Notes

A good 16.3-MJ getting and releasing pulsed power source system for the Space Plasma Environment Investigation Center (SPERF): Your subsystem for your magnetosheath circles.
While Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) does not discriminate against particular groups, our social structures and systems mean some people are more at risk in a pandemic context-from both the disease and the social and policy responses to the pandemic. This is particularly so for people with disability, in part because they often have poorer health outcomes from underlying conditions but also due to discrimination and social exclusion. Here, we draw from a survey about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian children and young people with disability and their families. Respondents faced a range of inequities prior to the pandemic, and COVID-19 has further exposed and often exacerbated them. We conclude that recent developments in the Australian disability context to personalize services have arguably made people with disability and their families less safe within a pandemic context, and we outline some ways in which these issues might be addressed.This viewpoint reflects on basic aspects of American public health and politics that are making the COVID crisis response less effective than it might be. AR-A014418 mw The performance of public service during a crisis depends as much on self-reflectiveness and hope as on the achievement of measurable results. Anthony Fauci is offered as an exemplar of authentic public service, understood as "living within the truth." This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.This study investigates how the negative economic prospects of the COVID-19 pandemic affect local government politicians' policy preferences in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Spain. The study examines to what extent politicians prefer increasing the role of government (directive state), transferring public tasks to private sector organizations (hollow state), transferring public tasks to third sector organizations (communitarian state), or downsizing and reducing the role of government without transferring tasks (coping state). The experiment primes decision-makers on the pandemic's negative financial and economic prospects vis-à-vis its impact on health and well-being. When negative economic prospects are emphasized, the study finds decreased preferences for a directive state and increased preferences for a coping state. The study concludes that how decision-makers interpret the nature of a crisis determines their preferred response An emphasis on the negative economic prospects of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to increase preferences for renewed policies of austerity.This article looks at the financial performance and position of English professional football before Covid-19 and the impact that the pandemic has had on the industry. It analyses revenue streams in different divisions, the dependency that clubs have on them and how they have changed as a result of the pandemic. The article also reviews key costs for football clubs, the extent to which they can be reduced, different business models that operate, and possible funding sources for the sport from third parties and within the industry.The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented economic disruption and unemployment worldwide, threatening to become both a financial and a humanitarian crisis. Prolonged labor market recession and an acute rise of unemployment are expected. The main question for career counselors will be how to provide effective career counseling to unemployed people in the post-COVID-19 world, where they may face many other unemployment-related problems. In this article, we suggest application of a holistic intervention model of career counseling for unemployed people that was designed to address the consequences of the acute financial recession in Greece.We use qualitative interviews to study subsistence consumers confronting the global, pervasive and extended challenges of COVID-19, encompassing literally all realms of daily life. For subsistence consumers whose circumstances are filled with day-to-day uncertainty and a small margin of error to begin with, the pandemic has led to manifold uncertainties and a disappearing margin of error, with potentially lethal consequences. Their constraints to thinking and lack of self-confidence arising from both low income and low literacy are magnified in the face of the complex, invisible pandemic and the fear and panic it has caused. Characteristic relational strengths are weakened with social distancing and fear of infection. Yet, subsistence consumers display humanity in catastrophe, and confront the uncontrollable by reiterating a higher power. Consumption is reduced to the very bare essentials and income generation involves staying the course versus finding any viable alternative. We derive implications for consumer affairs.The first months of 2020 rapidly threw people into a period of societal turmoil and pathogen threat with the COVID-19 pandemic. By promoting epistemic and existential motivational processes and activating people's behavioral immune systems, this pandemic may have changed social and political attitudes. The current research specifically asked the following question As COVID-19 became pronounced in the United States during the pandemic's emergence, did people living there become more socially conservative? We present a repeated-measures study (N = 695) that assessed political ideology, gender role conformity, and gender stereotypes among U.S. adults before (January 25-26, 2020) versus during (March 19-April 2, 2020) the pandemic. During the pandemic, participants reported conforming more strongly to traditional gender roles and believing more strongly in traditional gender stereotypes than they did before the pandemic. Political ideology remained constant over time. These findings suggest that a pandemic may promote the preference for traditional gender roles.During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic takeaway food orders generally increased, yet sales of Chinese and Italian food declined. At this time, news sources ran stories on the safety of cuisine from these countries, frequently juxtaposed with communications on mortality-related information related to the virus. Terror management theory suggests mortality concerns can lead people to defend against the psychological threat of death by bolstering positive evaluations of products and values of their own culture, and by disparaging products and values of other cultures. This translates to food preferences, with death reminders heightening consumption of food from one's own (vs. others') culture. However, whether this extends to food safety perceptions has not yet been probed. In the present experimental study, we examine whether death reminders (vs. a control topic) led U.S. participants to view American takeaway food as safer to consume, relative to Chinese and Italian food. Results indicate that across conditions, American food was evaluated as safer relative to Chinese and Italian takeout. Further, American takeaway was seen as safer after mortality reminders (vs. a control topic), with no differences in safety evaluations for Chinese or Italian takeout. Results are discussed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.Vaccinations remain a critical, albeit surprisingly controversial, health behavior, especially with the promise of widely available COVID-19 vaccine. Intellectual humility, a virtue characterized by nonjudgmental recognition of one's own intellectual fallibility, may counter rigidity associated with anti-vaccination attitudes and help promote vaccine-related behaviors. This study investigated whether intellectual humility is related to anti-vaccination attitudes and intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19, and whether intellectual humility can predict unique variance in these outcomes beyond participant demographic and personal factors. Participants (N = 351, 57.23% male, mean age = 37.41 years, SD = 11.51) completed a multidimensional measure for intellectual humility, the anti-vaccination attitudes (VAX) scale, and a two-item COVID-19 vaccination intention scale. Bivariate correlations demonstrated that intellectual humility was negatively related with anti-vaccination attitudes overall, r(349) = -.46, p less then .001, and positively related to intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19, r(349) = .20, p less then .001. Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that intellectual humility predicted all four types anti-vaccination attitudes, overall anti-vaccination attitudes, and COVID-19 vaccination intentions above and beyond demographic and personal factors (i.e., sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, socioeconomic status, and political orientation), ΔR 2 between .08 and .18, ps less then .001. These results bolster intellectual humility as a malleable psychological factor to consider in efforts to combat anti-vaccination attitudes and promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake.Across three studies, we investigated who expresses concern for COVID-19, or coronavirus, and engages in behaviors that are consistent with slowing the spread of COVID-19. In Studies 1 and 2 (n = 415, n = 199), those with warmer feelings toward scientists were more concerned and engaged in greater COVID-preventative behaviors, regardless of partisanship. That is, an anti-scientists bias was related to lessened concern and toward less preventive behaviors. Furthermore, those who were the most optimistic about hydroxychloroquine, a purported but unproven treatment against the virus, were less likely to engage in behaviors designed to decrease the spread of COVID-19. In Study 3 (n = 259), asking participants to watch a scientist discuss hydroxychloroquine on Fox News led people to greater endorsement of COVID behaviors. In short, positive feelings toward scientists, rather than political attitudes or knowledge, related to who was concerned and those willing to engage in pandemic reducing behaviors. These behaviors were not immutable and can be changed by scientific out-reach.Are disaster relief appeals more successful if they emphasize the material cost of disaster events in terms of economic damages and need for shelter, food, and health care, or if they emphasize the human cost in terms of psychological suffering and trauma caused? Although giving patterns seem to suggest that large-scale events that cause widespread material damage (e.g., the Asian Tsunami of 2004) are more successful at eliciting donations than smaller scaled events, it is argued that this pattern is explained by the fact that large perceived material damage leads to more perceived human suffering. In other words, it is the perceived human suffering which is the proximal driver of donations, rather than the material damage itself. Therefore, relief appeals that emphasize the human cost of events are more successful at eliciting donations than appeals that emphasize the material cost of events. This was demonstrated in a study focusing on donations by British participants (N = 200) to the Syrian refugee crisis in 2020, a study focusing on donations by British participants to victims of severe weather events in Eastern and Southern Africa in 2020 (N = 210), and a study among British participants focusing on a fictitious event (N = 150).
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/A014418.html