Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov 23:deaa339. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa339. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women?

SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth numbers.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.7%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2%(28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%), and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritise older women and those with a known cause of infertility.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. SB is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest.

PMID:33226080 | DOI:10.1093/humrep/deaa339

The rest is here:
Prioritising IVF treatment in the post COVID 19 era: a predictive modelling study based on UK national data - DocWire News

Last month in book club we were talking about an adorable newborn baby we had just met over Zoom. Someone commented that the baby looks like their father. Another person piped up with an evolutionary explanation they had heard before newborn babies look more like their fathers so that the father will know theyre his and will help raise and protect them.

Some of us started wondering how something like that would even work. We agreed that this kind of paternal effect was possible and moved on. Later I looked it up only to learn that this popular hypothesis had been debunked nearly ten years ago.

Many of us have had conversations like this. In chatting about this or that, about babies, dating, or the mysterious lives of cats, someone brightly chimes "That's because of evolution!" It's easy to accept and internalize those ideas, re-hashing them at parties in an endless cycle.

This reflects a misunderstanding of both the process of science and the process of evolution. Any discussion of a scientific hypothesis to explain a pattern should ask first, "is the pattern real?" and second, "could anything else lead to the same pattern?" There is a fine line between its possible and its probable and the consequences of mistaking a possibility for the truth can be far-reaching.

Evolution is often treated as synonymous with natural selection, and natural selection is often boiled down to a single phrase: survival of the fittest. This oversimplification is easy to apply to everyday life but should we? If we dont carefully manage our assumptions and biases, we are in danger of the same sort of thinking that leads to Social Darwinism, in which Darwin's theory of natural selection is applied to justify social inequities between different groups of people. To prevent that, lets tease apart the concepts of evolution, natural selection, and fitness.

Evolution, in the broadest sense, means change over time. Societies evolve. Languages evolve. Technologies evolve. And species evolve, because DNA evolves.

Physical traits result from the production of various proteins in your cells. A gene is a piece of DNA that codes for a protein. Changes to DNA (mutations) create new versions of the same gene these versions are called alleles. Different alleles can make different proteins, or cause differences in how a certain protein manifests in the body we call this physical manifestation of gene products a phenotype.

Your phenotype for eye color is determined in part by how much of the protein melanin is produced and stored in the eye. Different combinations of alleles will lead to different amounts of melanin and different color phenotypes. Scientists used to think that eye color followed a simple inheritance pattern, because the allele for brown eyes is dominant over the allele for blue eyes. We know now that it is more complicated. The oversimplified version of the story led to the widespread, mistaken belief that two people with brown eyes could never have a child with blue eyes. Even in such a trivial trait as eye color, this misunderstanding of how inheritance works can have serious repercussions.

A child with heterochromia

Karl Fredrickson via Unsplash

Evolution determines the fate of any new mutation that occurs in a population. Evidence suggests that the original Homo sapiens all had brown eyes, and mutations created other alleles only more recently. On the molecular level, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population. Over time some populations evolved a high frequency of the allele for light eyes and consequently the light-eyed phenotype, but we cant know for sure what caused that evolution. Just because a phenotype is common in a given population or species does not mean it is adaptive or beneficial in that population's environment. It could be that the population just happened to be founded by individuals with that phenotype. This is a type of random evolution called the founder effect.

Some evolution is random, but not all. Humans, especially scientists, look for patterns and seek non-random explanations for natural phenomena. Our curiosity led to the discovery of natural selection. But to understand natural selection, you must first understand fitness.

In evolutionary biology, the word "fitness" is the capacity of an organism to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Individual fitness might be measured as the number of offspring an individual has over the course of their lifetime. The popular phrase survival of the fittest (notably not coined by Charles Darwin) doesn't mean much because it fails to account for reproduction. Survival alone will not lead to evolution if you dont contribute genes to the next generation. In social species like humans, this contribution can be indirect for example, helping to raise your sibling's kids increases your own fitness. Longer survival may or may not increase fitness, because it depends on the timing and frequency of reproduction. Fitness can also be measured as the overall reproductive rate of a given population. And most importantly: fitness is relative to the environment an individual that has high fitness in one environment might have low fitness in a different environment.

In an environment with infinite resources and minimal threats, most individuals would probably have the same fitness. Everyone would happily pass on their alleles, and the only cause of evolution would be random events. But we do not live in a world with infinite resources. Individuals need to compete for limited resources in their environment, and whoever is best able to acquire those resources is more likely to survive and reproduce. If there is a specific phenotype that helps individuals acquire and use resources more efficiently, individuals with that phenotype are likely to reproduce more than individuals with other phenotypes, and if it is heritable, that helpful phenotype will be more common in future generations. This change in frequency of a phenotype (and change in allele frequencies for the underlying genes) due to a fitness advantage is evolution by natural selection, otherwise known as adaptation.

One example of an adaptation in humans is the increased oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells in populations that live at high elevations. This phenotype is heritable and evolved (increased in frequency) in direct response to natural selection, because individuals with higher oxygen saturation have higher fitness at high altitude. Whether or not a phenotype is an adaptation depends on a) whether it confers a fitness advantage in its environment, and b) whether its function evolved because of that fitness advantage.

There are cases where the function of a phenotype confers a fitness advantage, but the trait did not evolve as a result of natural selection for that function. Some traits affect fitness through multiple functions, but they are only considered to be an adaptation for the function that they originally evolved with. One example is the structure of feathers in birds. Evidence in the fossil record indicates that the earliest feathers to evolve were not used for flying, and it is now thought that feathers may be an adaptation to survive colder temperatures, because they provide insulation. So although feathers are used for flight, and flight provides a fitness advantage in many environments, feathers are not an adaptation for flight. Traits like this whose current function differs from an ancestral function are known as exaptations.

Adaptation is a natural consequence of variation and differences in fitness, but it doesn't yield perfection. Phenotypic evolution is constrained by physical and genetic limitations. Some mutations increase fitness in one way but decrease fitness in a different way; this is an evolutionary trade-off. For example, when predators are around, Trinidadian guppies are under selection to put more energy towards reproduction, but also under selection for fast-start swimming to evade predators. Increased reproductive capacity in females makes that fast-start more difficult, so there is a direct trade-off between those traits.

Sexual selection, which is caused by preferences in mate choice, can also lead to trade-offs. For example, in widowbirds, females have a preference for males with long tails, but for the males, making a longer tail comes at a cost more energy. So why do the females care about a long tail? Why not choose a partner who is really good at acquiring resources? To the female, thats exactly what she is doing. The long tail is a signal that the male has been successful enough to have energy to spare on tail length, and will probably have successful offspring as well. In the case of Jacksons widowbird, male tail length was shown to be positively correlated to body condition, so this is considered an honest signal of fitness.

Another important note on adaptation. Phenotypes are not created as a result of a specific need, but they can evolve as a result of that need. Random mutations create new phenotypes. A phenotype will persist in the population if it has no effect on fitness and remains in existence by random chance. A phenotype will increase in frequency in a population if it increases the number of offspring that individuals contribute to the next generation.

This distinction between evolution and creation is especially important in the context of the origin of life. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It explains how life has changed after it originated. It also explains the origin of new species, most famously described by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. It is generally accepted among evolutionary biologists that all species on Earth have a common ancestor, the original organism, the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). The main piece of evidence for this theory is the shared genetic code the translation of DNA into proteins. There are some very solid hypotheses out there for what that original organism was, and how life on Earth originated, but the theory of evolution is not in the business of answering those questions.

Natural selection is beautiful. It is easy to observe and model. It is one of the most widely-loved and studied processes among evolutionary biologists. Its no wonder that it has captured the imagination of the public we value meaning over randomness, order over chaos. A basic understanding of natural selection gives us optimism that the world is improving, leading to a better future. But natural selection is so appealing that we forget two important facts: that natural selection is just one of many mechanisms leading to physical and behavioral traits, and natural selection only occurs when there is variation in fitness, and humans are intelligent enough to be aware of and influence that variation.

A male widowbird

Via Wikimedia

There are a lot of possible explanations for why my new baby friend may resemble her father more than her mother although as she grows and changes, the consensus is that she looks like both of her parents. If there were data to support the idea that most babies resemble their father (which there are not) then the realm of possibilities gets a little more interesting, and we begin to speculate. The idea that this resemblance is an adaptation to induce men to care for their own children (and the implication that otherwise they would abandon them) fits very nicely into the gender roles that many human societies perpetuate. Armchair evolutionary psychologists love to reinforce gender stereotypes, touting that men are built for fighting and hunting and not caregiving, or women are less promiscuous and more inclined to prefer monogamy than men.

Confirmation bias kicks in: people who want these statements to be true will believe them to be true without looking for good evidence. And of course, this danger goes beyond gender stereotypes to racial and ethnic stereotypes. Our concept of race has roots in biased, poorly done studies that were held up to justify slavery in the 19th century. Notions about biological races persisted into the 20th century, when racist interpretations of the theory of natural selection led to eugenics movements around the world, including the Holocaust. The misuse of evolutionary concepts in social situations has allowed white supremacy to maintain its hold on American society, despite the fact that there is no valid scientific evidence for human races. Unfortunately, understanding that there is no biological basis for race does not eliminate racism or its real impact on human health and wellness. Systemic racism and racial trauma have devastating consequences, particularly for Black Americans.

I believe that fitness the ability to survive and reproduce is a basic human right. The existence of natural selection in nature does not justify its application to social policy. The synergy of intelligence, compassion, and social structure in humans has created a unique opportunity to prioritize equity and even the fitness playing field within our species. Some of our greatest achievements as a species have increased access to resources and raised each others capacity to survive and reproduce. These innovations are cultural adaptations rather than genetic adaptations they are passed down through culture rather than DNA. But unfortunately, in the US these innovations are more accessible to people with money, and money has become a proxy for fitness. Survival of the richest.

Humans are unique from other species in our ability to shape our environment to increase our fitness rather than waiting for our bodies to adapt. We are empathetic, we are compassionate, but we are also selfish and cruel. What do you value more: your own fitness, or your humanity?

Follow this link:
Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does - Massive Science

One of our favorite categories of research is ways in which plants are smarteror more adaptablethan you might expect.

New research from the University of Exeter examines the case of Fritillaria delavayi, an alpine member of the lily family. This plant is used in some branches of Chinese medicine. But its increasingly hard to find, and the research indicates that might be an adaptation to its popularity.

Many related Fritillaria plants are used in Chinese medicine; the bulb, after being cooked, dried, and usually powdered, is used to treat lung conditions. The plant is not particularly common in the wild, but grows well in dry, cold, alpine conditions. Its often gathered in the Hengduan Mountains, which connect to the Himalayan Plateau, and can theoretically be found thanks to its attractive, yellow-gold flowers.

But this research, done in a collaboration between the University of Exeter and the Kunming Institute of Botany, indicates that it might be harder to find now than in the recent past. The researchers compared the rate of harvesting in different areas with how camouflaged the flowers of this Fritillaria species are.

They found that in places where people routinely forage for and harvest the plants, those plants were significantly more camouflaged with their environment, and thus harder to find, than in areas where human foraging is not as popular. This is a correlation, but the implication is that these plants have actually evolved to be better hidden from humans.

Camouflage among plants is a tricky thing; many plants show bright colors to encourage reproduction. Fruits are brightly colored to attract animals to eat them and spread their seeds; flowers are brightly colored to advertise to pollinators. But there are also examples of crypsiscamouflagein some plants, which look like stones, as if theyre actually dead, or as if theyre toxic, to avoid being eaten.

Fritillaria does have natural predators; grazing animals will sometimes eat the bulbs, and there are typical problems with beetles and some other insects. But human harvesting is a much greater threat, as it can be systematic and precise. The concept of a plant evolving to avoid human detection is one, say the researchers, that hasnt really been examined. It also hasnt been proven in this case, though the correlation makes it seem likely. In any case, its fascinating: this bulb simply wants to get away from us.

Follow this link:
This Plant May Have Evolved to Escape Humans - Modern Farmer

UPDATED HEALTH EDUCATION STANDARDS WILL PROVIDE TEXAS STUDENTS WITH ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR HEALTHY LIVES, HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

UPDATED HEALTH EDUCATION STANDARDS WILL PROVIDE TEXAS STUDENTS WITH ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR HEALTHY LIVES, HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

AUSTIN, TEXAS--For the first time in more than two decades, the State Board of Education (SBOE) has updated the minimum curriculum standards that guide sex education in Texas with key information that students need for healthy lives and healthy relationships.

SBOE members today approved the new Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for Health Education at their quarterly meeting.

Public opinionpolling dataconducted in March by the Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found widespread, bipartisan support for abstinence-plus sex education, which includes content on contraception, prevention of sexually transmitted infections, and healthy relationships, in addition to abstinence. The polling data also found strong support for teaching about consent and teaching content that is respectful of LGBTQ youth, topics which SBOE voted against including in the standards.

Were pleased to see state leaders embracing curriculum standards that rely on medically accurate, developmentally appropriate classroom instruction for health and sex education, said Molly Clayton, Executive Director of the Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. It is regrettable that the standards dont reflect what the data tell us about the need for education on consent and LGBTQ inclusivity, but the new standards are an important step in the right direction to better prepare Texas students for healthy, productive futures.

Research shows this type of evidence-based sex education can effectively reduce teen pregnancy rates and does not make teens more likely to become sexually active. Texas currently has the 9th highest teen birth rate in the nation, with about 2.4% of teens aged 15-19 giving birth in 2019. A baby was born to a teen parent once every 22 minutes in Texas in 2019.

The new curriculum standards at the middle and high school levels include age-appropriate, medically accurate content including human anatomy, puberty, reproduction, abstinence, contraception, prevention of sexually transmitted infections, and healthy relationships. For the first time, TEKS include content such as the HPV vaccination, postpartum depression, online safety, human trafficking, cyberbullying, and other 21st century topics.

While the standards do not include education on consent, they do include instruction on setting boundaries and respecting the boundaries of other people, an improvement over the current TEKS which only focus on refusal. Consent is a foundational topic in the prevention of sexual abuse and assault. Unfortunately, the standards do not include any content that is inclusive of LGBTQ youth. However, Texas school districts have the option to teach beyond the TEKS and adopt curricula that include additional content, so long as it prioritizes abstinence.

Next year, the State Board of Education will adopt instructional materials that cover these new standards.

# # #

About the Texas is Ready Coalition

The Texas is Ready Coalition has advocated extensively around positive, evidence-based revisions to health education standards. The coalition of statewide and regional teen pregnancy prevention groups includes:

Follow this link:
UPDATED HEALTH EDUCATION STANDARDS WILL PROVIDE TEXAS STUDENTS WITH ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR HEALTHY LIVES HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS - UPDATED HEALTH...

Data released in the next few days will determine which areas will enter each of the new tiers being proposed across England, as hopes emerge of the coronavirus reproduction number dropping below dangerous levels.

The UK transport secretary, Grant Shapps, said an areas placement in a specific tier after the lockdown ends on 2 December will be determined by its number of cases, and factors such as the speed of rising cases and the numbers of people aged over 60 testing positive for the virus.

New data is coming out in the next day or so, which is why the actual specification of which tier goes into which place will be announced on Thursday, and it will be on the basis of a number of cases, Shapps said in an interview with Sky News. For example, the number of cases in the over-60s, where it is much more likely or possible that it could be fatal. And things like the speed at which coronavirus is rising or falling in a particular area and a couple of other measures along those lines.

He told BBC Breakfast that although half the country might be placed in the strictest tier 3 alert level, this would still allow for more freedoms than the national lockdown currently in place for England.

I think it is the case that we do need to be a bit tighter on the tiers tier 3 in more places is a strong possibility but theres still a difference between that and what were doing now.

For example, in terms of the number of people that can meet outside in a public place, and a number of other things. Weve been living through this nightmare for a long time now, we all know the only way to defeat this virus is, Im afraid, to keep people apart and separate from the most natural thing, which is human contact.

From 2 December will be divided into three different tiers of restrictions. They are slightly amended from the previous system.

Across all tiers, shops, personal care, gyms and the wider leisure sector are set to reopen. Collective worship and weddings with a maximum of 15 in attendance can also resume.

Tier one

Under the new system hospitality businesses in England can stay open until 11pm with table service only but last orders must be made by 10pm, in an effort to stagger departures. Therule of sixwill also remain in place indoors, meaning social household mixing is still allowed.

Spectator sport is set to resume, albeit with limits on numbers and abiding by social distancing. In tier 1, there will be a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of occupancy of the stadium or 4,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

In tier 1, people will be encouraged to minimise travel and work from home where possible. Support bubbles which allowed a single household to join with another household are also being broadened across all tiers. Parents with a child under one will be able to form a support bubble, as well as those with a child under five who needs continuous care, such as a child with a disability. Also, in cases where there is a single adult carer, for a partner with dementia for example, they would also be able to form a support bubble.

How was it before?

In the least restrictive tier, also known as alert level medium, the rule of six applied indoors and outdoors, meaning up to half a dozen people from different households could gather. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could stay open but were forced to shut by 10pm a move that prompted much criticism, including from Conservative backbenchers.

Tier two

Under the new system, although hospitality venues will be allowed to stay open until 11pm with last orders at 10pm only those that serve substantial meals can operate. It means pubs and bars that do not will have to close.

As before, social mixing outside of households or support bubbles will not be allowed indoors. The rule of six will apply outdoors.

Spectators will be allowed to watch sport in tier 2, with a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of the capacity of the stadium or 2,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

Indoor entertainment venues, such as cinemas, casinos and bowling alleys, must also close.

How was it before?

In the high alert level tier people were prohibited from mixing socially indoors with anybody outside of their household or support bubble but the rule of six remained in place outdoors. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could open until 10pm but people were only allowed to visit with their household or support bubble.

Tier three

Hospitality venues will have to close, except for delivery and takeaway service. In tier 3, hotels and other accommodation providers must also close, except for specific work purposes where people cannot return home. Outdoor sports, including golf and tennis, will be allowed to continue in all tiers, as will amateur team sports such as football. Unlike the first two tiers, spectators will not be allowed to watch sport in tier 3.

How was it before?

In the most restrictive tier, known as the very high alert level that was endured by vast swathes of the north of England, mixing socially indoors between households unless a support bubble was in place was banned. Under baseline measures hospitality venues serving substantial food could remain open until 10pm. Up to six people from different households could socialise outdoors in public spaces, such as parks, beaches or public gardens.

Simon MurphyPolitical correspondent

You can only breach that in a certain number of places and I think weve made our decisions as a country that that has to be for things like education and work while we get through this winter.

He agreed, however, that the countrys test-and-trace system needed to be improved, adding that the government had no choice but to spend a great deal on it during the crisis. We have to get through this coronavirus and Im afraid there has been no other option but to spend a lot of money, Shapps told Sky News. Weve said that we want test and trace to be a lot better.

The system, which has to date cost 22bn, has been heavily criticised after a series of high-profile failures since its launch earlier this year.

The government has also announced that travellers arriving in England from 15 December will be able to end their quarantine period with a negative coronavirus test after five days.

Whitehall has said passengers who arrive from a destination not on the governments travel corridors list can reduce the 14-day period by paying for a test from a private firm after five days at a cost of 65 to 120.

We still wanted to make sure we had testing available for doctors, nurses and teachers and any others before turning to travellers, and weve done that by turning to the private sector for these tests, Shapps said.

What can I leave home for?

Government say the list is not exhaustive, and other permitted reasons for leaving home may be set out later. People could face fines from police for leaving their home without a legally permitted excuse.

Can different households mix indoors?

No, not unless they are part of an exclusive support bubble, which allows a single-person household to meet and socialise with another household.

Parents are allowed to form a childcare bubble with another household for the purposes of informal childcare, where the child is 13 or under.

Can different households mix outdoors?

People are allowed to meet one person from another household socially and for exercise in outdoor public spaces, which does not include private gardens.

Can I attend funerals, weddings or religious services?

Up to 30 people will still be allowed to attend funerals, while stone settings and ash scatterings can continue with up to 15 guests.

Weddings and civil partnership ceremonies are not permitted except in exceptional circumstances. Places of worship must remain closed except for voluntary services, individual prayer and other exempt activities.

Can I travel in the UK or abroad for a holiday?

Most outbound international travel will be banned. There is no exemption for staying away from home for a holiday. This means people cannot travel internationally or within the UK, unless for work, education or other legally permitted exemptions.

Which businesses will close?

Everything except essential shops and education settings, which include nurseries, schools and universities, will close.

Entertainment venues will also have to close. Pubs, restaurants and indoor and outdoor leisure facilities will have to close their doors once more.

However, takeaway and delivery services will still be allowed, while construction and manufacturing will stay open.

Parents will still be able to access registered childcare and other childcare activities where reasonably necessary to enable parents to work. Some youth services may be able to continue, such as one-to-one youth work, but most youth clubs will need to close their doors.

Public services, such as jobcentres, courts, and civil registration offices will remain open.

There is no exemption for grassroots organised team sports. Elite sports will be allowed to continue behind closed doors as currently, including Premier League football matches.

Aaron Walawalkar

The transport secretary said the tests to reduce the quarantine period for travellers were not just for business travellers, despite their cost.

He told BBC Breakfast: I expect what will happen as this market gets going is well see the cost of tests being driven down, particularly as some of these new types of tests have come around. And rather than specifying people have heard terms like PCR tests and lab tests and lateral flow rather than specifying a type of test, weve specified a specification standard for these tests medical experts have.

Its up to companies to innovate. If they can produce a test for much less money, or indeed much faster turnaround, then theyre welcome to do that as long as it meets the very exacting standards.

Read more here:
England's Covid tier allocation to be based on areas' latest data - The Guardian

As has been reported by Amnesty International, Around 47,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions every year. The testimony of Rajat Khosla, Amnesty Internationals Senior Director of Research and Advocacy shows the peril of the siege over womens bodies. Although the political authorities try to establish their presence under the subject of religious sensitivity with the slogan that abortion is murder, many women have died as a result of the operations carried out under improper conditions.

In countries where abortion is restricted or prohibited, women who are wealthy have the chance to get an abortion abroad and return to their countries, while the poor have to terminate their pregnancy using dangerous methods such as clothes hangers, as in Argentina.

In this context, it is not possible for women especially those that are struggling economically to make decisions about their own body and implement them under safe conditions.

Abortion debates get even more intensified when we consider how governments perceive womens bodies as a medium of capitalist reproduction (as described in Marxian Economics) and try to intervene in womens bodily integrity using religion as a pretext.

From the most conservative countries to the most modern ones, anti-abortion creates authority over the female body, albeit in different doses. By denying that abortion is a human right to bodily integrity, the abortion process is blocked by regulatory laws.

The access to abortion has been limited even in countries where abortion is legal. Abortion centers are being reserved for COVID-19 patients, pre-appointments are difficult when clinics are open, and the prohibition of abortion is expressed louder than ever.

In Turkey, where abortion is legal; anti-abortion policies have been implemented since the first years of the Republic. Especially after World War I, using the decrease in the population ratio as an excuse, parents were incentivised to have children. There was also a period during which having access to contraception methods and pregnancy termination were made difficult. The legal consequences of having an abortion was stated as imprisonment and fines. With an amendment made in 1938, under the title of Crimes Against the Unity of the Race and Health, abortion was even named a betrayal of Turkishness .

With the Law on Population Planning No. 2827, which became effective in 1983, it was stated that one can decide to get an abortion until the tenth week of pregnancy, and the abortion ban was abolished. Under the same law, arbitrary abortion is subject to the consent of the spouse if the pregnant woman is married, and the permission of the parent if the pregnant woman is a minor.

Especially after the AKP (Justice and Development Party) came to power, the abortion opposition was used as a means of consolidating society with the statement that the duty of women is motherhood by nature. I see abortion as murder, nobody should have the right to allow this stated AKP president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2012 reflecting a patriarchal perception, and creating a period during which pressures on women have increased and abortion has become virtually prohibited.

Although abortion is a legal right in Turkey, there are certain situations in which abortions are not performed in public and even certain private hospitals unless it is deemed a medical necessity. Indeed, there remain obstacles to abortion; abortions are left to the doctors initiative, abortion appointments are given weeks after the request, and there is pressure against hospitals that perform abortions. Due to this, women experience shame and trauma when they return home.

According to the Abortion Services in State Hospitals report published by Kadir Has University in 2016; in 53 out of 81 provinces, there are no hospitals that provide abortion services on demand.

In an environment where abortion is de facto banned, we are also experiencing a period during which assistive mechanisms of contraception methods have decreased, and women have to face an increase of unwanted pregnancies.

The common feature of governments that try to make abortion illegal is that they oppose gender equality and clearly state this. Trump being the first US president to participate in anti-abortion actions in the USA, the recent discussion in Poland on abortion ban, the emphasis on political Islam in Turkey, supporting that women and men cannot be equal and that the sacred duty of women is to bear children, while discussions about the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention are going on, show that the capitalist and patriarchal mentality is imposing its hegemony all over the planet.

The continuous subjection to violence, the disregard for domestic labor, marginalization in working life, exposure of immigrant women to pressure during and after migration are only some of the reflections of the efforts to put women in their place.

We will either live the life they try to convict us of, or build our future right from where the Dominican Mirabal sisters started, from who we inherited the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November.

In the words of Margaret Atwood:

There isnt the future that were doomed to enact. There are all kinds of possible futures. And which one were going to get is going to depend on what we do now.

Right now, our sisters are defending their civil liberties and right to bodily autonomy in the streets against patriarchys domination over women all around the world.

We will not allow any government or sexist mentality to hide the discriminations they created by using womens bodies as a token on which they base political rhetoric and action.

We will increase our solidarity with women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and all who are oppressed by patriarchy and capitalism. We will fight collectively for our present and future, against the darkness, and in doing so create a butterfly effect. We will fight against the darkness of patriarchy, which threatens to lock us in our houses and turn our bodies into a vessel for reproduction.

Photo Source: Daily Beast.

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here

Continued here:
Legal but not accessible: abortion in Turkey from an ethical perspective - DiEM25

23 November 2020

A recent paper published in the journalCell revealed the cautionary finding that unwanted changes are introduced after modifying genesin human embryos with CRISPR/Cas9. The study, led by Dr Dietrich Egli, assistant professor of developmental cell biology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, tested theeffects of CRISPR-based genome editingon embryos carrying a mutationin a gene called EYS (eyes shut homolog) which could lead to hereditary blindness. It shows that applying this potent approachto repair a blindness-causing gene in the formation of an early embryo discards the whole chromosome, or a considerable portion of it, and that the loss of the chromosome is widespread.

CRISPR-based genome editing has revolutionised molecular life sciences. It allows scientists to perform accurate modifications in the genomes of living tissues and may lead to new medical therapies such as innovative cancer treatments and curing hereditary illnesses. In October 2020, CRISPR discoverers (Professors Emmanuelle Charpentier of Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Germany, and Jennifer Doudna of University of California, Berkeley) were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

However, like most innovative techniques, there are currently technical challenges. For example, it is possible to produce so-called off-target effects, where edits are performed in the wrong area. Researchers are still unsure as to how this might affect patients. Another concern is mosaicism, where some cells carry the edit but others do not. Such changes performed to sperm,egg and embryos can be passed to subsequent generations. In the second international summit on human genome editing, there was broad agreement among the experts in attendance that these risks are high.

Despite these serious concerns, in December 2018, Dr He Jiankui shocked the world by announcing that the first babies had been born with altered genomes (see BioNews 978). His work has attracted a backlash from the international scientific community and various governments. Dr He has been sentenced to three years in jail and fined for performing 'illegal medical practices'.

The new research indicates that CRISPR genome editing is currently not ready for clinical application to correct mutations in this early phase of human development. These findings should deter premature clinical use of genome editing on embryos. Thus, using CRISPR to edit the genomes of embryos is a far-off reality.

Due to the serious ethical concerns, the US government does not allow the use of federal funds to perform research on human embryos. The experiment was sponsored by private funding (the New York Stem Cell Foundation and the Russell Berrie Foundation programme). In Australia, section 15 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 prohibits a person from altering the genome of a human embryo in such a manner that the change is heritable by its descendantsandthe person intended this to be so. The penaltyfor this offence is imprisonment for 15 years.

We need to guide responsible and ethical research to achieve safe and effective use. In November 2020, the members of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) task force were charged with revising the2016 ISSCR Guidelines (the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation). The ISSCR is the largest stem cell organisation in the world. As a contribution to the developing and controversial stem cell field, this organisation has developed guidelines that address the global diversity of ethical, legal, ethical, cultural and political perspectives related to stem cell research and its translation to clinical application. The guidelines underscore widely shared principles that call for rigour, oversight and transparency. Strict adherence to these principles assures that such cutting-edge research is being conducted with integrity and that innovative medical treatments are evidence-based. Recent advances in this field include innovations in genome editing, organoidsand chimeras. Responding to these various developments in science, the updates will encompass a broader and more expansive scope of research and clinical endeavour, imposing rigour on every stage of the study, addressing the cost of regenerative medicine products and stressing the need for precise and effective public communication.

The persuasive ISSCR Guidelines have been adopted by some scientists, clinicians and institutions around the world. While mere guidelines do not supersede local laws, they could inform the interpretation as well as the development of local laws and provide guidance for research practices not covered by the law. As these guidelines will be updated soon, it is important that they do not encourage the clinical application of the CRISPR approach on genome-editing human embryos for the time being.

Read this article:
New study on CRISPR: the stake of unintended consequences in embryos - BioNews

The past few months have brought a number of scientific terms to public attention. Weve had to digest R (a viruss reproduction number) and PCR (the polymerase chain reaction method of testing). And now theres mRNA. This last one has featured heavily in recent news reports because of the spectacular results of two new mRNA vaccines against coronavirus. It stands for messenger ribonucleic acid, a label familiar enough if you studied biology at O-level or GCSE, but otherwise hardly a household name. Even in the field of vaccine research, if you had said as recently as 10 years ago that you could protect people from infections by injecting them with mRNA, you would have provoked some puzzled looks.

Essentially, mRNA is a molecule used by living cells to turn the gene sequences in DNA into the proteins that are the building blocks of all their fundamental structures. A segment of DNA gets copied (transcribed) into a piece of mRNA, which in turn gets read by the cells tools for synthesising proteins. In the case of an mRNA vaccine, the viruss mRNA is injected into the muscle, and our own cells then read it and synthesise the viral protein. The immune system reacts to these proteins which cant by themselves cause disease just as if theyd been carried in on the whole virus. This generates a protective response that, we hope, lasts for some time. Its so beautifully simple it almost seems like science fiction. But last week we learned that it was true.

Its extraordinary that observations originally made in cell cultures in a petri dish have been translated into real life. At the same time, its not entirely surprising that the two first Covid-19 vaccines to announce phase 3 results were mRNA-based. They were first off the blocks because, as soon as the genetic code of Sars-CoV-2 was known (it was published by the Chinese in January 2020), companies that had been working on this technology were able to start producing the viruss mRNA. Making conventional vaccines takes much longer.

Its possible that the impressive performance of these new vaccines will eclipse that of the others currently in development. It depends on how effective those alternative approaches turn out to be and results are going to start coming thick and fast. Beyond that, however, theres the question of whether mRNA could represent the future of all vaccines. If a coronavirus vaccine can be created this fast and this well with mRNA, why not use this approach across the board? In short: will mRNA become the default platform for vaccines from now on? That would mark a huge breakthrough in disease prevention.

Well just have to wait and see if it happens. Even if we assume that the full detail of the results, when they come through, corroborates the headline figures, there are things that only time can reveal. How long will protection last, especially in those who are at greatest risk? Are these vaccines efficient enough not only to stop the recipients falling ill when exposed, but also to stop them getting infected altogether or, failing that, to reduce the transmission of the virus to others?

The other key yardstick by which we judge any new vaccine technology is safety. Unlike drugs, which are given to treat people who are sick, vaccines are offered to everyone. Side-effects are only tolerable if they are pretty mild and short-lived most people will accept a second of sharp pain followed by a tender upper arm and feeling a bit off-colour for a day or two, but thats all. Severe illness caused by vaccines should preferably be nonexistent, or at least vanishingly rare.

On the face of it, mRNA ought to be safe. After all, it is found in abundance in all the cells in our bodies all the time. It is also a very fragile molecule. It falls apart very easily and is rapidly broken down by proteins designed to do that, which seem to be everywhere. Working with mRNA in the lab is a nightmare because it keeps disappearing. On this basis, it should not hang around in the body for very long after it is injected.

The fact that mRNA is genetic material might lead you to think theres some risk of genetic side-effects. However, in human cells, while DNA is regularly transcribed into RNA, the reverse doesnt happen RNA cant make it back into DNA and alter our genes. (In fact, making DNA from RNA so called reverse transcription is something that only a certain kind of virus, like HIV, can do). Ultimately though, confidence in the safety of vaccines is something that comes from experience, and it will be the same with mRNA. The reassuring thing is that they have been tested for safety in tens of thousands of study subjects already. Within a short time, that will become millions, and assuming no unexpected problems appear the sense of reassurance will grow.

Whether or not mRNA now becomes the preferred way to make novel vaccines, it is clear that a global disaster on the scale of the pandemic spurs innovation at a much faster rate. This is not just the consequence of all the resources and funding made available to those with solutions that might usually be regarded with more scepticism; it is also driven by the remarkable things that humans can achieve when thrust together by circumstances and given a common purpose. While we like to lionise individual heroes and leaders, scientific advances like mRNA vaccines are always the product of the collaborative efforts of many people with diverse skills and backgrounds. Bringing vaccines to the clinic also requires large numbers of brave and altruistic volunteers to take part in clinical trials.

Stepping back, one fact stands out. At the beginning of November, we still did not know whether or not any vaccine would be able to help us overcome this terrible disease. As the month draws to its close, were certain that they can. However mRNA vaccines go down in the history books, that in itself is something to marvel at. Human ingenuity, invention and sheer hard work mean we are finally on the road out of this disaster.

Originally posted here:
Is this the beginning of an mRNA vaccine revolution? - The Guardian

Joe Mathews, Zcalo Public Square Published 12:35 p.m. PT Nov. 20, 2020

If youre having a hard time processing the scale of death produced by the COVID-19 pandemic,heres a California alternative for wrapping your mind around the carnage:

Visit the largest, prettiestcemeteryyou can find. Irecommendthe original Forest Lawn, in Glendale, the most Californian of cemeteries.

I recentlywalked the290acresof this memorial park, the first of six Forest Lawn parks in Southern California,and found that itclarified my thinkingandimproved my mood.

Italso helped me to putin perspectivethe full human toll of COVID-19. Since Forest Lawn openedhere114 years ago, in 1906, it has interred 340,000 souls on this property.Under current projections, theU.S.willreach340,000 COVID deaths in January.

If youre looking for global perspective, try Colma, the Bay Areas city of cemeteries, the final resting place for 1.5 million people; the world should surpass 1.5 million COVID deaths before Christmas.

Such statistics are tragic andreflect a fundamental human failure: Weexperienceindividualdeath intensely(be it a friends death or the killing of George Floyd), but struggle to recognize death inthe aggregate.Thismyopia is whywe need cemeteries right now.

Cemeteries are not just a place to reflect on the past,wrotelongtimeForest Lawn chief executive John Llewelyn, inA Cemetery Should Be Forever. They remind us to keep the present in perspective.

Especially when the present is so frightening.

Forest Lawns missionwasabout putting a sunny California spin on death.

I believe in a happy eternal life, Forest Lawns first real leader Hubert Eaton wrote in 1917. I therefore know the cemeteries of today are wrong, because they depict an end, not a beginning I shall try to build at Forest Lawn a Great Park filled with towering trees, sweeping lawns, splashing fountains, singing birds, beautiful statuary, cheerful flowers, noble memorial architecture with interiors full of light and color, and redolent of the worlds best history and romances.

The resulting memorial-park has beencritiquedasaDisneyland of Death. But at thismoment, I found visiting the happiest cemetery onEarthsoothing, and thought-provoking.

I encountered joggers, bikers, painters, and babies in strollers.Iheard birds sing as I enjoyed360-degree L.A.views from the esplanade.A half-dozen people chatted amiably while admiringThe Mystery of Life,asculpture groupof18 human figuresgathered atstream that flows toward an unknown destination.

By its usual standards, Forest Lawn was pretty quiet.Itsart museum which housesan important collection ofstained glassand William Bouguereaus 1881 paintingSong of the Angels was closed.Therewere noschool field trips on the grounds. Tens of thousands of people, including Ronald Reagan, have been marriedat Forest Lawn, but during my visit there werenoweddings in the cemeterys three churches, which were locked.

Still,I enjoyed the way the place resemblesSouthern California in miniature, with itsvariedtopographies(windswept hills, cool valleys, a sprawling basin),andobsession with being big (Forest Lawnswrought-iron gates aretwice as wideas those at Buckingham Palace, and the Hall of Crucifixion houses the worlds largestpermanently mountedreligious painting).

In an older, flatter cemetery sectionIwalked amidstthe century-old graves of people who died in their 20s of Spanish flu.In theCourt of Freedom,I admired agiant outdoorreproduction ofof John Trumbulls Signing of the Declaration of Independenceand reflected on Jeffersonswisdom in putting life before liberty and pursuit of happiness.

This pandemic is killing so fast that were not stopping to appreciate the lives lost.Wewillneed to rememberthe plagueslessons, to honor its sacrifices, so we might see its afterlife as a beginning, not an end.

Here in California,we shouldmemorializeevery last one of our pandemicdead,witha monument that isbeautiful and big, and makes people happy when they visit it.

Joe Mathews(Photo: Courtesy)

Joe Mathews,joe@zocalopublicsquare.org, writes the Connecting California column forZcalo Public Square.

Read or Share this story: https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2020/11/20/finding-solace-during-covid-19-at-the-happiest-cemetery-on-earth-joe-mathews-connecting-california/6342554002/

Originally posted here:
Connecting California: Finding solace during COVID-19 at 'the happiest cemetery on Earth' - VC Star

Vancouver Island marmots may just be the antidote required for the dystopian times we are living in.

If you must be trapped inside during this current winter of discontent, alone at a desk, scrolling through hours of video best it be watching one of the most endearing animals on the planet.

Researchers looking to conserve Canadas most endangered mammal take advantage of the creatures seven-month hibernation season to mine footage and field data for more insights that will help the animals survive, said Adam Taylor, executive director of the Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Foundation.

The process does not get old over time, Taylor said.

After years of study, he still gets a kick out of watching the highly social, fuzzy, chocolate brown critters laze on rocks, munch the alpine vegetation or alternately tussle or boop noses with one another.

They are entertaining to watch. And there's no doubt about it, they are unbearably cute, said Taylor.

The biologist describes the marmots as a good gateway animal to hook people into caring generally about the conservation of species at risk.

They are really good ambassadors, Taylor said of this cat-sized member of the squirrel family.

I hope somebody discovers the Vancouver Island marmot and then finds this world of other endangered species that also need our help.

But for all their cuteness, the Vancouver Island marmot is a role model in resiliency, Taylor added.

Despite enduring a harsh climate, challenging conditions and changing habitat due the impacts of human activity, the marmots represent a potential good news story that illustrates the possibility of bringing a species back from the brink of extinction.

The critically endangered species has gone from a low count of just 30 wild marmots living in handful of locations in 2003 to approximately 200 living in colonies across 20 Vancouver Island mountains by 2019.

Through a captive breeding and release program in conjunction with the Toronto and Calgary zoos, habitat restoration and monitoring activities, the foundation and its partners have seen the Vancouver Island marmot repopulate areas where it was completely extirpated, Taylor said.

The last two years have resulted in a combined population of more than 100 pups born in the wild, he said.

So to that extent, yes, weve had success, Taylor said.

I think there's reason for real optimism, that we have some science and some modelling that is demonstrating that we have an approach that can bring this species back.

But he was very cautious about labelling the recovery effort as a definitive triumph of any sort.

But are we done? No, no, we're not done, Taylor said.

And if we walked away today, the species would absolutely fly back into extinction very quickly.

The Vancouver Island marmot population is still growing slowly and is extremely vulnerable to damaging bouts of predation from wolves and cougars that can more easily access colonies along the logging roads puncturing high alpine forests.

And the ever-present danger of starvation during or following hibernation is being exacerbated by climate change as the snowpack drops and spring melts quicken, limiting the supply of vegetation the marmots rely on, he said.

As well, a colonys ability to rebound after any significant population loss can be hindered if the animals travel routes to each others' communities are severed or disrupted by industrial activity or projects, Taylor said.

The foundation must still assist the marmots to boost their recovery, he noted.

Just before and following hibernation, the foundation provides the marmots which can lose one-third of their weight during their winter snooze with supplemental vegetation biscuits to fatten them up and improve reproduction rates.

Plus, the captive-bred marmots are subject to a halfway house approach when being released into the wild.

The marmots appear to have a better survival rate when they are released on Mount Washington and its attendant ski runs for their first year in nature before being recaptured and released into more challenging environments in areas such as Strathcona Park, Taylor said.

The practice seems to condition them to a natural environment and has boosted their survival rates five-fold, he said.

It does seem counterintuitive that such a highly modified habitat would benefit the marmot, especially given the negative impacts human activity has posed in the past, Taylor agreed.

But the ski hills operators avoid activities that might endanger the marmots, prevent tree growth on the runs, which mimic the avalanche slopes favoured by the critter, and the constant presence of humans deters predators, he said.

Hindsight is 20/20. But if you look at a ski hill, it looks exactly like marmot habitat, Taylor said.

And at the absolute lowest point, when we had fewer than 30 Vancouver Island marmots left in the wild, 10 of them were living at that ski resort.

The recovery effort eats up a good chunk of money and time, Taylor said.

But Canadians should feel a responsibility to protect it, he said.

We have a moral obligation, Taylor said, adding the Vancouver Island marmot is one of only five endemic species to Canada and the only one at risk.

But asking how the world would be different if we lost the Vancouver Island marmot is in some ways the wrong question, he said, noting it nearly happened once before without many people being aware of the fact.

However, saving the Vancouver Island marmot is also critical for reasons outside their own survival, Taylor stressed.

The world is facing massive declines in biodiversity and a growing list of species bordering extinction, he said.

The marmot can offer a portion of hope in this doomsday scenario, Taylor said.

We need success stories in the conservation world. This is not an easy time to work with wildlife, he said.

We need to be able to demonstrate that it's possible to bring these species back because that's the task that we're going to be engaged in more and more often. And if we don't have success stories, then it's going to be really hard for us to justify why we want to save any one of these species.

Rochelle Baker / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer

View post:
Endangered Vancouver Island marmots are making a comeback - National Observer