It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
Make it rain: US states embrace 'cloud seeding' to try to conquer drought
Cloud seeding involves adding small particles of silver iodide to clouds to spur rainfall – but will it work?
An empty irrigation canal at a tree farm in Corrales, New Mexico. Forty percent of the US west of the continental divide classed as being in ‘exceptional drought’, the most severe of four levels of drought. Photograph: Susan Montoya Bryan/AP
With three-quarters of the US west gripped by a seemingly ceaseless drought, several states are increasingly embracing a drastic intervention – the modification of the weather to spur more rainfall. Climate crisis: recent European droughts 'worst in 2,000 years'
The latest reports from the US Drought Monitor have provided sobering reading, with 40% of the US west of the continental divide classed as being in “exceptional drought”, the most severe of four levels of drought. This is down only marginally from 47% in January, a record in the monitor’s 20-year history, and barring the arrival of a barrage of late winter storms will almost guarantee a severely parched year for western states.
“We haven’t had much in the way of winter rain or snow, which is concerning, as we would hope to put a big dent in the drought,” said Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center. “It looks like it’s going to be a very tough year. We are probably looking at increased fire dangers, water restrictions and also impacts to ecosystems, such as small rivers and streams and the wildlife living there.”
The stresses of drought, upon water supplies for drinking and to supply the west’s vast agricultural systems, have prompted eight states to look to a form of weather modification called cloud seeding to stave off the worst.
Cloud seeding involves using aircraft or drones to add small particles of silver iodide, which have a structure similar to ice, to clouds. Water droplets cluster around the particles, modifying the structure of the clouds and increasing the chance of precipitation.
“With drought still a major concern, cloud seeding is an encouraged technology for Wyoming to use based on our drought contingency plan,” said Julie Gondzar, project manager for the state’s water development office. “It is an inexpensive way to help add water to our basins, in small, incremental amounts over long periods of time.”
Cloud seeding experiments have taken place since the 1940s but until recently there was little certainty the method had any positive impact. But research last year managed to pinpoint snowfall that “unambiguously” came from cloud seeding and Gondzar said officials in Wyoming and elsewhere have “concluded that cloud seeding works, and is an effective way to aid in drought-stricken areas, with no negative environmental impacts”.
Others are now looking to join in, including the “four corners” states – Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico – that have been ravaged by the most extreme version of the latest drought. “We are very hopeful for significant funding this year with an eye towards enough to do the entire state in the future,” said Rick Ledbetter, a supervisor for the Roosevelt soil and water district in New Mexico who has run a pilot scheme for cloud seeding. “I believe that there will be no choice in the future but to look at weather modification.”
Experts who have studied cloud seeding point out that it is no panacea, given it doesn’t solve the systemic causes of drought and can be tricky to implement – only certain clouds in certain weather conditions can be seeded with nascent rain and there’s no guarantee it will break a drought even if successful.
“I don’t think cloud seeding will solve the problem but it can help,” said Katja Friedrich, a University of Colorado researcher who has studied the issue. “It needs to be part of a broader water plan that involves conserving water efficiently, we can’t just focus on one thing. Also there is a question whether you will be able to do it in a changing climate – you need cold temperatures and once it gets too warm you aren’t able to do the cloud seeding.”
While states attempt to formulate a response to the growing threat of drought, advocates warn that poorer people, and people of color, are most likely to suffer from a water-constrained future. Miguel Hernandez, from the non-profit Comite Civico de Valle group in Imperial Valley, southern California, said the drought has brought ongoing issues for Latino agricultural workers, some of whom have to resort to using irrigation canals for cooking water or for brushing their teeth.
“Getting them good drinkable water is a priority,” he said. “We have issues with water diverted away to metropolitan areas too, leaving us with little to no water in our region. The drought causes a lot of different issues here.”
The current drought has been building since an exceptionally hot summer last year but the past 20 years can be seen collectively as a “mega-drought” in the US west, Fuchs said. Scientists have pointed to the climate crisis as a key cause.
“There has been very little relief and this could well be a precursor to what can be expected for the west in the future,” Fuchs said. “It’s kind of scary to think that way.”
BLASPHEMY LAWS Polish writer charged for calling president a 'moron'
Jakub Żulczyk faces possible prison term for insulting Andrzej Duda over his comments on Biden election win
Andrzej Duda congratulated Joe Biden for his ‘successful presidential campaign’ but said he was waiting for ‘the nomination by the electoral college’. Photograph: Andrzej Lange/EPA
Agence France-Presse in Warsaw Tue 23 Mar 2021
A Polish writer faces a possible prison sentence for insulting President Andrzej Duda by calling him a “moron” over comments the latter made about Joe Biden’s US election victory.
Jakub Żulczyk, the screenwriter behind the popular TV series Blinded by the Lights and Belfer, said prosecutors had charged him under an article in the criminal code for insulting the head of state in a Facebook post.
“I am, I suspect, the first writer in this country in a very long time to be tried for what he wrote,” he said on Facebook.
In his post on 7 November last year, Żulczyk commented on a curiously worded tweet in which Duda congratulated Biden for his “successful presidential campaign” but said he was waiting for “the nomination by the electoral college”.
Duda, who is supported by the populist rightwing Law and Justice (Pis) party, was a close ally of Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who unsuccessfully contested the election result.
Aleksandra Skrzyniarz, a spokeswoman for Warsaw district prosecutors, told Polish news agency PAP on Monday that charges had been filed against a man, naming him only as “Jakub Z”.
“The defendant was accused of committing an act of public insult on 7 November last year on a social networking website against the president of the Republic of Poland, by using a term commonly recognised as insulting,” the spokeswoman said.
She added that the charge had been filed earlier this month and that the suspect had been questioned but “did not admit to committing the alleged act and gave explanations”.
“He indicated that the statement constituted a critical assessment of the president’s actions,” she said.
In his post, published in the days immediately after the 3 November election, Żulczyk said that “there is no such thing as ’nomination by the electoral college’”, adding that Biden’s confirmation as US president was “a mere formality”.
“Andrzej Duda is a moron”, the post said.
Poland has been criticised repeatedly over its different insult laws, including one law on offending religious feeling and another on insulting the flags of Poland or other countries.
John Oliver on plastics pollution: 'Our personal behavior is not the main culprit'
The Last Week Tonight host addresses the plastics industry-fueled myth that recycling works
John Oliver on plastic pollution and recycling: ‘Our personal behavior is not the main culprit here, despite what the plastics industry has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to convince us.’ Photograph: YouTube
Oliver’s main segment, however, unpacked the scourge of plastic pollution and the industry-fueled myth of recycling. Despite the omnipresence of the chasing arrows recycling symbol, the vast majority of plastic is neither recycled nor recyclable. Instead, it clogs up landfills, dumps and oceans, permeating our food intake – one study estimated that humans ingest a credit card’s worth of micro-plastic every week. “Which kind of explains Capitol One’s new slogan: what’s in your stomach?” Oliver joked.
Oliver dug into the history of plastic production, and how manufacturers have peddled the idea, under the guise of environmentalism, that “it’s up to you, the consumer, to stop pollution”, he said. “That has been a major throughline in the recycling movement often bankrolled by companies who wanted to drill home the message that it is your responsibility to deal with the environmental impact of their products.”
This message is epitomized by the national myth around recycling’s effectiveness; despite knowing that most plastic – over 90% – can’t be recycled, the industry lobbied state legislators to require the chasing arrows recycling symbol to be placed on all their products, and encouraged local governments to establish curbside recycling programs. “Honestly, it wasn’t all that difficult for them to convince us that all their waste is recyclable, because we so badly want to believe it,” Oliver said. “Lies go down easier when you want them to be true.” Americans' plastic recycling is dumped in landfills, investigation shows
The truth, Oliver said, is that most US plastic waste was sold to China until it banned plastic imports in 2018; now it languishes in domestic dumps or toxic landfills in countries such as Myanmar, as well as in the ocean. And the scale is staggering: by 2050, there will be more plastic by weight than fish in the ocean; the giant garbage patch in the Pacific is now larger than France, Germany and Spain combined.
Yet “frustratingly, the plastic industry’s response to all the damage you’ve seen is to make a big show of tiny improvement and then revert to what they’ve always done, which is heavily push the idea that if we as consumers simply tried hard enough, we could make our plastic problem go away,” said Oliver. But “our personal behavior is not the main culprit here, despite what the plastics industry has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to convince us.”
Oliver advocated for thoughtful, targeted bans of single-use plastics (bags and takeout containers), and extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws that would shift responsibility and the costs of collection from the public sector to the actual producers of plastic waste.
The US is one of the few developed countries without an extended producer responsibility law for plastic – “because, of course it is”, Oliver said – though the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act will be introduced to Congress again soon. As plastic production is expected to triple by 2050, “we will need some version of an EPR law to pass, and soon,” he said.
“The real behavior change has to come from plastics manufacturers themselves,” Oliver concluded. “Without that, nothing significant is going to happen.”
Top Saudi official issued death threat against UN's Khashoggi investigator
Senior official twice threatened to have Agnès Callamard ‘taken care of’ in meeting with UN colleagues in Geneva in January 2020
The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Agnès Callamard: ‘Those threats don’t work on me. It didn’t stop me from acting in a way which I think is the right thing to do.’
A senior Saudi official issued what was perceived to be a death threat against the independent United Nations investigator, Agnès Callamard, after her investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
In an interview with the Guardian, the outgoing special rapporteur for extrajudicial killings said that a UN colleague alerted her in January 2020 that a senior Saudi official had twice threatened in a meeting with other senior UN officials in Geneva that month to have Callamard “taken care of” if she was not reined in by the UN. 'The EU did not rise to the challenge': UN special rapporteur on Europe's failure to fill human rights void
Asked how the comment was perceived by her Geneva-based colleagues, Callamard said: “A death threat. That was how it was understood.”
Callamard, a French national and human rights expert who will this month take on her new post as secretary general of Amnesty International, was the first official to publicly investigate and publish a detailed report into the 2018 murder of Khashoggi, a prominent former insider who used his column at the Washington Post to write critically about the Saudi government.
Callamard’s 100-page report, published in June 2019, concluded that there was “credible evidence” that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and other senior Saudi officials were liable for the killing, and called the murder an “international crime”. The Biden administration has since released its own unclassified report, which concluded that Prince Mohammed had approved the murder. The Saudi government has denied the killing, which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, was ordered by the future king.
The Guardian independently corroborated Callamard’s account of the January 2020 episode.
The alleged threats were made, she said, at a “high-level” meeting between Geneva-based Saudi diplomats, visiting Saudi officials and UN officials in Geneva. During the exchange, Callamard was told, they criticised her work on the Khashoggi murder, registering their anger about her investigation and her conclusions. The Saudi officials also raised baseless allegations that she had received money from Qatar – a frequent refrain against critics of the Saudi government.
Callamard said one of the visiting senior Saudi officials is then alleged to have said that he had received phone calls from individuals who were prepared to “take care of her”.
Callamard’s report said there was ‘credible evidence’ that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other senior Saudi officials were liable for Jamal Khashoggi’s killing. Photograph: Reuters
When UN officials expressed alarm, other Saudis who were present sought to reassure them that the comment ought not to be taken seriously. The Saudi group then left the room but, Callamard was told, the visiting senior Saudi official stayed behind, and repeated the alleged threat to the remaining UN officials in the room.
Specifically, the visiting Saudi official said he knew people who had offered to “take care of the issue if you don’t”.
“It was reported to me at the time and it was one occasion where the United Nations was actually very strong on that issue. People that were present, and also subsequently, made it clear to the Saudi delegation that this was absolutely inappropriate and that there was an expectation that this should not go further,” Callamard said.
While Callamard has in the past discussed the threats she has faced in her work as a special rapporteur, including by the Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, details of the alleged Saudi threat are being revealed in the Guardian for the first time.
The development will probably bolster the view of human rights experts that Saudi Arabia’s government has acted with impunity in the wake of Khashoggi’s 2018 murder, including through arbitrary arrests of critics of the prince, as well as his potential political rivals.
The Saudi government did not respond to emailed requests for comment, which the Guardian sent to the Saudi foreign ministry, the Saudi embassy in London and the Saudi embassy in Washington.
“You know, those threats don’t work on me. Well, I don’t want to call for more threats. But I have to do what I have to do. It didn’t stop me from acting in a way which I think is the right thing to do,” Callamard said.
Cern experiment hints at new force of nature
MAGICK BY ANY OTHER NAME IT'S A QUANTUM UNIVERSE ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN
Experts reveal ‘cautious excitement’ over unstable particles that fail to decay as standard model suggests
Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva have spotted an unusual signal in their data that may be the first hint of a new kind of physics.
The LHCb collaboration, one of four main teams at the LHC, analysed 10 years of data on how unstable particles called B mesons, created momentarily in the vast machine, decayed into more familiar matter such as electrons.
The mathematical framework that underpins scientists’ understanding of the subatomic world, known as the standard model of particle physics, firmly maintains that the particles should break down into products that include electrons at exactly the same rate as they do into products that include a heavier cousin of the electron, a particle called a muon.
A man rides his bicycle along the beam line of the Large Hadron Collider.
Photograph: Valentin Flauraud/AFP via Getty Images
But results released by Cern on Tuesday suggest that something unusual is happening. The B mesons are not decaying in the way the model says they should: instead of producing electrons and muons at the same rate, nature appears to favour the route that ends with electrons.
“We would expect this particle to decay into the final state containing electrons and the final state containing muons at the same rate as each other,” said Prof Chris Parkes, an experimental particle physicist at the University of Manchester and spokesperson for the LHCb collaboration. “What we have is an intriguing hint that maybe these two processes don’t happen at the same rate, but it’s not conclusive.”
In physics parlance, the result has a significance of 3.1 sigma, meaning the chance of it being a fluke is about one in 1,000. While that may sound convincing evidence, particle physicists tend not to claim a new discovery until a result reaches a significance of five sigma, where the chance of it being a statistical quirk are reduced to one in a few million.
“It’s an intriguing hint, but we have seen sigmas come and go before. It happens surprisingly frequently,” Parkes said.
The standard model of particle physics describes the particles and forces that govern the subatomic world. Constructed over the past half century, it defines how elementary particles called quarks build protons and neutrons inside atomic nuclei, and how these, usually combined with electrons, make up all known matter. The model also explains three of the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism; the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together; and the weak force which causes nuclear reactions in the sun. But the standard model does not describe everything. It does not explain the fourth force, gravity, and perhaps more strikingly, says nothing about the 95% of the universe that physicists believe is not constructed from normal matter.
Much of the cosmos, they believe, consists of dark energy, a force that appears to be driving the expansion of the universe, and dark matter, a mysterious substance that seems to hold the cosmic web of matter in place like an invisible skeleton.
ONCE UPON A TIME IT WAS KNOWN AS AETHER TO SCIENTISTS
“If it turns out, with extra analysis of additional processes, that we were able to confirm this, it would be extremely exciting,” Parkes said. It would mean there is something wrong with the standard model and that we require something extra in our fundamental theory of particle physics to explain how this would happen.”
Despite the uncertainties over this particular result, Parkes said when combined with other results on B mesons, the case for something unusual happening became more convincing.
“I would say there is cautious excitement. We’re intrigued because not only is this result quite significant, it fits the pattern of some previous results from LHCb and other experiments worldwide,” he said.
Ben Allanach, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge, agrees that taken together with other findings, the latest LHCb result is exciting. “I really think this will turn into something,” he said.
If the result turns out to be true, it could be explained by so-far hypothetical particles called Z primes or leptoquarks that bring new forces to bear on other particles.
“There could be a new quantum force that makes the B mesons break up into muons at the wrong rate. It’s sticking them together and stopping them decaying into muons at the rate we’d expect,” Allanach said. “This force could help explain the peculiar pattern of different matter particles’ masses.”
B mesons contain elementary particles called beauty quarks, also know as bottom quarks.
Scientists will collect more data from the LHC and other experiments around the world, such as Belle II in Japan, in the hope of confirming what is happening.
Jokes circulated online when, in 2013, Penguin and Random House merged: would the new mega-publisher, which became the world’s biggest trade publishing group, be known as Random Penguin? Penguin House? Now, as the prosaically named Penguin Random House’s parent company Bertelsmann’s $2.17bn acquisition of Simon & Schuster comes under scrutiny in the UK, the jokes are fewer and further between.
Authors have made it abundantly clear that they fear the fallout if the deal goes ahead. When it was first announced last November, the Authors Guild in the US was quick to register its objections. The acquisition, which would bring heavyweight S&S authors including Hillary Clinton, John Irving, Stephen King and Bob Woodward under the PRH umbrella in the US, would “creat[e] a huge imbalance in the US publishing industry”, it warned, calling on the US justice department to step in.
The Authors’ Guild’s UK equivalent, the Society of Authors, followed suit last month, urging the Competition and Markets Authority to take a look at a deal, which it warned could have “a generally anti-competitive effect on prices
for consumers and significantly adverse contractual terms for authors”.
The Authors Guild believes the combined Penguin Random House Simon & Schuster would account for approximately 35% of all book units sold in the US; Bertelsmann argues that it would be less than 20% in the US, and that the deal is therefore approvable.
THE GUILDS ARE NOT THE WRITERS UNIONS, WHICH WERE NOT CONTACTED NOR ARE THEY WRITERS ONLY DEFENSE THEY
HAVE PEN AS WELL, NOT ATTRIBUTED IN THIS ARTICLE
For the publishers, the increased size would give them extra clout in their all-important dealings with behemoth Amazon, and with other book shop chains. But, for authors, reducing the so-called “big five” publishers in the US to four would cut down their options, giving them fewer bidders for their manuscripts, thus driving down advances and making it harder for them to negotiate better deals.
The effect would be similarly profound in the UK, argues the Society of Authors, even though S&S is the ninth largest publisher in the UK in 2019, according to sales monitor Nielsen BookScan, with sales of £27m, compared with Penguin Random House’s £346m.
The UK competition watchdog has listened and is investigating; all eyes will now be on the US.
Environmental group adds 3 vegetables to its annual Dirty Dozen list
Since 2004, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released an annual list of fruits and vegetables the group calls the Dirty Dozen, because they're deemed to contain the most pesticides. But there are a few surprises to this year's list.
While kale has been alone in the No. 3 spot since 2019 — the first time it made the list in 10 years — the group added mustard greens and collard greens alongside it. All three are known to be low in calories, high in fiber and have antioxidant qualities. Strawberries are No. 1 and spinach comes in at No. 2 on the list.
Bell peppers, tested for the first time since 2012, and hot peppers (chile peppers), came in at No. 10, knocking tomatoes to the No. 11 spot.
EWG's yearly Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce is based on test data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The group identified, according to a news release, which fresh fruits and vegetables contain the most and the least amount of pesticide residue.
70% of nonorganic fresh produce sold in the U.S. had pesticides.
20 different pesticides were found in a single sample of the three leafy greens in the No. 3 spot.
115 pesticides — the highest amount — were found on bell peppers.
“Whether organic or conventionally grown, fruits and vegetables are critical components of a healthy diet,” said EWG toxicologist Thomas Galligan in a news release. “We urge consumers who are concerned about their pesticide intake to consider, when possible, purchasing organically grown versions of the foods on EWG’s Dirty Dozen, or conventional produce from our Clean Fifteen.”
Eat your veggies
The annual report is not without controversy.
What’s important to note is that dietitians and health experts recommend that the overall goal is for Americans to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables for a healthy, well-balanced diet.
strong opponents of EWG's annual list, says it shows a negative impact on fruit and vegetable consumption
WHICH IS COMPLETE BS EWG HAS NO SUCH POWER PR OR ACTIVIST AFF ON THE OTHER HAND HAS AN OVERSIZED ABILITY TO COUNTER EWG AND AS USUAL WITH CORPORATE SHILLS THEY BLAME CITIZEN ACTIVISTS FOR THE FAILURES IN THEIR INDUSTRY
“Last year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) faced significant criticism from the nutrition community for inaccurately escalating and perpetuating consumer safety fears about these healthy foods as our world was locking down due to the pandemic,” Teresa Thorne, Executive Director of the AFF said in a news release. “EWG continues to dismiss the needs of consumers and disrespect farmers by choosing to inaccurately disparage the very foods health experts agree we should eat more of every day to improve immune function, prevent diseases and increase lifespan.”
They also point out that the USDA's Pesticide Data Program report finds that 99% of samples tested fell below the safety standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, more than 40% of produce tested had no detectable pesticide residue.
Only one in 10 Americans eat enough fruits and vegetables daily, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC recommends that adults eat 1½-2 cups of fruit and 2-3 cups of vegetables per day.
The AFF also points to studies that found eating five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, may reduce the risk for certain diseases. Another Tufts University study found that prescribing fruits and vegetables would prevent nearly 2 million cardiovascular events such as heart attacks, 350,000 deaths and cut health care costs by $40 billion.
The AFF finds that the EWG's Dirty Dozen list creates fear and disparages consumers from buying — organic or not.
“With only one in 10 Americans eating enough fruits and vegetables each day, we should be promoting consumption to enhance immune function and prevent illness, not discouraging it with tactics like the Dirty Dozen list,” Thorne added.
Alexis Temkin, Ph.D., EWG toxicologist, says the group advises that eating a diet that is high in fruit and vegetables, organic or conventional and including frozen and canned, should be a priority.
"There is increasing evidence that low dose chronic exposure to mixture of pesticides may have adverse effects on human health, particularly during sensitive windows of development like pregnancy and childhood," Temkin said in an email to the Free Press.
EWG said it is aware that access and being able to afford organic is not always an option. That is why, they said, the group created its "Clean 15" shoppers guide.
While the EWG's list is based on USDA data, most pesticide residues detected fall within established government levels.
Along with the Dirty Dozen list, EWG releases its list of fruits and vegetables that contain the least amount of pesticides. At the top of that list is the beloved avocado. Also, on the list are asparagus, cabbage, and cauliflower — all known as nutritional all-stars.
MORE CORPORATE SHILLING IN THE FOOD SECTION
To help consumers the AFF provides an easy-to-use risk at safefruitsandveggies.com showing how many servings of a specific fruit or vegetable one would have to eat without any effect on the highest amount of pesticide residue the USDA recorded.
With bell peppers that would be 196 servings for a woman in one day.
To handle fruits and vegetables safely, the FDA recommends washing them before eating or using.
I HAVE WORKED WITH EWG IN THE PAST IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPICITY WHEN I WAS EPSB CUSTODIAL CONSULTANT AND FOUND THEM CREDIBLE IT IS A FACT THAT CONCENTRATIONS OF PESTICIDES STAY IN YOUR BODY THEY ARE ALL (HERBICIDES,PESTICIDES, TOXIC CHEMICALS, ETC.)FOREVER CHEMICALS
EWG's list of most contaminated fruits and vegetables Strawberries Spinach Kale, collard and mustard greens Nectarines Apples Grapes Cherries Peaches Pears Bell and hot peppers Celery Tomatoes
Last Friday, the Fagradalsfjall volcano near Iceland’s capital of Reykjavik began erupting for the first time in 800 years after the island nation was hit by thousands of small earthquakes. Thankfully, the eruption was small and has not put anyone in danger. Instead, it’s gifted the world with some awe-inspiring views of lava flowing from the ground.
The sight has been best captured by Icelandic drone pilot Bjorn Steinbekk, who took the straightforward approach of flying right through the eruption. We spotted the footage from Steinbekk (above) via Twitter, and it seems he flew several sorties through the airborne lava — a daring feat that makes us wonder how his drone survived the high temperatures.
If the eruption of Fagradalsfjall looks relatively minor for a volcano, that’s because it is. “The eruption is considered a small one and the eruption fissure is about 500-700 metres (1640-2300 feet) long,” said the Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO) in a statement. “The lava is less than 1 square kilometre (0.4 square miles) in size.”
You can get a better sense of the scale of the thing in these images taken on Sunday below. They show crowds of hikers admiring the eruption, which is located around 40 kilometers west of the Icelandic capital of Reykjavik
This video below also shows you a before and after of the eruption site, which is nestled in a small valley in an uninhabited region of the country. News reports say there’s been no ash fall created by the eruption, but residents living downwind of the volcano have been told to close their windows due to possible gas emissions.
None of that has stopped Steinbekk from getting up-close-and-personal with Fagradalsfjall. And if you want to see more of his fantastic videos and images of Iceland from the air, you can check out his official Instagram. There are some truly wonderful shots to admire.
The US Phase III trial of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine has demonstrated an efficacy of 79% at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.
The Phase III trial showed AZ’s Covid-19 vaccine to be reliably effective among those aged 65 years and over, in whom the jab demonstrated an efficacy of 80%.
Credit: AstraZeneca
The US Phase III trial of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine has demonstrated an efficacy of 79% at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.
A specific review of thrombotic events and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis during the trial, conducted by the independent safety monitoring board and an independent neurologist, found no increased risk of thrombosis among the 21,583 trial participants receiving at least one dose of the vaccine.
The review findings come after several European countries paused rollouts of the AstraZeneca-Oxford University vaccine, following reports of blood clotting events in a small number of those vaccinated.
The European Medicines Agency last week concluded that the vaccine is “safe and effective” following an investigation into a potential link between the jab and blood clots, while the World Health Organisation urged countries to continue administering the vaccine.
The randomised Phase III trial also showed the vaccine to be reliably effective among those aged 65 years and over, in whom the jab demonstrated an efficacy of 80%.
The results among older participants confirm the vaccine’s efficacy in those aged over 65. Earlier this year, numerous European countries decided to limit the AstraZeneca vaccine to under-65s, citing a lack of evidence for the vaccine in the older age group. Several of these countries, including Germany and France, have since approved the jab for use in older people in response to the publication of further safety and efficacy data.
In the Phase III study, around 20% of participants were aged 65 or older, and approximately 60% had co-morbidities associated with an increased risk for progression of severe Covid-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity or cardiac disease.
The trial involved a total of 32,449 participants – two-thirds of whom received the vaccine – across 88 sites in the US, Peru and Chile.
University of Rochester School of Medicine professor Ann Falsey, one of the principal investigators for the trial, said: “These findings reconfirm previous results observed in AZD1222 trials across all adult populations but it’s exciting to see similar efficacy results in people over 65 for the first time.
“This analysis validates the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine as a much-needed additional vaccination option, offering confidence that adults of all ages can benefit from protection against the virus.”
The new data, which AstraZeneca will continue to analyse, is set to be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for Emergency Use Authorisation in the coming weeks. The vaccine has already been approved for emergency use in the UK, European Union and many other countries globally.
AstraZeneca executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals R&D Mene Pangalos said: “These results add to the growing body of evidence that shows this vaccine is well tolerated and highly effective against all severities of Covid-19 and across all age groups.
“We are confident this vaccine can play an important role in protecting millions of people worldwide against this lethal virus. We are preparing to submit these findings to the US Food and Drug Administration and for the rollout of millions of doses across America should the vaccine be granted US Emergency Use Authorisation.”
expert reaction to press release from AstraZeneca announcing interim data on safety and efficacy from the US trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine
AstraZeneca has published a press release announcing that the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine US Phase III trial met primary efficacy endpoint in preventing COVID-19 at interim analysis.
Dr Peter English, Retired Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Former Editor of Vaccines in Practice Magazine, Immediate past Chair of the BMA Public Health Medicine Committee, said:
“This press release provides more good news about vaccines in general and the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in particular.1 It is consistent with previous studies of the vaccine.
“Part of the importance of the study it describes is that it will support the emergency use authorisation which is reportedly soon to be (if not already) being applied for in the United States.
“The press release describes a large phase III trial conducted in the US, Peru and Chile, with 32,449 participants of all ages and of different ethnicities, two-thirds of whom were given the active vaccine, and the other third a placebo vaccine (no doubt the full peer-reviewed papers will tell us what the placebo contained). It gives us information from an interim analysis of data from these trials.
“The press release tells us that there were 141 cases of symptomatic disease in participants, and that the vaccine showed the following characteristics:
“79% vaccine efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID-19
“100% efficacy against severe or critical disease and hospitalisation
“Comparable efficacy result across ethnicity and age, with 80% efficacy in participants aged 65 years and over”
“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups; but 141 is still a substantial number of cases.
“The press release also tells us that:
“Amongst participants in the interim analysis, approximately 79% were white/Caucasian, 8% black/African American, 4% native American and 4% Asian, and 22% of participants were Hispanic.
“Approximately 20% of participants were 65 years and over, and approximately 60% had co-morbidities associated with an increased risk for progression of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity or cardiac disease.”
“The full, peer-reviewed paper will no-doubt provide more detailed information on the efficacy in these subgroups; but with only 141 cases, the numbers in different subcategories may be too small to detect small efficacy differences between subgroups, if they exist. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to read that there was no obvious difference between them.
“Note that the vaccine showed “100% efficacy against severe or critical disease and hospitalisation”. In other words, NO vaccine recipients had severe or critical disease, or was hospitalised (at least, not with Covid-19), so there is no way to distinguish between efficacy at preventing different subcategories of more severe disease, and we don’t know if the study distinguished between levels of severity greater than mild-to-moderate disease.
“This also means that there were no cases of the more severe forms of disease in people aged 65 years and over – in this age group, the vaccine had 100% efficacy at preventing such disease; 80% efficacy against any symptomatic disease in this age group. (The same concept applies to other subgroups.)
“The report also shows that there were no safety concerns. It looked particularly at clotting (“thrombotic”) events and found no excess of cases in vaccine recipients. It was unable to shed further light on the specific clotting event that has raised concerns recently, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), other than to confirm that such events are very rare. No CVST events were detected in either arm of the study, we are told, so it was unable to confirm or refute the suggestion that this particular condition may be more common following vaccination.
“The fact that there were no such events, however, does emphasise the rarity of this condition, and that even if there were to be an increase in the relative risk following vaccination, the absolute risk remains very low.
“(I have yet to see any explanation as to why this particular clotting event (CVST) might be more common post-vaccination when other clotting events are not. If you look for enough rare events, one of them will, by chance, be more common in people who were vaccinated in the study population you used, without this being a causal relationship but just chance. My strong suspicion is that this will prove to be the case for CVST.)
“The press release does refer to the prime-boost interval, stating:
“This AstraZeneca-led US Phase III trial included two doses administered at a four week interval. Previous trials have shown that an extended interval of up to 12 weeks demonstrated greater efficacy, which was also supported by immunogenicity data. This evidence suggests administration of the second dose with an interval longer than four weeks could further increase efficacy and accelerates the number of people who can receive their first dose.”
“Decades of vaccine research tell us that a longer prime-boost interval is likely to increase vaccine efficacy, and, as they say this is supported by immunogenicity data; but it should be noted that the study the press release is describing used a four-week prime-boost interval. There is nothing in the press release to suggest that the study examined vaccine efficacy with different prime-boost intervals.
“One thing that is not clear in this press release is whether the study provided any information on the real-world efficacy of the vaccine against different variants of the virus. There is no information on whether genomic typing of the cases was undertaken, the prevalence of different variants in the study population, or the dates during which the data were collected (which would allow some inferences to be drawn on variant prevalence and thus vaccine efficacy against the variants). We know from other work that the vaccine seems to be highly effective against many variants, in particular the more transmissible B.1.1.7 variant; but we do not know if the study will add to our knowledge on this.”
Dr Andrew Garrett, Executive VP, Scientific Operations, ICON Clinical Research, said:
“This is clearly stated as an AstraZeneca-led trial, and it more closely follows the large phase III vaccine trials reported by other sponsors. In this respect it is a solid 30,000 plus participant study with a placebo control, and a simple 4 week dosing interval, such that interpretation is more straightforward than previous Oxford/AZ vaccine trials. It has a good age mix with more than 6,000 participants aged >65 years and also wide ethnic representation. Interim efficacy is clearly stated as being 79% against symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% effective against severe disease. Detailed numbers are not provided at this time and the lower confidence limit is not stated. Importantly the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly (80%) where previous clinical trial data, other than immunological data, had been lacking. The study randomized two subjects to receive vaccine for every subject that received placebo providing a large safety database of 20,000 plus participants who received active vaccine. As described, this has been used to investigate the potential association of the vaccine with thrombotic events and specifically cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, of which there were no cases detected. Overall it was reported that there was no increased risk of thrombosis. These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.
“The trial is directed at generating data to support emergency use in the US but also provides valuable data to other countries – both confirming efficacy using a 4-week dosing interval and re-enforcing vaccine safety.”
Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“These results are not surprising given what we know now. The US regulatory authorities are reluctant, even in a pandemic, to rely totally on data obtained outside the US, so this trial was done to provide convincing evidence of efficacy and safety in a sufficiently large number of US patients. The benefits of these results will mainly be for the rest of the world where confidence in the AZ vaccine has been eroded, largely by political and media comment. Once that happens, reporting of adverse effects becomes very biased and confidence can spiral downwards. The rest of the world that will rely on this low-cost vaccine may be able to procced with vaccinating their populations.
“Vaccine development and rollout should be an international collaboration rather than nationalistic fervour whether in favour of, or against, a particular vaccine. Assessment should be based on science alone.
“It is important also to realise that the “headline” efficacy numbers are valid for comparison between the groups in a trial, but great care is needed in comparisons between trials. The way that events are assessed and counted as well as the context of a trial means that exact values for any between trial comparison are uncertain, not only because of statistical uncertainty, but also because of these other factors.
“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy (remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target), and that this efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective (or “quasi-ineffective”) at older ages was totally unjustified.
“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided.”
Dr Peter English: “No conflicts of interest to declare.”
Dr Andrew Garrett: “I am employed by ICON which is a Contract Research Organization. ICON provides pharmaceutical services to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. ICON conducts clinical trials on behalf of Sponsors, including vaccine trials. I am a member of the UK Statistical Authority’s (UKSA) Research Accreditation Panel. I have received one dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine as part of the UK vaccination program.”
Prof Stephen Evans: “No conflicts of interest. I am funded (one day per week) by LSHTM. They get funding from various companies, including Astra Zeneca and GSK but I am not funded by them, I have no involvement in obtaining funding from them and I am not an investigator on any grants obtained from them. I am the statistician to the ‘meta-Data Safety and Monitoring Board’ for CEPI. I am paid for my attendance at those meetings and will be paid expenses for travel if that occurs. I am a participant in the Oxford/Astra Zeneca trial, and on 13th January 2021 learnt I had received the active vaccine.”
.png)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388265/1231861091.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388267/1231861065.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388268/1231861495.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388272/1231861715.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388271/1231861546.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388274/1231861670.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22388275/1231861670.jpg)
