being that suicide was promoted by the social conditions of Protestantism (Durkheim1897; also see Neeleman and Lewis 1999). According to Carroll (1975), death rates from breastcancer are higher in countries where fat is a larger component of the diet, the idea being that fatintake causes breast cancer. These are ‘ecological inferences,’ that is, inferences about individualbehavior drawn from data about aggregates.

Ecological Inference and the Ecological Fallacy

The non-equivalence of statistical significance and clinical importance has long been recognised, but this error of interpretation remains common. Although a significant result in a large study may sometimes not be clinically important, a far greater problem arises from misinterpretation of non-significant findings. By convention a P value greater than 5% (P>0.05) is called “not significant.” Randomised controlled clinical trials that do not show a significant difference between the treatments being compared are often called “negative.” This term wrongly implies that the study has shown that there is no difference, whereas usually all that has been shown is an absence of evidence of a difference. These are quite different statements.

10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485

Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Authorities in Australia have responded swiftly to contain potential outbreaks of the UK variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19.

Australia clamps down in response to cases of UK coronavirus variant

The technology could revolutionize efforts to immunize against HIV, malaria, influenza and more.

How COVID unlocked the power of RNA vaccines

Civil defense. Influence monitoring. Enhanced unconventional warfare capabilities. New political warfare coordination. Fight for our values at home and abroad.

THE WAY AHEAD: Resilience, defense, and the architecture of American renewal

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

The paper investigates the influence of ideology on trust in scientists. We assume that during a pandemic, ideology is linked to levels of trust in scientists, such that those espousing left- (vs. right-) wing beliefs place more trust in the scientific profession. We posit that the negative perception of scientists, a feature of right-wing narratives in the country of study, underlies this effect. Additionally, we argue that ideology has an indirect impact, via levels of trust in scientists, on beliefs and attitudes towards vaccines and vaccine policy. To test these hypotheses, we conducted three studies (total N = 1155): one pre-pandemic study and two studies during a pandemic. The results confirm the hypotheses; however, we observed varied effects at the outset of the pandemic versus later stages. The findings contribute to the ongoing discussion around the ideological underpinnings of trust in scientists and carry implications for public health measures.

10.31234/osf.io/8kn5f

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic critically hinges on the approval of safe and effective vaccines but, equally importantly, on high willingness among lay people to use vaccines when approved. To facilitate vaccination willingness via effective health communication, it is key to understand both levels of skepticism towards an approved COVID-19 vaccine and the demographic, psychological and political sources of this skepticism. To this end, we examine the levels and predictors of willingness to use an approved COVID-19 vaccine in large, representative surveys from eight Western democracies that differ both politically and in terms of the severity of the pandemic: Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom, and United States (total N = 9,889). The data reveal large variation in vaccination willingness, both across and within countries ranging from 79 % in Denmark to 38 % in Hungary. Thus, most national levels fall below current best estimates for the required threshold for reaching herd immunity. Across national and demographic groups, the analyses demonstrate that a lack of vaccination willingness is associated with low levels of trust in authorities, conspiracy-related beliefs and a lack of concern about COVID-19. These factors also account for cross-national levels in vaccine willingness.

Willingness to Use an Approved COVID-19 Vaccine: Cross-National Evidence on Levels and Individual-Level Predictors

2101.09378

Peer-review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected in timeliness, quality, and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchain-based incentive system that rewards scientists for peer-reviewing other scientists' work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer-reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer-reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behavior and inclusiveness the system implements a gamified mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer-reviews and vote for the best ones.

Ants-Review: a Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer-Reviews on Ethereum

In almost two decades working in nursing homes, I’ve never been through a time as dire as last spring. Facilities like mine, in the greater Boston area, were working with minimal to no protective gear, very little infection-control training, limited laboratory services and constantly changing public-health guidelines. Residents with covid-19 deteriorated so quickly that they’d crash right in front of me, before we even got their test results.Support our journalism. Subscribe today.arrow-right

I work in a nursing home. Here’s why my colleagues are skipping the vaccine.

Small clinical trial found that it doesn’t appear to protect recipients against mild and moderate illness from a fast-spreading new strain of the coronavirus

Rollout of AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in South Africa After Study

ChAdOx1 nCov-19 provides minimal protection against mild-moderate COVID-19 infection from B.1.351 coronavirus variant in young South African adults

LONDON (Reuters) - British drugmaker AstraZeneca said on Saturday it believed its COVID-19 vaccine developed with the University of Oxford could protect against severe disease caused by the South African variant of the virus.

AstraZeneca thinks shot can stop severe disease from South Africa COVID variant

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19infection in the United Kingdom from November 2020 with a transmission advantage over the previous variants of the virus. Here we report efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, against this variant in comparison with non-B.1.1.7 lineages.Methods: Volunteers enrolled in phase II/III vaccine efficacy studies in the United Kingdom and randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a MenACWY control vaccine, providedupper airway swabs every week during the trial and also if they developed possible symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19Genomics UK consortium (COG UK). NAAT data were used to assess the duration ofdetectable viral RNA in diagnostic specimens and the viral load. Anti-spike IgG wasmeasured by ELISA at baseline, 14 and 28 days after prime and 28 days after boostervaccination. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live virus neutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 and Victoria lineages of the virus. The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cut-off on Jan 14, 2021. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137.5Findings: Between 1st October 2020 and 14th January 2021, 499 participants developed Covid-19infection. 1524 NAAT positive nose/throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 323 swabs from 256 participants were successfully sequenced.ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients had a significantly lower viral load as represented byminimum PCR Ct value (p<0.0001) and were NAAT positive for a shorter time (p<0.0001) than participants who received the control vaccine. Virus neutralisation activity by vaccineinduced antibodies was 9-fold lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against a canonical non B.1.1.7 lineage. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was similar for B.1.1.7 and non-B1.1.7 lineages (74.6% [95%CI 41.6-88.9] and 84% [95% CI 70.7-91.4] respectively). There was no difference in anti-spike antibody titres between individuals who had received a prior ChAdOx1 vectored vaccine and those who were naïve to ChAdOx1.Interpretation: Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to the efficacy of the vaccine against other lineages. Furthermore, vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 results in a reduction in the duration of shedding and viral load, which may translate into a material impact on transmission of disease.

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine Against SARS-CoV-2 VOC 202012/01 (B.1.1.7)

Background: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, MHRA, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of between 4 and 12 weeks. The planned rollout in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later.Here we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered.Methods: We present data from phase III efficacy trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the United Kingdom and Brazil, and phase I/II clinical trials in the UK and South Africa, against symptomatic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The data cut-off date for these analyses was 7th December 2020. The accumulated cases of COVID-19 disease at this cut-off date exceeds the number required for a pre-specified final analysis, which is also presented. As previously described, individuals over 18 years of age were randomised 1:1 to receive two standard doses (SD) of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5x1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine/saline placebo. In the UK trial efficacy cohort a subset of participants received a lower dose (LD, 2.2x1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. All cases with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis, by a blinded independent endpoint review committee. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.Findings: 17,177 baseline seronegative trial participants were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis, 8948 in the UK, 6753 in Brazil and 1476 in South Africa, with 619 documented NAAT +ve infections of which 332 met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection >14 days post dose 2.The primary analysis of overall vaccine efficacy >14 days after the second dose including LD/SD and SD/SD groups, based on the prespecified criteria was 66.7% (57.4%,  74.0%). There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group.Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76% (59%, 86%), and modelled analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3 month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 day (GMR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74).In the SD/SD group, after the second dose, efficacy was higher with a longer prime-boost interval: VE 82.4% 95%CI 62.7%, 91.7% at 12+ weeks, compared with VE 54.9%, 95%CI 32.7%, 69.7% at <6 weeks. These observations are supported by immunogenicity data which showed binding antibody responses more than 2-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with and interval of less than 6 weeks GMR 2.19 (2.12, 2.26) in those who were 18-55 years of age.Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination programmes aimed at vaccinating a large proportion of the population with a single dose, with a second dose given after a 3 month period is an effective strategy for reducing disease, and may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term.Trial Registration: Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.Funding: UKRI, NIHR, CEPI, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D’OR, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and Astra Zeneca.Conflict of Interest: Oxford University has entered into a partnership with Astra Zeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. SCG is co-founder of Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as aninventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was a consultant to Vaccitech for an unrelated project. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is Chair of UK Dept.Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI), but does not participate in discussions on COVID-19 vaccines, and is a member of the WHO’sSAGE. AJP and SNF are NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of DHSC, JCVI, NIHR or WHO. AVSH reports personal feesfrom Vaccitech, outside the submitted work and has a patent on ChAdOx1 licensed to Vaccitech, and may benefit from royalty income to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and sublicensees. MS reports grants from NIHR, non-financial support fromAstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants from Janssen, grants fromGlaxoSmithKline, grants from Medimmune, grants from Novavax, grants and non-financialsupport from Pfizer, grants from MCM, outside the submitted work. CG reports personal fees from the Duke Human Vaccine Institute, outside of the submitted work. SNF reports grants from Janssen and Valneva, outside the submitted work. ADD reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. In addition, ADD has a patent manufacturingprocess for ChAdOx vectors with royalties paid to AstraZeneca, and a patent ChAdOx2 vector with royalties paid to AstraZeneca. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Single Dose Administration, And The Influence Of The Timing Of The Booster Dose On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine

The second year since the genome sequencing of the new coronavirus has begun. And it’s off to a drama-packed start. Major outbreaks in several countries were breeding grounds for mutant strains that are crushing their communities and spreading across the globe. There’s been fierce debates about efficacy of some vaccines – and there are lots of confusing claims and data.

Variants, 3 New Covid Vaccines, and Contested Efficacy Claims: A Month of Seismic Shifts and Confusion

LONDON (Reuters) - AstraZeneca expects to have results from a U.S. clinical trial of its COVID-19 vaccine in the next four to six weeks, the company’s research chief Mene Pangalos said on Friday.

AstraZeneca expects U.S. trial results in next 4-6 weeks, research chief says

The potential impact of COVID-19 restrictions on worker well-being is currently unknown. In this study we examine 15 well-being outcomes collected from 621 full-time workers assessed before (November, 2019 - February, 2020) and during (May-June, 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Fixed effects analyses are used to investigate how the COVID-19 restrictions and involuntary homeworking affect well-being and job performance. The majority of worker well-being measures are not adversely affected. Homeworkers feel more engaged and autonomous, experience fewer negative emotions and feel more connected to their organisations. However, these improvements come at the expense of reduced homelife satisfaction and job performance.

10.31234/osf.io/659yd

Worker well-being before and during the COVID-19 restrictions: A longitudinal study in the UK

10.31234/osf.io/9d4eu

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused controversy over new norms of mask-wearing in public places. An online experiment previously showed that people from several Spanish-speaking countries perceived faces wearing medical-style masks as more trustworthy, socially desirable, and likely to be ill, compared to control faces without a mask. We replicated and extended these methods with 1241 English-speaking participants from the UK and USA, adding questions on political orientation and voting intention, and including the online-VAAST task to test the effects of masks on an implicit reaction-time measure. The positive effects of masks on trustworthiness and social desirability were replicated, but the negative effect of masks on perceptions of healthiness was reversed. Participants were also quicker to approach masked faces. Conservative voters’ explicit and implicit reactions to masked faces were less favorable than those of liberals, demonstrating that masks are viewed positively by many but continue to be politically controversial.

In Masks we Trust: Explicit and Implicit Reactions to Masked Faces Vary by Voting Intention

10.31234/osf.io/9jguh

One of the challenges during the post-COVID pandemic era will be to foster social connections between people. Previous research suggests that people who is able to regulate their emotions tends to have better social connections with others. Additional studies indicate that it is possible to train the ability to regulate emotions voluntarily, using a procedure that involves three steps: (1) asking participants to evoke an autobiographical memory associated with a positive emotion; (2) analyze participants’ brain activity in real-time to estimate their emotional state; and (3) provide visual feedback about the emotions evoked with the autobiographical memory. However, there is not enough research on how to provide the visual feedback required for the third step. Therefore, this manuscript introduces five virtual environments that can be used to provide emotional visual feedback. Each virtual environment was designed based on evidence found in previous studies, suggesting that there are visual cues, such as colors, shapes and motion patterns, that tend to be associated with emotions. In each virtual environment, the visual cues changed, intending to represent five emotional categories. An experiment was conducted to analyze the emotions that participants associated with the virtual environments. The results indicate that each environment is associated with the emotional categories that they were meant to represent.

Visual representation of emotions in Virtual Reality

Animerad påminnelse om utveckligen i Sverige jämfört med våra nordiska grannländer #COVID19SWEDEN

The tragedy of Sweden compared to other scandinavian country. (Deaths over time).

10.31234/osf.io/ahn6x

The mitigation efforts of COVID-19 have led to significant changes to the delivery of routine healthcare globally. In Australia, the way maternal health services have been delivered since the beginning of the pandemic has also changed. Maternity care and support are known to influence maternal mental health. One hundred and eighty-eight English speaking pregnant women residing in Australia were recruited using social media advertising between September and November 2020 as part of a larger study. Participants were aged between 19 and 42 (M = 31.05, SD = 4.68). Compared with previous Australian prevalence rates of around 7% for antenatal depression, rates in this study were 15.9% overall and 19% for those in Melbourne. It is suggested that increased vigilance with screening and assessment will be required to identify and support this cohort of mothers who are not coping.