Category: Covid-19

Background

The number of residency applications submitted by medical students has risen at an alarming rate, causing increased cost of applications and subsequent interview travel. These both contribute to increased cost for medical students. In light of these concerns, specialty governing bodies have proposed ideas to fight these trends including, application limits, interview limits, using a preference signaling system, and continuing virtual interviews. During the Covid-19 pandemic, all residency interviews were performed virtually, essentially making travel expenses negligible. However, this created a new concern with regards to assessing program and applicant compatibility, as compared to in-person interactions and did nothing to combat the increases in application numbers.Therefore, we want to critically assess the effects of virtual interviews on number of applications submitted, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended. We also aim to analyze how applicants viewed the virtual process.

600 medical students were eligible to participate. 456 students from years 2018-2020 were eligible to be surveyed following the NRMP match. 144 students were eligible to be surveyed following 2021 NRMP match. The survey was distributed to medical school graduates just prior to graduation andasked how many programs each student applied to, how many interview invites they received, and how many interviews they attended. The 2021 survey also asked, How did virtual interviews affect your interview experience? The quantitative results were compared with student's t-test and qualitative results are presented below.

The averagenumber of programs each applicant applied to increased from 35.4 to 47.7(p-value=0.002) when residency interviews switched from in-person to virtual. However, interview invites received and interviews attended did not change (16.8 vs 16.3, p-value=0.91, 11.8 vs 12.7, p-value=0.18). There were 188 participants in the in-person interview group (response rate=41.2%) and 128 participants in the virtual interview group (response rate=83.3%). The standard deviation and range also increased for number of applications, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended.

There were 123 responses to the free response question. 36 had a positive experience, 44 were neutral, 47 were negative. The positive themes included 15 noted less expenses, 18 noted more convenient/less time, and 18 were able to attend more interviews. Negative themes included, 38 noted difficulty assessing program fit, 19 wanted to see the program or city in person, eight had increased interest in home/local programs, six found it difficult to make connections or stand out.

Sixty-three percent of students reported a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews. Students applied to more programs when interviews were virtual, but did not receive more interview invites or attendmore interviews. These results suggest that virtual interviews are sufficient to conduct residency interviews, however the number of applications continues to rise with no increase in the number interview invites received or number of interviews attended. The increase in the standard deviation and range for all three variables may point to some applicants being able to get more invites and attend more interviews leaving less available spots for other applicants.

Medical students are currently applying to more residency programs than they ever have before, and we are continuing to see an increase each year [1,2]. Increased application numbers can be fueled by a fear of not matching and can lead to increased costs for students [1,3]. During the 2020-2021 Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) cycle, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended doing all interviews virtually [4].

Subsequently, changes have been proposed for upcoming interview cycles, including continuing with virtual interviews, and implementing application/interview limits, in an attempt to maximize efficiency and minimize cost [1,5,6]. However, one concern for students is they may have adequate exposure to programs, allowing them to confidently make an informed decision.Applicants thoughts on virtual interviews have been an emerging research topic in an attempt to obtain guidance on the ideal process for future interview cycles [7].

While the trend of increased application numbers for individual specialties has been published [8-16], the comparison between applications, interview invites, and interviews attended across the spectrum of virtual and in-person interviews has not been examined.

This study aims to identify variations between the number of residency applications completed, interview invites received, and interviews attended during the two separate styles of interviews: virtual and in-person. We also aim to summarize applicants thoughts and feelings toward virtual interviews, identifying themes that may lead to future improvements.

All graduating medical students from the years 2018 to 2021 were eligible to participate (601 students). For the in-person interview group, 457students from the years 2018 to 2020 were invited to participate in this study following the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match. For the virtual interview group, 144 students were invited to participate in this study following the 2021 NRMP match. No participants were excluded from the study other than those that chose not to complete the survey.This study was reviewed by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board at a single United States allopathic medical school and granted IRB exemption due to the survey nature of the study (IRB number: 201308718). Informed consent was waived by the IRB, however, it was readily available for all participants.

This is a retrospective cohort study with the experimental groups being the in-person interview group and virtual interview group. We retrospectively reviewed the data following the match process and participants were separated into the two experimental groups according to their graduation year and the type of interviews that they underwent i.e., in-person interviews for the batch of 2018 to 2020 or virtual interviews for the batch of 2021.

Paper surveys were distributed to participants when they picked up their graduation materials by members of the research team. They were completed and returned immediately. All surveys asked, the number of programs each student applied to, interview invites received, and interviews attended. The 2021 survey also asked, How did virtual interviews affect your interview experience? The survey responses were reviewed by the research team and deidentified in an excel database. The quantitative data was recorded as numerical values. The qualitative data was recorded exactly as the participant had written it for further analysis. The qualitative free response answers were categorized into positive, negative, or neutral responses as well as seven emerging themes. Each response could have more than one comment classified to each theme. If a student listed a positive and negative response, then it was classified as neutral. Each response was classified as a single data point as positive, negative, or neutral. Then all other comments were treated individually totaling 124 individual data points. Any responses that simply stated, virtual interviews were not good, virtual interviews had no effect, or virtual interviews were good, were only classified as negative, neutral, or positive accordingly, and not included in themes analysis. The themes that were considered positive were fewer expenses, more convenience/less time, and the ability to attend more interviews. Negative themes included difficulty assessing program fit, wanting to see more of the city/hospital, increased interest in home/local programs, and difficulty making connections/standing out. Assigning comments to positive, negative, or neutral and developing themes was performed independently by two authors (AM, AH). Any discrepancies were discussed, and an agreement was obtained.

We compared the number of programs applied to, interview invites received, and interviews attended for the in-person interview cohortto the virtual interview cohort using Students t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 19 (College Station, TX). Qualitative data was only available for the virtual interview cohort, therefore it is discussed and displayed visually in the results section.

Response rates for years 2018 to 2020 were (188/457) 41.1%, and 83.3% (124/144) for 2021. There were no differences in age, gender, or ethnicity between the two experimental groups (Table 1). There was an increase in the number of programs applied to in the virtual interview group. This group applied to an average of 47.7programs per applicant compared to 35.4 programs per applicant for the in-person interview group. There was no difference in the number ofinterview invites received between the virtual interview group and the in-person interview group (16.3 vs 16.8 p-value=0.91) (Table 2). There was also no difference in the average number of interviews attended in the virtual interview group compared to the in-person interview group (12.7 vs 11.8 p-value=0.18)(Table 2).

There were 128 responses to the free-response question (response rate=128/144, 88.9%). Thirty-six had a positive experience, 44 were neutral, and 48 were negative (Figure 1). Therefore, 62.5% of respondents noted a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews.Of the 128 overall responses, 124 comments were categorized into either one of the three positive themes or one of the four negative themes. The positive themes included 19 noting fewer expenses/cheaper, 18 noted more convenient/less time, and 17 were able to attend more interviews (Figure 2). Negative themes included 36 indicating difficulty assessing program fit, 22 wanted to see the program or city in person, six had increased interest in home/local programs, and six said it was difficult to make connections or stand out (Figure 2).

We saw an increase in the number of applications submitted during virtual interviews, but we did not see an increase in interview invites received or interviews attended. As mentioned above, this was likely because interview invites are a relatively fixed variable. We postulate that applicants likely were aware of the upcoming decreased cost of virtual interviews and may have already set aside or borrowed funds to complete the interview cycle, therefore allowing more spending on the total number of submitted applications. Even with a slight increase in application fees, the process was considerably cheaper than in prior cycles. This further supports the recommendations for application limits, as the increase in applications had diminishing returns, as it did not result in increased interview invites or interviews attended [1,5,6].As mentioned above, it can be disadvantageous to many students.

Overall, almost two-thirds of participants reported a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews. Therefore, in conjunction with the decreased time and cost, and consistent with other published findings [7], virtual interviews may be a reasonable option for future interview cycles. The most prevalent positive responses were fewer expenses, more convenient/less time commitment, and the ability to attend more interviews.

The decreased expenses are expected and primarily due to the lack of travel expenses. Fogel et al. found that the expenses for each typical orthopedic surgery residency interview were $250 to $499. Around 13% of those study participants spent more than $7,500 on interviews, and 41% stated they declined interviews due to financial reasons [17]. Additionally, Blackshaw et al. found that each in-person emergency medicine residency interview costs an average of $342 for an average total of $8,312 on applications and interviews [18]. Orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, ophthalmology, internal medicine, radiology, and otolaryngology have all published papers highlighting the increased cost of applying to residency in each of their particular specialties [8,10-12,16,18,19]. Continuing virtual interviews certainly will decrease the financial burden placed on students.

Along with the cost savings, many respondents reported increased convenience and decreased time commitment with virtual interviews. These findings are associated with students reporting the ability to attend more interviews. This was classified as a positive in this study since more interviews will likely increase the likelihood of an applicant matching a residency position. However, as demonstrated by Whipple et al., while applying for more programs can be advantageous for one applicant, it can be a disadvantage to the group of applicants, overall.When the entire cohort applies to more programs the benefit of increased matching likelihood is lost, yet the overall cost is increased [20]. They found when all applicants applied to the maximal number of programs it led to a poorer result for the majority of students. These findings make sense because if one applicant applies to more programs than the other applicants, they are more likely to receive more interviews. If they receive more interviews, they can have a longer rank list thus increasing their chance of matching to one of those programs. However, the total number of interview slots available is relatively fixed. If stronger applicants complete more interviews, they may cause the undesired effects of decreasing the number of interviews available for average or below-average applicants, therefore decreasing their likelihood of matching into their desired specialty.For example, if a strong applicant is now able to attend 20 instead of 15 interviews, another applicant who previously may have received and attended 10 interviews may now only receive five interviews. In both theoretical scenarios, the average is unchanged at 12.5 interviews, but the applicant with more interviews and a longer rank list is more likely to match.As seen in our study, the average number of interviews attended for in-person and virtual interviews was similar. This was in the context of multiple students reporting being able to attend more interviews, yet the average number of interviews remained the same. This phenomenon of some students getting more interviews while some receiving fewer occurred in our study population, as seen with the much larger standard deviation and range during virtual interviews (Table 2). These findings are the basis of capping residency interviews at 12 per applicant, as proposed by Morgan et al. [5]. We find this to be one of the most concerning issues with virtual interviews as they currently are being conducted. Averagebut competitive applicants may not match within the current algorithm just because they were unable to receive the same number of interviews as they previously might have during in-person interviews.

The negative aspects of virtual interviews demonstrated in this study are difficulty assessing program fit, wanting to see the program or city in person, increased interest in home/local programs, and difficulty in making connections or standing out. Assessing fit may be the more difficult item to rectify using virtual platformsdue to the lack of organic in-person interactions. One potential solution to this issue is one round of virtual interviews, followed by another round of in-person interviews [21]. The opportunity to see more of the city or hospital facilities is an easier obstacle to overcome.With additional time and careful planning, programs may be able to provide more adequate videos and photos of the hospital facilities and surrounding city. Some programs such as the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Med-Peds residency program are using virtual reality with 66% of respondents stating that virtual reality was superior or non-inferior to in-person tours [22]. We classified increased interest in home/local programs as a negative responsebecause it likely decreases diversity in residency programs. A lack of diversity in medical training has been highlighted in both orthopedic and otolaryngology literature [23,24]. Therefore, in an attempt to continue to decrease these disparities, we classified it as a negative response in our survey. These obstacles can be addressed by interviewing more applicants from other regions and other medical schools. However, before virtual interviews, as shown by Loh et al., students were already more likely to match in the same region they attended medical school [25]. The final negative response students reported was difficulty making connections or standing out. However, as students may feel this is a concern, each student is given more equal opportunity for total virtual face time, as compared to informal dinners and gatherings.Additionally, some students may have similar feelings about in-person interviews. There is also published literature by Sarac et al. on how to optimize the virtual interview experience and how to best prepare [26]. Therefore, we feel like this is a real, but correctable concern with virtual interviews.

A potential limitation to this study is the classification of positive, negative, or neutral responses. For one student, increased interest in home/local programs may be positive, while for another it may be negative. We also classified responses with a positive and negative theme as neutral responses. For example, decreased cost and difficulty assessing fit were both positive and negative responses, respectively, which were analyzed as such and were also included in the neutral group. For each student, these factors hold different weight, and it is impossible to accurately discern how much each factor plays into a students decision. In the future, we want to examine the trends over time with a larger multi-institutional study population.

In conclusion, conducting virtual interviews correlated with an increased number of residency program applications, but not an increased number of interview invites nor interviews attended. Overall, most applicants felt the virtual interviews did not cause a negative interview experience and saved considerable expenses. Therefore, we conclude that with concentrated efforts to improve concerns identified in this study such as assessing fit and being able to see more of the hospital/city even virtually, virtual interviews are an effective method for conducting residency interviews.

Here is the original post:

COVID-19 Increased Residency Applications and How Virtual Interviews Impacted Applicants - Cureus

A new COVID-19 testing site has opened in Windsor amid rising positivity rates in Weld County.

The site, operated by Curative, is open 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. weekdays at Eastman Park.The location offers PCR and antigen testing.

Insurance is required, but there is also a self-pay option available at the site for those who would like to be tested without insurance. A lab-based PCR cost $99 for patients who opt for self-pay, while there is no cost to the insured patients.

If the patient does the self-pay, the cost for the Lab-based PCR is $99. If they have insurance, there is no cost to the patient as we will bill the insurance.

Weld Countys one-week cumulative incident rate per 100,00 residents is at 201.9 with 664 new cases reported in the last week, according to Weld County COVID-19 data.

The countys one-week average positive test rate is 12.11% up from 10% two weeks ago a significant spike since the positive test rate of 4.92% in the second to last week in April.

In January 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationreleased an alert about the risk of false results, particularly negative, with the Curative SARS-Cov-2 test. Curative testing sites have since halted the use of the tests.

The companys two sites in Greeley a kiosk at the University of Northern Colorado and a drive-thru in west Greeley also stopped testing patients with the Curative SARS-Cov-2 test due to the alert.

To make an appointment, go to curative.com.

Visit link:

Curative opens COVID-19 testing site in Windsor - Greeley Tribune

ReportLinker

The global sub-woofer market is expected to grow from US$ 834. 77 million in 2021 to US$ 1,132. 62 million by 2028; it is estimated to register a CAGR of 4. 5% during 2021-2028. A sub-woofer is used for various applications such as home audio, cinema sound, car audio, sound reinforcement, outdoor entertainment, and others.

New York, June 20, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Sub-Woofer Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Application and End-user" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06232610/?utm_source=GNW The requirement for sub-woofers is growing with the increasing number of public meetings, stand-up comedy shows, and cinema halls.

Shifting preferences and changing consumer lifestyle toward using on-board infotainment systems in ride-hailing services is anticipated to create promising opportunities in the sub-woofer market.

The sub-woofer market is segmented into application, end-user, and geography.Based on application, the sub-woofer market is segmented into car audio, home audio, cinema sound, sound reinforcement, and others.

In 2020, home audio segment held the largest share in the market.In terms of end-user, the sub-woofer market is segmented into residential and commercial.

In 2020, the commercial segment accounted for a larger share.Geographically, the market is broadly segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific (APAC), the Middle East & Africa (MEA), and South America (SAM).

In 2020, Asia Pacific accounted for a significant share in the global market.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the sub-woofer industry came to a halt due to minimal resources.The temporary shutdown of the manufacturing units has negatively impacted the growth of the sub-woofer market across the globe and has created many uncertainties in the stock market, decline in the supply chain, falling business confidence, and growing panic among consumers.

Due to the unusual coronavirus outbreak, the production and supply chain procedures have been halted.Also, the research and development (R&D) exercises of key players have been halted across the globe.

The sale of sub-woofer has been decreased during the Covid-19 outbreak due to the operational constraints on sales channels such as specialty stores and e-commerce platforms. Nonetheless, certain manufacturing firms have restarted their plans and prepared to owe to the rests imposed on the restrictions, by the government bodies, in several regions.

In 2020, the US witnessed most severe impact of COVID-19.Sub-woofer manufacturers and service providers were affected due to nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, shutdown of production facilities, and shortage of employees.

The pandemic led to health and economic crises in the US.Moreover, it led to disruptions in the consumer electronics industry, impacting various aspects such as supply chain, manufacturing, and sales.

The pandemic has directly and indirectly affected the sub-woofer market, and it is expected to witness growth with decreasing COVID-19 cases.

The overall sub-woofer market size has been derived using both primary and secondary sources.Extensive secondary research has been conducted using internal and external sources to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to the market.

The research also serves the purpose of obtaining an overview and forecast of the sub-woofer market with all the segments.It also offers an overview and forecast of the market based on the segmentation provided concerning five major regionsNorth America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and South America.

Also, primary interviews were conducted with industry participants and commentators to validate data and gain more analytical insights into the topic. The participants of the research include VPs, business development managers, market intelligence managers, and national sales managersalong with external consultants such as valuation experts, research analysts, and key opinion leadersspecializing in the sub-woofer market.

Dynaudio A/S, K-Array, Harman International, Sony Corporation, SV Sound, Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Paradigm Electronics Inc., LW Speakers professional sound systems, Klipsch Group Inc., and JVC Kenwood Holdings Inc are among the few companies operating in the global sub-woofer market.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06232610/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

Story continues

Follow this link:

Sub-Woofer Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Application and End-user - Yahoo Finance

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. The gym closures, social distancing mandates and other COVID-19 mitigation policies in the U.S. negatively affected the mental health and well-being of some people with disabilities by significantly curtailing their ability to remain active, researchers found.

In a survey of more than 950 people with diverse types of disabilities, researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign identified four groups of people heavily impacted, resilient, adapted and radically changed who were differently affected by the pandemic.

They observed that people in the heavily impacted group, who experienced the greatest disruptions during the pandemic about 39% of those surveyed, many of them veterans and women reported significantly worse mental health.

These people experienced the greatest negative effects on their mental and physical well-being compared with peers who were able to continue with their pre-pandemic activities or who adapted by trying new ones, according to Jules Woolf, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the university and the first author of the study.

People in the heavily impacted group indicated that they were either not engaging in physical activity at all or their participation was greatly diminished by pandemic safety restrictions, Woolf said. These participants scored significantly lower on well-being indicators such as life satisfaction, self-efficacy, quality of life and general health than their peers in the other three groups we identified. They also experienced greater loneliness and depression.

Self-efficacy is the belief in ones ability to meet challenges and accomplish goals.

By contrast, people in the resilient group reported the highest quality of life and general health. These individuals, about 21% of those surveyed, experienced minor impact on the types of activities they engaged in and the amount of time they spent performing them.

Woolf and co-authors Mikihiro Sato and Jon Welty Peachey, both professors in the same department; and then-doctoral student Wonju Lee developed and conducted the research with the nonprofit Move United, which promotes sport and recreation among people with disabilities.

The study participants engaged in a wide variety of physical activities, including outdoor aerobic sports such as walking, running and wheelchair pushing; cycling; weightlifting; water sports such as swimming and kayaking; target sports; boxing; and golf.

Six different scales were used to assess participants mental health and well-being, quality of life, satisfaction with their physical health, frequency of feeling lonely or depressed, self-esteem and overall life satisfaction, according to the study.

Slightly more than half of those surveyed had mobility impairments or limb loss or deficiency, 16% had neuromuscular impairments and 11% had brain injuries. About a third of the study participants were veterans and 59% were male.

Participants with neuromuscular disabilities, blindness or low vision, and/or cognitive or intellectual disabilities were more likely to be in the heavily impacted group.

People with particular types of disabilities, rare or multiple impairments may require greater assistance or additional accommodations that necessitate close contact and are incompatible with social-distancing policies, Woolf said.

People in the adapted group, who made up 27% of the study population, adjusted to pandemic restrictions by changing the types of activities they engaged in to varying extents. They also participated virtually, in person or alone.

People in the radically changed group who composed more than 12% of the total sample discovered new modes of physical activity during the pandemic, particularly ones they could perform alone such as running, walking and online activities. However, the amount of time they engaged in these activities was variable.

The mental health and well-being scores of people in the radically changed and adapted groups were comparable across all the outcomes, the researchers found.

Published in the journal Leisure Studies, the study is believed to be the first to examine the impact of online recreational activities on people with disabilities during disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

About 10% of the participants transitioned to online platforms. While virtual options helped some stay active and alleviated feelings of isolation, those in the study primarily used these technologies to supplement rather than replace their traditional activities.

But even among the people who were able to negotiate the constraints imposed by pandemic safety policies, the adaptations they made often had suboptimal outcomes, Woolf said.

This was observed with the radically changed group and their greater frequency of depression compared to the resilient group. One potential explanation is that the radically changed group tended to engage in activities alone and virtually that may have contributed to feelings of isolation.

Events such as natural disasters and epidemics tend to have a greater impact on people with disabilities, diminishing their ability to remain active; therefore, its crucial to understand how public policies associated with these events affect this population and to develop promotions that target them, the researchers wrote.

In the U.S., the COVID-19 mitigation policies that were imposed exacerbated structural constraints that people with disabilities face, such as access to sport clubs and gyms, Woolf said. Moreover, interpersonal constraints and limitations on social gatherings restricted assistance that some may need, while impairments may affect their ability to remain active. These intrapersonal constraints need to be accounted for, as demonstrated in this study.

View post:

Study examined COVID-19 policies' effects on people with disabilities - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. Check out the browser extension in the Firefox Add-ons Store.

Originally posted here:

COVID-19 Related Circulars or Guidance (Non-Exhaustive) Published By Financial Services Regulators of Hong Kong (Last Updated: 17 June 2022) |...

New York, June 20, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Automotive Backing Plate Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Brake Types, Brake Material Type, and Vehicle Type" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06279418/?utm_source=GNW However, air enters the compressor via an air filter and is sent to the reservoir by an unloader valve. It then enters the brake chamber via a brake valve, which is used to adjust the amount of braking. Most automobiles include servo braking systems meant to increase the amount of pressure the driver delivers to the brake pedal. The system uses a vacuum in the intake manifold to create the excess pressure necessary for the brake to work. Furthermore, the mechanisms are only functional when the engine is turned on.

When an EV driver releases the accelerator pedal during regenerative braking, the power flow from the battery to the motor is discontinued.However, the spinning component of the engine (the rotor) continues rotating in tandem with the wheels of the still-moving automobile.

Without a constant supply of electricity from the battery, the motor transforms into a generator, transferring kinetic energy from the spinning rotor to the battery, while resistance to the rotor slows the vehicle.Regenerative braking is a new technique that has been in use for over a century, although research continues to improve its efficiency.

Improvements to batteries will enhance the amount of energy that regenerative braking can store.Supercapacitor advancements will also improve braking efficiency.

Regenerative braking is most effective at higher speeds and on long downhill since more kinetic energy is available to be converted. Continued research on regenerative braking system can reduce the energy loss in the braking process to make electric vehicles more efficient, economical, and environmental-friendly. The continuous advancements in regenerative braking systems provide lucrative opportunities for the growth of the automotive backing plate market during the forecast period.

When a driver rapidly applies the brakes to a moving automobile, the wheels are likely to become stuck owing to the sudden braking force and slide on the road.Even if the driver acts swiftly, the automobile will be out of the drivers control.

The anti-braking system (ABS) keeps the wheels from locking and instead applies intermittent braking power to allow the wheels to spin slightly.This significantly improves the cars braking effectiveness and enables the driver to guide the vehicle away from the obstacle while braking strongly.

Electronic brake-force distribution (EBD) ensures that brake force is distributed to the wheels as per road conditions and the drivers needs.Speed sensors are used to detect the velocity of the wheels and automobile.

The data is transmitted into the ECU, continually comparing the two numbers. When it detects slippage caused by the wheels higher speed than the cars speed, it transmits the instruction to apply a slight braking force to the sliding wheel. This function determines which wheel requires more braking force and delivers it to that wheel independently. These features lead to the growth of the automotive backing plate market.

An automated braking system is a vital component of car safety technology.It is a powerful system specifically designed to either prevent or limit the speed of a moving vehicle before a collision with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or any other barriers.

These systems employ sensors, such as radar, video, infrared, or ultrasonic, to identify potential objects in front of the vehicle and then use brake control to avoid a collision if the item is identified.An automated braking system can also communicate with a vehicles GPS and utilize its database of stop signs and other traffic data to apply the brakes in time if the driver fails to do so.

For instance, Subarus EyeSight system uses video input in the form of two-color cameras mounted at the top of the windshield to look for contrast with the background and vertical surfaces when scanning the area.The software can then recognize different images, including pedestrians, motorcycles, and rear ends of other vehicles.

These advantages of the automatic braking system will propel the automotive backing plate market.

The automotive backing plate market across the globe continues to grow year-on-year, exhibiting a steady growth rate.The region is concentrated with leading automakers and tier 2 & small vehicle manufacturers.

The economic rise in the region positively impacts the consumption pattern of passenger cars.The automotive backing plate market for premium cars is constantly increasing in North America, owing to steady economic progression.

Due to the increasing demand from North American consumers, the automakers in the region are increasing their production lines.The automotive backing plate market is rising as automakers must comply with strict emission norms.

For instance, the US Department of Energy has approved more than ~US$ 8 billion in loans to support the automobile sector through the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing (ATVM) program, which has assisted firms in redesigning their vehicle parts for improved fuel efficiency, owing to the growth of automotive backing plate market in the region.

Key companies in the automotive backing plate market include Super Circle, NUCAP, MAT Foundry Group Ltd., INDUS Marmara Auto Components Pvt Ltd., Dorman Products, Ridex GMBH, ORTLINGHAUS-WERKE GmbH, Sparex, RSB Tech Solution, and ACDelco. The report also comprises secondary research on other companies that hold a significant share of the automotive backing plate market.

The overall size of the automotive backing plate market has been derived using both primary and secondary sources.To begin the research process, exhaustive secondary research has been conducted using internal and external sources to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to the automotive backing plate market.

The process also serves the purpose of obtaining an overview and forecast for the automotive backing plate market with respect to all the market segments.Also, multiple primary interviews have been conducted with industry participants to validate the data and gain more analytical insights into the automotive backing plate market.

The participants of this process include industry experts such as VPs, business development managers, market intelligence managers, and national sales managersalong with external consultants such as valuation experts, research analysts, and key opinion leadersspecializing in the automotive backing plate market.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06279418/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

More here:

Automotive Backing Plate Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Global Analysis By Brake Types, Brake Material Type, and Vehicle Type -...

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. Vaccination hubs across the five boroughs are getting prepared to administer the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine to babies and children under the age of five as the city awaits the Centers for Disease Control approval.

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged six months to five years old.

The CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is expected to meet this weekend and decide. If the vaccine is recommended, young children could begin get vaccinated as early as next week.

I know how long parents and caretakers of our little ones have been waiting for the moment their youngest would have access to a COVID-19 vaccine, and as soon as that moment comes, I want them to know we will be ready, Adams said.

We are looking to make this process as seamless as possible for parents, which is why were preparing, though city sites and partnerships with trusted pediatricians, to vaccinate and protect all of our children as soon as this vaccine is ready and shipped, Adams said.

Beginning June 21, parents and caregivers can use the citys Vaccine Finder website (vaccinefinder.nyc.gov) to find vaccine locations across the five boroughs, which includes 10 city Vaccine Hubs where the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine will be available for children aged six months through and including five years of age.

On Staten Island, the vaccination hub at Empire Outlets, located at 55 Richmond Terr., will have the vaccine available Monday through Sunday between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

The city Department of Health has been conducting educational outreach to providers; it is also recommending that parents begin contacting their childrens pediatricians to see if their office will have the COVID-19 vaccine available.

Weve been waiting so long for a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine for our babies, and thankfully that time has arrived. While we still await formal federal guidance, we want parents to know that the vaccine is here, it is safe, and it protects against COVID-19 and its most severe complications, said city Health Commissioner Dr. Vasan.

FOLLOW KRISTIN F. DALTON ON TWITTER.

See the rest here:

NYC prepares to vaccinate babies against COVID-19 while awaiting ...

Introduction: One of the challenges of surgery on patients with active SARS-CoV-2(severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection is the increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Aim: This study will describe and compare the postoperative morbidity and mortality in asymptomatic patients or those with mild infection with those with severe COVID-19 infection undergoing elective or and emergency surgery.

Materials and methods: This is a retrospective study of 37 COVID19 patients who had the infection 7 days prior to and 30 days after emergency or elective surgery. Patients were divided to two groups. Group1: the asymptomatic or those with mild infection that is diagnosed just before surgery (14 patients). Group 2: those who were admitted to the hospital because of severe COVID-19 and were operated for COVID-19 related complications (23 patients). Morbidity and mortality of both groups was studied.

Results: There was no significant difference in gender between the two groups. There were 5 females (2 in group 1, and 3 in group 2) and 32 males (12 in group 1, and 20 in group 2). Mean age for all patients was 49.8years (38 for group 1 and 57 for group2). Median age for all patients was 50 years (37.5 for group 1 and 57 years for group 2). Sepsis developed in 7 patients (1 patient in group 1 and in 6 patients in group 2). Statistically there was no significant difference in occurrence of sepsis between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the intensive care stay between the two groups (higher in group 2). Four deaths were reported in group 1 and fourteen in group 2. Eighteen out of thirty-seven patients died.

Conclusion: Severity of COVID-19 infection will prolong the hospitalization and ICU stay in surgical patients with no significant effect on mortality.

Keywords: COVID-19; Morbidity; Mortality; Surgery.

More:

Impacts of severity of Covid-19 infection on the morbidity and ...

COVID-19 shots for U.S. infants, toddlers and preschoolers moved a step closer Wednesday.

The Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisers gave a thumbs-up to vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for the littlest kids.

The outside experts voted unanimously that the benefits of the shots outweigh any risks for children under 5 thats roughly 18 million youngsters. They are the last age group in the U.S. without access to COVID-19 vaccines and many parents have been anxious to protect their little children.

If all the regulatory steps are cleared,shots should be available next week.

This is a long-awaited vaccine, said one panel member, Dr. Jay Portnoy of Childrens Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. There are so many parents who are absolutely desperate to get this vaccine and I think we owe it to them to give them a choice to have the vaccine if they want to.

Dr. Peter Marks, FDAs vaccine chief, opened the meeting with data showing a quite troubling surge in young childrens hospitalizations during the omicron wave, and noted 442 children under 4 have died during the pandemic. Thats far fewer than adult deaths, but should not be dismissed in considering the need for vaccinating the youngest kids, he said.

Each child thats lost essentially fractures a family, Marks said.

An analysis from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that kid-sized doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine appears safe and effective for children under five, which would be a huge step towards vaccinating the nation's youngest children who were previously unprotected.

FDA reviewers said both brands appear to be safe and effective for children as young as 6 months old inanalyses postedahead of the all-day meeting. Side effects, including fever and fatigue, were generally minor in both, and less common than seen in adults.

The two vaccines use the same technology but there are differences. In a call with reporters earlier this week, vaccine experts noted that the shots haven't been tested against each other, so theres no way to tell parents if one is superior.

That is a really important point,"' said Dr. Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former FDA vaccine chief. You cant compare the vaccines directly.

If the FDA agrees with its advisers and authorizes the shots, there's one more step. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will decide on a formal recommendation after its own advisers meet Saturday. If the CDC signs off, shots could be available as soon as Monday or Tuesday at doctor's offices, hospitals and pharmacies..

Pfizers vaccine is for children 6 months through 4 years; Modernas vaccine is for 6 months through 5 years.

Moderna submitted data to the Food and Drug Administration that it hopes will prove two low-dose shots can protect children under the age of 6.

Modernas shots are one-quarter the dose of the companys adult shots. Two doses appeared strong enough to prevent severe illness but only about 40% to 50% effective at preventing milder infections. Moderna has added a booster to its study and expects to eventually offer one.

Pfizer's shots are just one-tenth its adult dose. Pfizer and partner BioNTech found that two shots didnt provide enough protection in testing, so a third was added during the omicron wave.

Pfizers submitted data found no safety concerns and suggested that three shots were 80% effective in preventing symptomatic coronavirus infections. But that was based on just 10 COVID-19 cases; the calculation could change as more cases occur in the companys ongoing studies.

The sameFDA panel on Tuesday backed Moderna's half-sized shots for ages 6 to 11 and full-sized doses for teens.If authorized by the FDA, it would be the second option for those age groups. Currently Pfizer vaccine is their only choice.

The nations vaccination campaign started in December 2020 with the rollout of adult vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, with health care workers and nursing home residents first in line. Teens and school-age children were added last year.

With coronavirus vaccines soon to be available to children ages 5 through 11, kids may not be as excited as their parents to get their shots. Whether its their COVID-19 vaccine or their other routine vaccinations, heres how to help your child get through the stress of getting their shots.

Moderna said in April that it is also seeking regulatory approval outside the U.S. for its little kid shots. According to the World Health Organization, 12 other countries already vaccinate kids under 5, with other brands.

In the U.S., it remains uncertain how many parents want their youngest vaccinated. While COVID-19 is generally less dangerous for young children than older kids and adults, there have been serious cases and some deaths. Many parents trying to keep unvaccinated tots safe have put off family trips or enrolling children in daycare or preschool.

Still, by some estimates,three-quarters of all children have already been infected. Only about 29% of children aged 5 to 11 have been vaccinated since Pfizers shots opened to them last November, a rate far lower than public health authorities consider ideal.

Dr. Nimmi Rajagopal, a family medicine physician at Cook County Health in Chicago, said shes been preparing parents for months.

We have some that are hesitant, and some that are just raring to go, she said.

Editor's note: This story has been updated from its original version to better reflect the timing of Wednesday's approvals

View original post here:

FDA Advisers Endorse Moderna, Pfizer COVID-19 Shots for Kids as Young ...

This Video Library is at the core of the Stigma-Free COVID-19 Youth Wellness Toolkit and visitors to the website will find several videos in this section related to COVID-19 and mental health which can be used by teens, parents, and educators to stay informed and be inspired during this difficult time.

Continued here:

Video Library Teens - Stigma-Free COVID-19 Youth Wellness Toolkit