Purpose of the articles posted in the blog is to share knowledge and occurring events for ecology and biodiversity conservation and protection whereas biology will be human’s security. Remember, these are meant to be conversation starters, not mere broadcasts :) so I kindly request and would vastly prefer that you share your comments and thoughts on the blog-version of this Focus on Arts and Ecology (all its past + present + future).

Premium Blogger Themes - Starting From $10
#Post Title #Post Title #Post Title

International Scholarships available for the 2021 MSc Course in Tropical Forestry at TU Dresden, Germany

International Scholarships available for the 2021 MSc Course
in Tropical Forestry at TU Dresden, Germany

Your are invited to attend the MSc Course in TROPICAL FORESTRY
for which we have DAAD scholarships. The course is taught in
English at Technische Universitaet Dresden (TUD), one of the 11 German
Universities of Excellence.
Over many decades, the international orientation and socioeconomic
focus have made this 2-year MSc course unique in Europe. You will
benefit from the multidisciplinary international experience of our research
scientists and lecturers who will also supervise your field research in
the tropics.
The Master course qualifies future decision-makers and change agents to
develop sustainable forest management strategies and implement
development-relevant interventions in rural and peri-urban areas.
The studies provide expert knowledge to handle manifold human-forest
interactions and sustainable development issues.
In addition to socioeconomic, management and general aspects of tropical
forestry, the course includes specific topics of climate change related
carbon forestry, agroforestry and land use change. Excellent
Master Students have later the chance to join our PhD program.
Presently, over 300 graduates from our courses are working in
tropical countries and international organizations, many of them
in top positions.
Another benefit: As public university TUD exempts students from tuition
fees!

To apply or to get more information write to:
tropentutor@mailbox.tu-dresden.de

Check out our website:
https://tu-dresden.de/bu/umwelt/forst/inter/tropen?set_language=en
And our blog: https://tropicalforestry.wordpress.com

Deadline is *31st October 2020* for the intake October 2021.
However, if you have own funding and don’t need a DAAD scholarship, you
can start studying in the same year by submitting your application until
31st May (applicants from outside EU), or until 15th July (applicants
from EU).

--
Prof. Dr. Gerald Kapp
Technische Universitaet Dresden
Faculty of Environmental Sciences
Institute of International Forestry and Forest Products
Chair of Tropical Forestry
01062 Dresden, Germany (mail address)
Pienner Str. 7, 01737 Tharandt, Germany (visiting address)
Tel +49 351 463-31308
Fax +49 351 463-31820
E-Mail:gerald.kapp@tu-dresden.de
Web:www.forst.tu-dresden.de/Inter
Blog:https://tropicalforestry.wordpress.com
[ Read More ]

Sonoma County passes 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases


Sonoma County Public Health nurses, from left, Maggie Wideau, Jacob Soled, Sylvia Brown and Katy Jenkins take a break from the heat during a drive-up coronavirus testing and tracing clinic, April 22, 2020 in Santa Rosa. (Kent Porter / The Press Democrat) 2020
Sonoma County Public Health nurses, from left, Maggie Wideau, Jacob Soled, Sylvia Brown and Katy Jenkins take a break from the heat during a drive-up coronavirus testing and tracing clinic, April 22, 2020 in Santa Rosa. (Kent Porter / The Press Democrat) 2020

Vials of blood samples from a donor await to be sent out for coronavirus antibody testing at the Vitalant blood donation center in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, June 9, 2020. (Christopher Chung / The Press Democrat)
Vials of blood samples from a donor await to be sent out for coronavirus antibody testing at the Vitalant blood donation center in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, June 9, 2020. (Christopher Chung / The Press Democrat)

A few hours before Sonoma County passed 1,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus, the county’s health officer on Thursday showed cautious optimism about the ability to blunt the spread of the disease and save lives, even on the heels of a 40% rise in local cases over the past two weeks.

Dr. Sundari Mase said the milestone was arbitrary and what concerns her more is the increase in the average rate at which confirmed COVID-19 cases are increasing over a 14-day period.

“I don't know that I'd make that much out of 1,000 (cases). It’s just a number, but I would look more at the trend,” she said.

The county passed the threshold late Thursday night, announcing 32 new cases, for a total of 1,006 since the pandemic appeared locally in early March.

That trend shows a significant increase in the county’s COVID-19 case rate, the number of confirmed cases for every 100,000 residents. About five weeks ago, that rate hovered around 20 cases per 100,000 people, and three weeks ago it increased to 40, she said.

Now, it’s approaching 60 cases per 100,000 residents. The rate is one of several metrics county health officials are using to track and adjust their response to the pandemic. Other metrics include hospitalization rates, the availability of intensive care beds, testing capacity and the local positivity rate, or the share of all testing that results in confirmed cases.

Those benchmarks, established during the county’s early response to the virus, are more rigorous than more recent state criteria for measuring the local public health response to the virus. For example, the county’s benchmark for cases per 100,000 residents is anything greater than 25, while the state sets it at 100.In five of those metrics ― case rates, increasing hospitalizations, limited hospital capacity, average weekly testing volume and cases at skilled nursing facilities ― the county is now out of step with benchmarks geared to its reopening roadmap.

Mase said she’s keeping an eye on both county and state thresholds.

“We're not using just one benchmark, we're using a combination of different things that we're looking at,” she said.

Nearly half of Sonoma County’s cases are active, with about 10% involving hospitalized patients.

Earlier this week, a recent outbreak at an unidentified local skilled nursing facility was partly to blame for the spike of infections reported Monday, when county health officials added 50 new cases, a single-day record, and a sharp jump even over the previous high mark on Sunday, when 32 cases surfaced.

Similar trends are being reported across the state and nation as testing expands, but also as reopening fuels wider and quicker spread of the contagion.

As of Wednesday, there have been 18 coronavirus cases reported at local skilled nursing facilities since June 1. Of these, 13 were among residents, local health officials said.

Mase declined Thursday to name the skilled nursing facility with the recent outbreak. But according to state Department of Public Health data, Broadway Villa Post Acute, a skilled nursing and therapeutic facility in Sonoma, reported to the state on Wednesday that 11 of its residents had tested positive for COVID-19.

The facility reported on June 10 that at least one staff member had tested positive, and on Monday it reported to the state that the death of one of its residents was tied to COVID-19 ― a man over 65 who was the fifth coronavirus death in the county.

Mike Empey, executive director of Broadway Villa, has not returned multiple phone calls and emails this week seeking comment, with no response again on Thursday.

Mase said that staying on top of such outbreaks will be crucial as the county continues to transition from across-the-board public health restrictions to a more free-roaming economy with pandemic precautions in place. The county’s prior success in flattening the curve and suppressing the spread of the virus have led to low numbers of hospitalizations.

“For the time being, we have and I'm really thankful for that,” she said.

Mase emphasized the need for more people to seek out testing. The county has a population of nearly half a million but only a little more than 40,000 people have been tested, she said, with daily volume at roughly 550 to 600 tests.

“The testing capacity is there,” she said. “It's more because people are not taking advantage of the testing that’s offered.

A higher volume of test results will allow public health investigators to better predict what will happen later in the summer, she said.

Mase said people should use their judgment in determining how often they should be tested. If someone feels like they may have been exposed they can be tested again, she said.

“If they went to a restaurant and they're just concerned because there was a lot of people there. . . . maybe not everybody was wearing facial coverings who was serving, then that might be a reason to go get tested,” she said.

You can reach Staff Writer Martin Espinoza at 707-521-5213 or martin.espinoza@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @pressreno.

To Our Readers

It’s hard to come to you and ask for help, but like so many other businesses, we have faced serious financial losses due to a drastic reduction in ad revenue. We are making many sacrifices to keep our readers informed because we believe it is our duty to serve our community through yet another difficult situation. No matter what.

To help keep our staff working and our operations running, we ask that you consider the value of trusted, local journalism to keep you informed and up-to-date. If you’re not a subscriber, consider a digital subscription.

If that’s out of reach, please consider a small donation to offset our costs.

Already a subscriber? Log in or Link your account

[ Read More ]

Coronavirus infection rate spiking in California, a troubling sign of community spread


Angelica and Julio Rascon of Tucson visit Mission Beach on Friday.
Angelica and Julio Rascon of Tucson visit Mission Beach on Friday. 
(Jarrod Valliere / The San Diego Union-Tribune)


Of the many coronavirus metrics rising in California, one of the most troubling is the rate in which coronavirus test results are now coming back positive.

A Times data analysis found that as of Friday, 5.7% of coronavirus test results in California over the preceding seven days came back positive, a rate not seen since early May. A week ago, the rate was 4.7%, a rate that had been largely stable for June until just Sunday, when there was a dramatic shift in the numbers.

Health officials say the rising percentage of coronavirus test results confirming infection indicated that the virus is beginning to spread in communities as more counties in California ease stay-at-home orders, allowing many businesses to reopen.

The state has seen a surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in recent weeks that officials attribute to a variety of factors including people increasingly leaving home; holding social gatherings; failing to wear face coverings; outbreaks in nursing homes, prisons, newly opened workplaces and overcrowded homes; and recent political protests.

The so-called “positivity rate” has become an increasingly close-watched indicator of how much the coronavirus is spreading, and its steady rise over the last week is causing concern.

“The numbers do tell us that we’re seeing an increase in community transmission,” Barbara Ferrer, the director of public health for L.A. County, said this week.

On Sunday, the rate of coronavirus tests confirming infection over the previous seven days in California was up to 4.8%. The next day, it was 4.9%. By Tuesday, it was 5.3%, and on Friday, it was 5.7%.

Rural Imperial County, one of the nation’s most important agricultural areas east of San Diego, now has the highest test positivity rate of any county in the state, with a seven-day average of 23% — well over the 8% rate that causes particular concern among state officials. Outbreaks there have overwhelmed local hospitals, forcing more than 500 patients to be sent to other counties for care.

The situation in Imperial County is so bad that Newsom said Friday the state was recommending that county officials reimpose a strict stay-at-home order — the first time officials have taken such a drastic move. With 5,744 cases and 73 deaths, Imperial County has the highest rate of coronavirus cases per capita in California, according to The Times’ pandemic tracker.

“We are advising and counseling them to move forward and reinstitute a stay-at-home order, but they will move at their discretion,” Newsom said. “If they are not able to come to some consensus, I am committed to intervening as is my role and responsibility as governor in the state of California.”

Imperial is among an increasing number of California counties the state is monitoring because they have exceeded criteria set by the state to address the pandemic, including thresholds for hospitalizations and positive COVID-19 tests.

Initially, the list was focused on Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley, but now has spread to the Bay Area. Including Imperial, the 15 counties are Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, Tulare and Ventura.

Newsom urged people in denial about the worsening pandemic to realize the new reality.

“Let us disabuse ourselves that somehow — the lazy punditry that was out there — that somehow this is a seasonal disease and triple-digit weather will annihilate it. Look at these states that are seeing unprecedented record increases,” Newsom said.

Conditions were also deteriorating Friday in San Bernardino County. Officials there said local hospitals are beginning to reach “surge capacity” because of new coronavirus cases, meaning they are getting close to hitting their licensed limits for the number of available beds.

They stressed that there is still room for more patients but said the system is becoming stressed. The county said it would consider opening alternate care sites for patients if hospitals fill up.

California has seen a 36% increase in hospitalizations of patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and a 24% jump in ICU patients with verified infections, over the past 14 days.

Los Angeles County is also recording an increasing rate of test results coming back positive for the coronavirus. On Friday, 8.8% of coronavirus test results were confirming infections as a daily average over the past week. Two weeks ago, on June 12, it was 5.8%.

While the rate of positive test results can help show the influence of more robust testing on rising case counts, there are still some pitfalls.

At the beginning of the pandemic, tests were limited and often only available to critically ill patients. Now in many parts of California, people without symptoms may be able to get swabbed for the virus. That would drive the positive rate down.

“At the end of the day, it’s really not telling us for sure what’s happening in the community,” said Ron Brookmeyer, a biostatistician and dean at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “A falling positivity rate could be reflecting just that there’s a skew now, a shifting of who’s coming in for testing.”

Nonetheless, Brookmeyer said the recent increase in California’s positivity rate is a “troubling early warning sign,” adding that rising hospitalizations and deaths could follow.

“I would next be keeping a very careful eye on numbers of new hospitalizations,” he said.

In L.A. County, there were 1,302 hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infections on June 1. As of Thursday, there were 1,660 — a 27% increase.

The worsening pandemic has caused Newsom to put a pause on issuing rules that would allow counties to reopen other industries, such as amusement parks. As a result, Disney said this week that Disneyland will not be able to open as previously planned on July 17.

There’s nothing to suggest California will be able to allow counties to open more industries any time soon, based on the rising cases and hospitalizations, Newsom said.

Newsom warned that the number of new daily deaths will likely go up in a few weeks. It can take three to four weeks after exposure to the virus for infected people to be hospitalized, and four to five weeks after exposure for patients to die from the disease.

Rising levels of disease caused several counties in the San Francisco Bay Area to signal a slowdown in the reopening process.

San Francisco is experiencing a surge in rates of COVID-19 infection and will have to pause its reopening, the city’s health director said Friday.

Businesses that were scheduled to reopen Monday will now stay closed, said Dr. Grant Colfax, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

They include hair salons, barbershops, tattoo parlors, zoos, outdoor bars and outdoor swimming pools. On June 14, 2.7 people per 100,000 tested positive for the virus, Colfax said in a virtual news conference. By Thursday, that rate had jumped to 5.1 per 100,000.

“We went from a yellow to a high orange, and if that continues over the next couple of days, we could be in our red zone,” which could trigger more restrictions, Colfax said. He said hospital capacity remained “relatively good.”

In Marin County, officials decided to pause the reopening of gyms, tattoo parlors and nail salons that was planned for Monday, although they will allow indoor dining and haircuts to resume on that day.

The Bay Area’s third most populous county, Contra Costa, has seen its number of COVID-19 hospitalizations rise by 42% in the last seven days.

“This … indicates a true increase in community spread,” officials said. Younger people are also increasingly getting infected, with 55% of cases in people aged 40 or younger; in April, they comprised only 38% of cases.

“It’s a sign that younger people are playing a major role in driving the increase in new cases and potentially infecting vulnerable individuals. This highlights why it’s important for everyone to avoid social gatherings, observe physical distancing and wear masks or face coverings when around others,” Contra Costa County officials said.

“There is concern that these increases may lead to a surge in very ill people that could overwhelm the local healthcare system,” officials said.

Officials raised the possibility that Contra Costa County would delay the reopening of businesses that are scheduled to reopen on Wednesday, including indoor dining, bars, gyms, hotels, nail salons and tattoo parlors.

“We realize many people are eager to resume normal activities. However, if we adjust the reopening timeline, it will be because we have a chance to prevent the pandemic from getting out of control in the county,” Contra Costa County officials said.

Times staff writers Maura Dolan in San Francisco and Phil Willon in Sacramento contributed to this report.


[ Read More ]

Coronavirus responses highlight how humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

Coronavirus responses highlight how humans are hardwired to ...
The more politicized an issue, the harder it is for people to absorb contradictory evidence. Drew Angerer/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Bemoaning uneven individual and state compliance with public health recommendations, top U.S. COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci recently blamed the country’s ineffective pandemic response on an American “anti-science bias.” He called this bias “inconceivable,” because “science is truth.” Fauci compared those discounting the importance of masks and social distancing to “anti-vaxxers” in their “amazing” refusal to listen to science.

It is Fauci’s profession of amazement that amazes me. As well-versed as he is in the science of the coronavirus, he’s overlooking the well-established science of “anti-science bias,” or science denial.

Americans increasingly exist in highly polarized, informationally insulated ideological communities occupying their own information universes.

Within segments of the political blogosphere, global warming is dismissed as either a hoax or so uncertain as to be unworthy of response. Within other geographic or online communities, the science of vaccine safetyfluoridated drinking water and genetically modified foods is distorted or ignored. There is a marked gap in expressed concern over the coronavirus depending on political party affiliation, apparently based in part on partisan disagreements over factual issues like the effectiveness of social distancing or the actual COVID-19 death rate.

In theory, resolving factual disputes should be relatively easy: Just present strong evidence, or evidence of a strong expert consensus. This approach succeeds most of the time, when the issue is, say, the atomic weight of hydrogen.

But things don’t work that way when scientific advice presents a picture that threatens someone’s perceived interests or ideological worldview. In practice, it turns out that one’s political, religious or ethnic identity quite effectively predicts one’s willingness to accept expertise on any given politicized issue.

Motivated reasoning” is what social scientists call the process of deciding what evidence to accept based on the conclusion one prefers. As I explain in my book, “The Truth About Denial,” this very human tendency applies to all kinds of facts about the physical world, economic history and current events.

The same facts will sound different to people depending on what they already believe. AP Photo/John Raoux

Denial doesn’t stem from ignorance

The interdisciplinary study of this phenomenon has made one thing clear: The failure of various groups to acknowledge the truth about, say, climate change, is not explained by a lack of information about the scientific consensus on the subject.

Instead, what strongly predicts denial of expertise on many controversial topics is simply one’s political persuasion.

2015 metastudy showed that ideological polarization over the reality of climate change actually increases with respondents’ knowledge of politics, science and/or energy policy. The chances that a conservative is a climate science denier is significantly higher if he or she is college educated. Conservatives scoring highest on tests for cognitive sophistication or quantitative reasoning skills are most susceptible to motivated reasoning about climate science.

Denialism is not just a problem for conservatives. Studies have found liberals are less likely to accept a hypothetical expert consensus on the possibility of safe storage of nuclear waste, or on the effects of concealed-carry gun laws.

Denial is natural

The human talent for rationalization is a product of many hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation. Our ancestors evolved in small groups, where cooperation and persuasion had at least as much to do with reproductive success as holding accurate factual beliefs about the world. Assimilation into one’s tribe required assimilation into the group’s ideological belief system – regardless of whether it was grounded in science or superstition. An instinctive bias in favor of one’s “in-group” and its worldview is deeply ingrained in human psychology.

A human being’s very sense of self is intimately tied up with his or her identity group’s status and beliefs. Unsurprisingly, then, people respond automatically and defensively to information that threatens the worldview of groups with which they identify. We respond with rationalization and selective assessment of evidence – that is, we engage in “confirmation bias,” giving credit to expert testimony we like while finding reasons to reject the rest.

Unwelcome information can also threaten in other ways. “System justification” theorists like psychologist John Jost have shown how situations that represent a perceived threat to established systems trigger inflexible thinking. For example, populations experiencing economic distress or an external threat have often turned to authoritarian leaders who promise security and stability.

In ideologically charged situations, one’s prejudices end up affecting one’s factual beliefs. Insofar as you define yourself in terms of your cultural affiliations, your attachment to the social or economic status quo, or a combination, information that threatens your belief system – say, about the negative effects of industrial production on the environment – can threaten your sense of identity itself. If trusted political leaders or partisan media are telling you that the COVID-19 crisis is overblown, factual information about a scientific consensus to the contrary can feel like a personal attack.

Everyone sees the world through one partisan lens or another, based on their identity and beliefs. Vladyslav Starozhylov/Shutterstock.com

Denial is everywhere

This kind of affect-laden, motivated thinking explains a wide range of examples of an extreme, evidence-resistant rejection of historical fact and scientific consensus.

Have tax cuts been shown to pay for themselves in terms of economic growth? Do communities with high numbers of immigrants have higher rates of violent crime? Did Russia interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Predictably, expert opinion regarding such matters is treated by partisan media as though evidence is itself inherently partisan.

Denialist phenomena are many and varied, but the story behind them is, ultimately, quite simple. Human cognition is inseparable from the unconscious emotional responses that go with it. Under the right conditions, universal human traits like in-group favoritism, existential anxiety and a desire for stability and control combine into a toxic, system-justifying identity politics.

Science denial is notoriously resistant to facts because it isn’t about facts in the first place. Science denial is an expression of identity – usually in the face of perceived threats to the social and economic status quo – and it typically manifests in response to elite messaging.

I’d be very surprised if Anthony Fauci is, in fact, actually unaware of the significant impact of politics on COVID-19 attitudes, or of what signals are being sent by Republican state government officials’ statementspartisan mask refusal in Congress, or the recent Trump rally in Tulsa. Effective science communication is critically important because of the profound effects partisan messaging can have on public attitudes. Vaccination, resource depletion, climate and COVID-19 are life-and-death matters. To successfully tackle them, we must not ignore what the science tells us about science denial.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 31, 2020.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

Before you go...

Our COVID-19 coverage is evidenced, direct from the experts, and 100% independent. Help us reach more people with accurate content based on evidence, not alarm.

Misha Ketchell

Editor

[ Read More ]

    Powered By Blogger