Thursday, October 22, 2020

The Apps Americans Can't Live Without

Most smartphone users have at least one app which they couldn't live without, be it for their favorite social media platform or perhaps messaging. Survey data from Audience Project shows that for Americans, Facebook is at the top of this list for most people and is the app most commonly cited as one they could least do without. Closely linked, Instagram is in second place, while Gmail makes up the top three "essential" apps on mobile.Infographic: The Apps Americans Can't Live Without | Statista

do you believe?

В Барнауле в подвале госпиталя больницы №12 скопились тела умерших пациентов — их хранят там из-за нехватки патологоанатомов и возросшей нагрузки на них. Об этом сообщили в Минздраве Алтайского края, передает «Интерфакс».


Так власти отреагировали на распространившееся в соцсетях видео, на котором видно множество черных мешков на полу и каталках. В Минздраве объяснили, что патологоанатомы не успевают вовремя делать вскрытие, из-за чего возникает очередь, а в здании недостаточно холодильных камер для такого количества тел, поэтому их вынужденно хранят в подвале — там оборудовали специальную комнату с определенным температурным режимом.

Как добавили в министерстве, на ситуацию влияет и то, что родственники не всегда могут своевременно получить тела — некоторые находятся на карантине из-за контакта с умершими от ковида. Кроме того, из-за пандемии закрыты ритуальные залы.

Минздрав начал принимать меры для решения проблемы — нагрузку патологоанатомов перераспределили, они будут работать в две смены. Для хранения тел определили законсервированный морг больницы №3 с изолированными камерами, также рассматривают возможность привлечения специалистов с профильной кафедры медицинского университета. Министерство также пытается договориться с ритуальными агентствами об оперативном оформлении документов и организовало работу похоронных служб с умершими, не имевшими родственников.

В больнице с 10 сентября повторно развернули инфекционный госпиталь для пациентов с коронавирусом. Он был рассчитан на 360 человек, но людей становилось больше, и число коек увеличили до 600. За октябрь там умерло 98 человек, уточнили в Минздраве.

gender inequalities

brother's in mind help

Sergey Naryshkin (2016-07-14)
Нарышкин
В Белоруссию на встречу с главой государства Александром Лукашенко прибыл глава службы внешней разведки России Сергей Нарышкин. Об этом в четверг, 22 октября, пишет государственный Telegram-канал «Пул первого».

«Сегодня в Минске Сергей Нарышкин. Глава службы внешней разведки РФ. Встреча с президентом через час», — говорится в сообщении.

Подробности о повестке встречи не указаны.


15 сентября премьер-министр России Михаил Мишустин провел телефонный разговор с белорусским коллегой Романом Головченко. Главы правительств «обсудили ряд актуальных вопросов двустороннего сотрудничества в торгово-экономической сфере, а также тематику взаимодействия в рамках Союзного государства».

Пресс-секретарь российского президента Дмитрий Песков в тот же день сообщил, что для России Белоруссия всегда была братской республикой и ближайшим союзником.

За день до этого состоялась очная встреча Путина и Лукашенко в Сочи. Российский президент заверил коллегу в приверженности договоренностям с Белоруссией.

3 сентября Михаил Мишустин посетил Минск, где встретился с главой Республики Беларусь Александром Лукашенко. После переговоров российский премьер заявил, что Москве и Минску удалось достичь прогресса относительно будущего Союзного государства.

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Francesco becomes the first Pope to endorse same-sex civil unions

Francis becomes 1st pope to endorse same-sex civil unions 

Pope Francis endorsed gay civil unions for the first time as pontiff while being interviewed for a feature-length documentary that has premiered at the Rome Film Festival 

Franciscus in 2015By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press21 October 2020, 19:07• 7 min read
ROME -- Pope Francis endorsed same-sex civil unions for the first time as pontiff while being interviewed for the feature-length documentary “Francesco,” which premiered Wednesday at the Rome Film Festival.

The papal thumbs-up came midway through the film that delves into issues Francis cares about most, including the environment, poverty, migration, racial and income inequality, and the people most affected by discrimination.


“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. “You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

While serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages. However, he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions as pope.

The Jesuit priest who has been at the forefront in seeking to build bridges with gays in the church, the Rev. James Martin, praised the pope's comments as “a major step forward in the church’s support for LGBT people.”

"The Pope’s speaking positively about civil unions also sends a strong message to places where the church has opposed such laws," Martin said in a statement.

Catholic Church teaching holds that gays must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” A 2003 document from the Vatican’s doctrine office stated that the church’s respect for gays “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” That document was signed by the then-prefect of the office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI and Francis’ predecessor.

One of the main characters in the documentary is Juan Carlos Cruz, the Chilean survivor of clergy sexual abuse whom Francis initially discredited during a 2018 visit to Chile.

Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018 after they patched things up, Francis assured him that God made Cruz gay. Cruz tells his own story in snippets throughout the film, chronicling both Francis’ evolution on understanding sexual abuse as well as to document the pope's views on gay people.

Director Evgeny Afineevsky had remarkable access to cardinals, the Vatican television archives and the pope himself. He said he negotiated his way in through persistence, and deliveries of Argentine mate tea and Alfajores cookies that he got to the pope via some well-connected Argentines in Rome.


“Listen, when you are in the Vatican, the only way to achieve something is to break the rule and then to say, ‘I’m sorry,’” Afineevsky said in an interview ahead of the premiere.

The director worked official and unofficial channels starting in early 2018, and ended up so close to Francis by the end of the project that he showed the pope the movie on his iPad in August. The two recently exchanged Yom Kippur greetings; Afineevsky is a Russian-born Jew now based in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Afineevsky's 48th birthday, the director said Francis presented him with a birthday cake during a private meeting at the Vatican.

But “Francesco” is more than a biopic about the pope.

Wim Wenders did that in the 2018 film “Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,” which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. “Francesco,” is more a visual survey of the world’s crises and tragedies, with audio from the pope providing possible ways to solve them.

Afineevsky, who was nominated for an Oscar for his 2015 documentary “Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom,” traveled the world to film his pope movie: The settings include Cox’s Bazaar in Bangladesh where Myanmar’s Rohingya sought refuge; the U.S.-Mexico border; and Francis’ native Argentina.

“The film tells the story of the pope by reversing the cameras,” said Vatican communications director Paolo Ruffini, who was one of Afineevsky’s closest Vatican-based collaborators on the film.

Ruffini said that when Afineevsky first approached him about a documentary, he tried to tamp down his hopes for interviewing the pope. “I told him it wasn’t going to be easy,” he said.

But Ruffini gave him some advice: names of people who had been impacted by the pope, even after just a brief meeting. Afineevsky found them: the refugees Francis met with on some of his foreign trips, prisoners he blessed, and some of the gays to whom he has ministered.

“I told him that many of those encounters had certainly been filmed by the Vatican cameras, and that there he would find a veritable gold mine of stories that told a story," Ruffini said. “He would be able to tell story of the pope through the eyes of all and not just his own.”

Francis' outreach to gays dates to his first foreign trip in 2013, when he uttered the now-famous words “Who am I to judge," when asked during an airborne news conference returning home from Rio de Janiero about a purportedly gay priest.

Since then, he has ministered to gays and transsexual prostitutes, and welcomed people in gay partnerships into his inner circle. One of them was his former student, Yayo Grassi, who along with his partner visited Francis at the Vatican's Washington D.C. embassy during the pope's 2015 visit to the U.S.

The Vatican publicized that encounter, making video and photos of it available, after Francis was ambushed during that same visit by his then-ambassador, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who invited the anti-gay marriage activist Kim Davis to meet with the pope.

News of the Davis audience made headlines at the time and was viewed by conservatives as a papal stamp of approval for Davis, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Vatican, however, vigorously sought to downplay it, with the Vatican spokesman saying the meeting by no means indicated Francis’ support for her or her position on gay marriage.

However, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was fervently opposed to gay marriage when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. Then, he launched what gay activists remember as a “war of God" against Argentina's move to approve same-sex marriage.

The pope's authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, said at the time of his 2013 election that Bergoglio was politically wise enough to know the church couldn’t win a straight-on fight against gay marriage. Instead, Rubin said, Bergoglio urged his fellow bishops to lobby for gay civil unions instead.

It wasn’t until Bergoglio's proposal was shot down by the conservative bishops’ conference that Bergoglio publicly declared his opposition, and the church lost the issue altogether.

Francis, in the new documentary, confirms Rubin's account of what transpired. Of his belief in the need for legislation to protect gays living in civil relationships, he said: “I stood up for that."

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an organization of LGBT Catholics, praised Francis’ comments as a “historic” shift for a church that has long seen as persecuting gays.

“At the same time, we urge Pope Francis to apply the same kind of reasoning to recognize and bless these same unions of love and support within the Catholic Church, too," he said in a statement.

However, more conservative commentators sought to play down Francis’ words and said that while secular civil unions are one thing, a church blessing of them is quite another.

In a tweet, conservative U.S. author and commentator Ryan Anderson noted that he and some of his colleagues had gone on record a decade ago saying they would support federal civil unions for any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities. Such an arrangement, Anderson said, would leave churches the option of refusing to recognize these unions as marriage.

Haarlem in memory

память
Журналист «Спорт-Экспресса» Игорь Рабинер вспомнил о гибели болельщиков на матче «Спартака» и «Хаарлема» (2:0) в «Лужниках» во время матча 1/16 финала Кубка УЕФА.

«Освещение в СМИ трагедии матча «Спартак» – «Харлем» – самое могучее свидетельство того, как изменился мир.

Единственное сообщение, вышедшее в советской печати, появилось в газете «Вечерняя Москва»: «Вчера в «Лужниках» после окончания футбольного матча произошел несчастный случай. Среди болельщиков имеются пострадавшие. Проводится расследование».

Даже игрокам красно-белых, по свидетельству Сергея Родионова, Николай Старостин сказал о том, что после матча «что-то произошло», примерно через неделю. О том, что погибли люди (по официальной версии – 66 человек), никто не произнес и слова. Футболисты об этом реально не знали.

Только в перестроечном 1989 году, через семь лет после беды, два молодых журналиста, мой друг Сергей Микулик и Сергей Топоров, провели журналистское расследование. Оно было опубликовано в «Советском спорте» и вышло под заголовком «Черная тайна Лужников». Только тогда о массовой гибели людей на матче «Спартак» – «Харлем» узнала – и ужаснулась – страна.

Сейчас о родных тех, кто погиб в тот страшный день, к счастью, помнят. Фанатская группировка Supporters Group в момент начала первой волны пандемии стала развозить продуктовые наборы не только ветеранам команды, но и родителям ребят, которых тогда не стало.

Спасибо им. И всем тем, кто проводит ежегодный турнир памяти погибших, и тем, кто открывает мемориалы, и тем, кто открыл людям правду и докапывается до нее по сей день.

Пишут о трагедии «Спартак» – «Харлем» сейчас много. 38 лет спустя. А тогда не писали вообще ничего. Сверху приказали молчать, и возможности что-то сказать ни у кого не было. И знали о случившемся – единицы.

Вся пресса была под полным государственным контролем, не было никаких соцсетей, и обычные люди не могли тогда ничего снять, выложить, рассказать.

Молодым всего этого, наверное, и не понять. 

[почему? они всё прекрасно понимают, лучше на с вами; врятли ли стоит гордицо старпёрством]

Вспоминайте об этом, те, кто хвалит и идеализирует жизнь в Советском Союзе», – 

написал Рабинер.

police per cap

менты
The number of police officers in the EU has slowly been decreasing in recent years. The EU had a total of 1.6 million police officers in 2016, a reduction of 3.4 % since 2009.

Overall, there were 318 police officers per 100 000 people in the EU in 2016, or one police officer per 314 people.

However, there are big differences between Member States: Finland (137), Denmark (186 in 2015) and Sweden (203) had the lowest rates, and Cyprus (573), Malta (505), Greece (492) and Croatia (490 in 2015) the highest.

we all die one day

Скончался победитель антипремии «Сексист года» за 2019 год протоиерей Дмитрий Смирнов.

Победу ему принесло следующее высказывание:

«Женщины слабее умом. Конечно, бывают какие-нибудь там Марии Кюри, но всё-таки это редкость».


Помимо этого Смирнов требовал запретить аборты, выступил против незарегистрированных браков, получения образования девочками и ювенальной юстиции. В частности он говорил, что вступающие в гражданский брак женщины являются «бесплатными проститутками». Также протоиерей отрицал существование ВИЧ-инфекции.

Ранее в январе текущего года скончался протоиерей Всеволод Чаплин, победитель антипремии «Сексист года» за 2011 год.


Умер российский протоирей, глава патриаршей комиссии по делам семьи Дмитрий Смирнов. Об этом сообщил пресс-секретарь Синодального отдела по церковной благотворительности и социальному служению Василий Рулинский.


«Сейчас стало известно о смерти отца Димитрия Смирнова. Царствие небесное дорогому батюшке. Владыка Пантелеимон (Шатов) (председатель Синодального отдела. — Прим. ТАСС) в Южно-Сахалинске совершил панихиду по новопреставленному отцу Димитрию», — написал он.

Священнослужителю было 69 лет. Причина смерти не называется. Известно, что в мае его госпитализировали из-за коронавируса.

Дмитрий Смирнов известен своими резонансными высказываниями. Так священник заявлял, что считает эпидемию коронавируса «чрезвычайно полезным явлением», так как благодаря ему «эгоизм стал ужиматься» и активизировалось волонтерство. Женщин, живущих в гражданском браке, он назвал «бесплатными проститутками». Смирнов также говорил, что школьное образование девочкам не особо нужно — важнее ее научить обходиться с ребенком, «так она будет уже готовая мама, все будет уметь».

mask

маска
Маска для простуды

Рубцов В.И.

(«ХиЖ», 2009, №12)

С началом эпидемии гриппа в общественных местах начали появляться люди в медицинских масках на лицах. Эта «мода» в одночасье распространилась столь широко, что изготовители масок перестали поспевать за спросом. Более того, многие руководители потребовали от сотрудников в обязательном порядке носить маски в течение всего рабочего дня. Не очень удобно, что и говорить, но лучше малое зло, чем офис, опустевший на несколько дней, а то и недель из-за того, что сотрудники перезаражали друг друга.

Стали поговаривать, что ношение медицинской маски — признак цивилизованности, и вообще это модно. В полном соответствии с нравами арканарского двора (вспомним Стругацких: «Через месяц появились франты, носившие на согнутой руке целые простыни, концы которых волочились по полу…») дизайнеры быстро откликнулись на запрос общества, создав эксклюзивные повязки с забавными рисунками. Отреагировали и руководящие структуры. Так, во время матча между сборными России и Словении в московских Лужниках каждому из десятков тысяч болельщиков выдали по маске.

Стоит ли государству в период эпидемии тратить деньги еще и на маски, а гражданам терпеть неудобства и пугать попутчиков в транспорте? Защитная сила медицинской маски – миф или реальность? Об этом нашему корреспонденту А.Мотыляеву рассказал руководитель Сертификационного испытательного центра «Индивидуальная защита», заведующий лабораторией средств индивидуальной защиты персонала опасных производств Федерального медицинского биофизического центра им А.И.Бурназяна, доктор технических наук Виктор Иванович Рубцов.

На вопрос о том, полезны ли медицинские маски, можно ответить и да, и нет. Да — когда маску надел больной человек, она способна в какой-то степени изолировать больного человека от здоровых и сдержать распространение инфекции. Нет — маска не способна защитить здорового человека от вируса гриппа. Причина в ее устройстве и особенностях человеческого дыхания.

При выдохе из носа воздух имеет температуру около 36ºС и влажность около 100%. Попав в окружающую среду, он охлаждается, а влага конденсируется, образуя аэрозоль — мелкие капельки. Заметить их невооруженным глазом невозможно, поскольку диаметр капелек от десятков нанометров до десятков микрон, а глаз не видит объекты размером менее 40 мкм. Обычно в каждом кубометре воздуха, который заполняет помещения, содержится около десяти миллиардов таких частиц. Если в помещении находится больной, то во многих капельках могут присутствовать вирусы, причем в немалом количестве, ведь размер вируса около 10 нм, и микронная капля для него что городской квартал для человека. Без воды вирус гриппа быстро погибает, а в капле может существовать достаточно долго, чтобы попасть в организм и начать в нем размножаться. Это нормально: с каждым вдохом мы получаем множество вирусов и бактерий, а иммунная система их обезвреживает.

Маска не может защитить органы дыхания от мелких частиц аэрозоля и тем более вирусных частиц. Причин тут две. Обычные медицинские маски состоят из очень тонкого слоя нетканого материала с волокнами большого диаметра. Величина промежутков между ними исчисляется десятками микрон. Поэтому мелкие частицы аэрозоля повязку не замечают. А вот трудность с прохождением воздуха через влажную маску имеется. В результате он подсасывается с боков, где маска неплотно прилегает к подбородку, носу и щекам, из-за чего сопротивление движению воздуха меньше. Через эти места выдыхаемый воздух столь же свободно попадает в окружающую среду и обратно. Таким образом, мелкие частицы, содержащие вирусы, и проникают сквозь маску и легко обходят ее.

Более того, через некоторое время сама маска становится рассадником инфекции. На ее волокнах конденсируется влага выдыхаемого воздуха, проще говоря, маска намокает, и в ней возникают благоприятные условия для развития бактерий, в том числе болезнетворных. Вирусы гриппа также постепенно накапливаются во влажной маске, поэтому каждые два часа ее следует менять, причем старую надо бы уничтожить.

Зачем же вообще эти маски придумали? Для того чтобы врач в прямом смысле не начихал и не кашлял на пациента. Капли слюны и мокроты, которые образуются при кашле и чихании, медицинская маска задерживает. А в них концентрация болезнетворных организмов и вирусов (если врач сам болен), конечно, гораздо выше, чем в обычном выдохе. О низкой эффективности медицинской маски для защиты здорового человека свидетельствует установленный факт повышенной заболеваемости врачей инфекционными болезнями. Именно поэтому марлевые повязки в инфекционных больницах заменили на специальные респираторы, обеспечивающие высокую степень защиты.

В таких респираторах воздух проходит через уникальный нановолокнистый высокоэффективный материал ФП (фильтр Петрянова), созданный незадолго до войны в Научно-исследовательском физико-химическом институте им. Л.Я.Карпова. Разные виды этого материала предназначены для разного использования. Более грубые идут для защиты от нетоксичных аэрозолей вроде цементной или угольной пыли. Они пропускают сквозь себя примерно четверть частиц. Фильтры высокой степени защиты состоят из волокон нанометровой толщины и могут защищать в том числе и от вирусов. Большое значение имеет конструкция так называемого обтюратора — полосы респиратора, которая должна плотно прилегать и охватывать лицо человека, не допуская подсоса воздуха. Вот такой профессиональный респиратор третьего класса защиты, например ШБ-1 «Лепесток-200», действительно может защитить здорового человека от вируса гриппа.

Вместе с тем, по-моему, лучшая защита — это укрепление иммунитета, спорт и профилактика. Государство должно тратить деньги на то, чтобы дети и молодежь могли бесплатно посещать бассейны и спортивные залы.

Респиратор может понадобиться человеку, у которого по той или иной причине иммунитет ослаблен. Ну а заболевшему, если ему приходится появляться в общественном месте, следует соблюдать правила гигиены и не становиться разносчиком инфекции. Только в этом случае маска более или менее уместна

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Amendments to a family code

В кабмине не поддержали поправки Мизулиной в Семейный кодекс 


В правительстве отметили, что в случае принятия закона баланс прав и интересов в семье может быть смещен в сторону прав родителей при заведомо более слабой позиции детей

Законодательная инициатива в числе прочего запрещает заключать браки и усыновлять детей не только лицам одного пола, но и тем, кто ранее сменил пол, предусматривает изъятие детей из семьи только в судебном порядке при наличии вины со стороны родителей.

"В случае принятия закона баланс прав и интересов в семье может быть смещен в сторону прав родителей при заведомо более слабой позиции детей в семейных отношениях с учетом их возраста", - отмечается в проекте отзыва. 

В кабмине указали, что документ предусматривает изменение оснований для ограничения или лишения родительских прав, "изменение концепции отобрания ребенка у родителей", а также установление предельного размера вознаграждения по договору опеки (попечительства) за счет доходов от имущества ребенка. "Указанные инициативы не соответствуют интересам ребенка и защите его прав", - считают в правительстве.

"Вводимые законопроектом понятия носят неопределенный характер, в связи с чем требуется приведение их в соответствие с уже используемой в законодательстве РФ терминологией. Кроме того, в пояснительной записке к законопроекту не приведены аргументы, свидетельствующие о необходимости серьезного изменения как понятийного аппарата, так и структуры семейного законодательства в целом", - добавили в кабмине. 

По мнению комиссии, в законопроекте также не решен вопрос о порядке финансирования предлагаемых полномочий полиции и региональных властей и отсутствует оценка объемов и источников расходов, необходимых для реализации документа. "Правительство Российской Федерации не поддерживает законопроект", - говорится в проекте заключения.В кабмине не поддержали поправки Мизулиной в Семейный кодекс 


Americans: Better Off Under Trump?

Often cited as the key factor in achieving reelection in the United States, the economy, and the perceived economic prosperity of Americans under a president, is in the minds of most voters when going to the polls. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the country, confidence in the economy is currently low in the U.S., however, as a Gallup survey shows, a majority of people in the country (55 percent) still say that they are 'better off' than they were four years ago.

As this infographic shows, this is a figure unrivaled by four of the five previous presidents at similar stages of their time in the White House (Gallup didn't include data for Clinton). That's not to say the pandemic hasn't had a negative effect on this metric though - in January, the figure was at 61 percent.

The exact role that will have in deciding this extraordinary election is of course still unknown, but another result of the survey worth noting is the share of Americans citing the economy as one of the most important issues facing the country in 2020. In 2012, 70 percent of respondents named an economy-related issue when answering this question, while the lowest result since 1992 was 40 percent. This year, that figure is just 9 percent.Infographic: Americans: Better Off Under Trump? | Statista

Monday, October 19, 2020

world statistics day 2020

Classrooms Powered by Census Data


Statistics in Schools brings school subjects to life using real-world Census Bureau data to create materials for use year after year at all grade levels.

World Statistics Day is October 20. Did you know the Census Bureau is the leading source of statistical information in the United States? We provide snapshots of the nation’s population and growth along with detailed portraits of communities’ changing characteristics.

Start your lesson with this video, Why Statistics?, to help students better understand why statistics are important in our data-driven world. Then, explore Statistics in Schools’ easy-to-use pre-K to 12 activities for the classroom, virtual and at-home learning.

LGBT at job

Лишь 1% предпринимателей знают, что среди их сотрудников есть представители ЛГБТ, а более трети не возьмут таких сотрудников на работу, свидетельствуют результаты совместного исследования Inc. и агентства Omnibus.

Сотрудники российских компаний крайне редко решаются рассказать о своей сексуальной ориентации, ведь далеко не все предприниматели готовы ее принять, выяснил Inc.

Подавляющее большинство опрошенных нами предпринимателей (97%) заявили, что в их компании нет представителей ЛГБТ-сообщества. 2% затруднились ответить, и лишь 1% сказали, что у них есть такие сотрудники.


При этом 51% владельцев бизнеса заявили, что если к ним будет устраиваться открытый представитель ЛГБТ-сообщества, это не станет для них проблемой. Но для 37% опрошенных ориентация кандидата станет решающим фактором в решении о приеме или не приеме на работу. 8% ответили, что все зависит от должности, а 4% затруднились ответить на вопрос.

В исследовании Inc. и агентства Omnibus участвовал 321 владелец малого и среднего бизнеса из 32 российских регионов. 62% из них — индивидуальные предприниматели, а 38% — представители ООО. 90% опрошенных руководят предприятиями, в которых на полную ставку работают до 15 сотрудников включительно, в предприятиях 10% респондентов работают от 16 до 100 человек. Большая часть опрошенных — мужчины (61%). Средний возраст респондента — 45 лет. Самому младшему участнику исследования исполнилось 24 года, самому старшему — 80.

Другие исследования Inc. Russia


01. Треть российских предпринимателей считают, что их бизнес не переживет вторую волну пандемии

02. Масочный режим поддерживают только половина российских предпринимателей

03. 81% предпринимателей не поддерживают переход на четырёхдневную рабочую недел

04. Предприниматели не полюбили удалёнку, планируют сократить зарплаты удалённым сотрудникам

Читать также «Если стыдиться ориентации, люди увидят слабое место и будут пользоваться». Монологи ЛГБТ-предпринимателей о гомофобии, «гей-лобби» и выходе из шкафа

une obédience maçonnique

Женские ложи были политическими центрами и светскими салонами. Их влияние на Великую Французскую Революцию, пожалуй, недооценено. Соответственно, недооценено и значение «сексуальной революции» во французском обществе того времени.
княгиня Ламбаль
госпожа де Ламбаль

Saturday, October 17, 2020

DALY

МОСКВА, 17 окт — РИА Новости. 

Исследование "Глобальное бремя болезней" показало в России самую низкую продолжительность здоровой жизни в Европе, сообщает журнал The Lancet.


В ходе исследования высчитывался показатель DALY (Disability-adjusted life year), обозначающий годы жизни, утраченные из-за потери здоровья или инвалидности. Чем он выше, тем больше хронических болезней у населения страны.
В последние десять лет в России этот показатель ежегодно снижался в среднем на 2%.

Однако, несмотря на этот прогресс, наша страна заняла последнее место в Европе по ожидаемой продолжительности здоровой жизни. В прошлом году этот показатель составил 63,7 года. Лидером стала Исландия с результатом 71,9 года.

Участвовавшие в исследовании российские ученые связывают слабый результат страны с высокими рисками неинфекционных болезней, вызываемых курением, употреблением алкоголя, неправильным питанием и низкой физической активностью.

Marxist-Leninist Biology Rules

Tired of science being ignored?

Get political


The idea that competent researchers are apolitical is false, and it costs lives.

Mary T. Bassett

During the COVID-19 pandemic, like many public-health experts, I have been asked to advise people to wear a mask, meet outdoors, wash their hands, keep 2 metres apart, stay home and get tested if they have symptoms, and participate in contact tracing. But researchers are expected to ignore societal structures that mean some people are less able to follow this advice. We are expected to account for individual risk factors that might explain who gets infected, who dies and how fully someone recovers, but not to imagine what public-health and health-care policies could make for better, more equitable health. It is time for researchers to change tack and step into politics.

Compared with some other countries, the United States underinvests in public health. And yet its health expenditures approach 20% of its gross domestic product, with higher per-capita health spending than any other nation. Clinical medicine glitters with technology and innovation. Perhaps that is partly why, in trying to keep up, public-health professionals tend to stress the technical nature of their field, its evidence base and its rigour. By ‘staying in our lane’ and out of politics and advocacy, did US researchers unwittingly help pave an open highway for COVID-19?

The presidents of the non-partisan US National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences have publicly expressed alarm at the growing political interference in science. Working researchers’ relative silence about such larger societal issues, often under the guise of professionalism, doesn’t make for good science, although it might make for safer scientific careers. In the middle of a pandemic, good science identifies how to save lives.

The United States is not winning at saving lives. More than one million people globally have died from COVID-19; the United States, one of the wealthiest and most medically advanced countries, accounts for less than 5% of the world’s population but for 20% of deaths. When adjusted for age, death rates are more than three times higher for Black, Latino/Latina and Native Americans than for white Americans (M. T. Bassett et al. PLoS Med.; in the press).

For health professionals, COVID-19 has revealed how epidemics are political, tracking through the fissures of society. Many health workers, some for the first time, are breaking the unspoken ‘commitment to neutrality’ and criticizing President Donald Trump’s administration for its failures and its attacks on science. They are drawing attention to inequitable social policies, segregated neighbourhoods and inadequate labour protections as root causes of this tragedy.

A minority of researchers are working with activists on racial justice, but many avoid doing so out of worry that an ‘activist’ label could have negative implications for their careers. This is typically self-censorship, enforced by norms of ‘professional’ behaviour, but I think recent White House moves against providing racial-sensitivity training and acknowledging the impacts of racism will have a further, chilling effect. I have been cautioned more than once that my talking about racism was ‘off-putting’.

As a former health commissioner for New York City, my hope is that this new ‘political awakening’ will endure and transform how scientists participate in political life. The label ‘activist’ should be an honour, not a slur or reproach.

This is why, in April, I was thrilled to get a call from Natalia Linos, the executive director of the FXB Center for Health & Human Rights at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts — the center that I lead. She told me that she wanted to run for a vacant congressional seat in Massachusetts. In the middle of the pandemic, she felt that the attacks on science in Washington DC and the disastrous national response required people with her skill set to step up. Although she was ultimately not selected as candidate, she is right that we need more public-health experts in politics. Some will say that scientists entering electoral races will undermine other worthy candidates with more established political networks. Although this is understandable, the presence of scientific expertise elevates the understanding of science for all candidates, along with the public more generally. This is the best way to have a seat at the table when the policy is made.

Germany and Taiwan, which have had successful responses to COVID-19, have leaders who are trained in science. The United States has equivalents in leaders such as Virginia governor Ralph Northam, a former physician, who expanded access to Medicaid (the health-insurance programme for those on low incomes) once elected to office. We need more such elected officials, and we should be encouraging when those from our community take that step.

At a minimum, let’s ensure that we researchers apply our expertise to political advocacy. I am not saying that expertise in one area of science makes us experts overall. Still, when we decide that issues such as structural racism, climate change or income inequality are ‘outside our lane’, we betray both the professional reputation of our field and the health of the people we serve.

It is inconceivable that the COVID-19 death toll would be as high as it is today if the US political leadership believed in evidence, or had enacted egalitarian social and health policies comparable to those in other wealthy countries. Lack of affordable housing, universal health coverage and job protections are all public-health issues. So are low wages. Building the political will to address these issues will save lives. That’s worth risking a job or a promotion. Let’s use this public-health crisis to organize.

Nature 586, 337 (2020)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02854-9

Global Carbon Emissions Fall in 2020

Predictions were made earlier in the year as the pandemic was getting underway that CO2 emissions would be greatly reduced due to the enforced drop in economic activity and travel. While the fact that this has indeed happened will surprise few, the extent to which carbon emissions have fallen in 2020 has been calculated/estimated by Carbon Monitor.

As this infographic shows, global emissions are down by 6.5 percent. The largest contributor to this drop is the reduction in ground transport use - down 17 percent in 2019 and accounting for roughly half of the overall change. Of the individual countries for which data has been published, Spain has shown the largest decrease compared to 2019, as of August 31.

Infographic: Global Carbon Emissions Fall in 2020 | Statista нет худа без добра

Friday, October 16, 2020

faster depopulation

смотрите у меня
жидкое чипирование — всему голова
Российское правительство ухудшило прогноз по сокращению общей численности населения страны. Об этом сообщают «Известия» со ссылкой на новую версию единого плана по достижению национальных целей до 2030 года.

Согласно документу, убыль населения по итогам 2020 года составит 352 тыс. человек.

В августовской версии плана ожидалось сокращение численности россиян на 158 тыс.

В дальнейшем население России также будет сокращаться. В 2021 году на 290 тыс. человек, в 2022 году — на 238,1 тыс., в 2023 году — на 189,1 тыс., а в 2024 году — на 165,3 тыс. человек.

Таким образом, за 4 года численность россиян уменьшится на 1,2 млн человек.

Выход на положительные темпы прироста предполагается только в 2030 году.

НОВОСТИ ПО ТЕМЕ:

Рекордное падение: как пандемия ударила по рынку газа

Кабмин не поддержал законопроект о бессрочной программе маткапитала в России

Правительство направит 940 млрд рублей на выплаты пенсий и пособий

the Object Belongs in Africa

Four Activists Have Been Fined for Trying to Remove an Artifact From a French Museum. They Still Say the Object Belongs in Africa

Royal Seat of the Kingdom of Dahomey from the early 19th century, at the Quai Branly museum in Paris, on June 18, 2018. Gerard Julien—AFP via Getty Images
BY SUYIN HAYNES
OCTOBER 14, 2020 4:17 PM EDT


AParis court on Wednesday sentenced four African activists with fines ranging from €250 to €1000—up to roughly $1,175—for “aggravated theft” after they were convicted of trying to remove an African artifact from display at a Paris museum in June.

While they avoided a potential prison sentence and hefty fine, Congolese activist Mwazulu Diyabanza, 41, and other activists from the pan-African group Unity, Dignity and Courage, say that their action at the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac was not an attempt at theft. Rather, in their view, it was an act of “active diplomacy” by a group that believes “African wealth should return to and belong to Africans.”

Diyabanza, who received the suspended fine of €1000, says he plans to appeal the sentence. The ruling comes amid broader debate about the restitution and repatriation of African objects—many of which were stolen during colonial-era expeditions—from European museums back to their sites of origin. The presiding judge overseeing the case told the court on Sept. 30 that observers were witnessing two simultaneous trials: one judging the activists, and “another trial, that of the history of Europe, of France with Africa, the trial of colonialism, the trial of the misappropriation of the cultural heritage of nations.”

Here’s what to know about the case.

What happened at the Quai Branly museum in June?


On June 12, Diyabanza and four other activists, three men and one woman, filmed themselves removing a 19th century funeral pole, which came from modern-day Chad, from its display stand at the Quai Branly, a museum in Paris that is home to art and artifacts from Indigenous cultures around the world. “We’re taking it home,” they declared as they carried it through the museum. Security guards stopped the activists and they were immediately arrested, while the staff was returned to its original position. Diyabanza and his four associates were initially charged with attempted theft of a registered artwork, and risked up to 10 years in prison and €150,000 ($176,322) in fines. Diyabanza later said “We had no intention of stealing this work, but we will continue as long as the injustice of pillaging Africa has not been remedied.”

In an email to TIME, writing in French, Diyabanza calls the action at Quai Branly a way to “place the best interests of our people above all prohibitions and limitations, but also over all protocol and security requirements as well as intimidation.”

After his arrest in June, Diyabanza sued the French state for “theft and receiving stolen goods” with regards to its role in looting objects during the colonial era. He is also facing a separate trial in Marseille in November, and another in the Netherlands in January. The Quai Branly did not respond to TIME’s request for comment on the case.
Congolese activist Mwazulu Diyabanza in Paris on Oct. 3, 2020. Bardos Florent—Abaca/Sipa USA

Who is Unity, Dignity and Courage and what do they want?


Diyabanza says the activist group Unity, Dignity and Courage (UDC) “advocates for the liberation of our motherland Africa from all forms of domination and for the freedom of our people in the homeland and in the diaspora.” Diyabanza sees restitution as a form of reparations, and the group also advocates for pan-African unity. Following the incident at the Quai Branly, Diyabanza and other activists from UDC also staged similar protests attempting to remove objects from African art museums in Marseille, France, and in Berg en Dal in the Netherlands, live-streaming their actions on social media.

“What drives us to act is our legitimate right to have access to our cultural heritage and to the recovery of our history,” Diyabanza says. “We will continue to act as we have done in all museums to this day, since we are within our rights.”

During the Paris trial, tensions ran high in the courtroom, as activists shouted at police officers who were blocking off the entrance to the venue. Among the other four other defendants alongside Diyabanza were activists hailing from the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo and Reunion Island, a French overseas department in the Indian Ocean. According to the New York Times, Julie Djaka, a 34-year-old defendant, told the judge: “For you, these are works. For us, these are entities, ritual objects that maintained the order at home, in our villages in Africa, that enabled us to do justice.” Although five people, including Diyabanza, were involved in the protest, four were convicted and fined on Wednesday. A fifth was cleared of charges.

Why is this case significant in France and beyond?


Debates over restitution and repatriation are nothing new in Europe, as institutions like museums have faced scrutiny over their displays of artifacts from other countries—especially from regions that were once held as colonies by European powers. Because many of the artifacts were seized during violent expeditions or conflicts, many activists and others believe those objects should be returned to their homelands; some European museum leaders say there are questions to consider about the political context and timelines of returns.

But those debates have intensified in recent years. In 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron commissioned Senegalese economist Felwine Sarr and French art historian Bénédicte Savoy to investigate the question of repatriation, specifically in the French context. Their groundbreaking report, published in 2018, called for French museums to permanently return an estimated 90,000 sub-Saharan African artifacts, if the country of origin asks for them. The report also suggested a procedure for their return. When the report was published, Macron promised to return 26 objects that were looted from the West African nation of Benin during a violent 19th century colonial siege—and which are currently held at the Quai Branly—but no items have yet been returned permanently. In an interview with TIME on Wednesday, Savoy said that the fact that the fine was much less severe than it could have been was “symbolic,” and the court’s verdict recognized “the political weight of the action.”

In 2020, a year when legacies of colonialism became flashpoints in the Black Lives Matter movement across Europe, the Quai Branly was not the only site of protest for restitution.

Over the summer, several statues commemorating slave traders and imperialists were defaced or torn down by protests. And even before the wave of protests, an incident at the Museum of London Docklands on Jan. 29 saw a member of the public topple African objects in the museum and shout at members of staff. Isaiah Ogundele was convicted in absentia on charges related to “threatening, abusive, insulting words, or behavior with intent to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.” The Museum said in a statement to TIME that four objects, all on long-term loan from the British Museum, had been removed from display following the incident for conservation efforts: two replicas of the cast of a head of an Ife Man (1300-1400) and the cast of the head of an Ife King (1100-1300) alongside a Benin water container (1500s) and a Benin brass plaque (1500s-1600s).

The verdict faced criticism from campaigners, including Onyekachi Wambu, the director of U.K.-based African Foundation for Development, whose recent Return of the Icons campaign and report is part of a $15 million initiative funded by the Open Society Foundation to restore cultural heritage to the African continent. Wambu started a petition in solidarity with Ogundele, writing that “attempts to criminalise those participating in these campaigns should be avoided at all costs, not least when we consider the initial violent and murderous circumstances in which these collections were acquired. Criminalising the descendants of those original victims intensifies the original crimes.”

As for the 26 objects from Benin that were part of Macron’s original promise, on Oct. 7 France’s National Assembly unanimously passed a bill to return them, as well as a sword and scabbard thought to have once belonged to 19th-century West African political leader El Hadj Omar Tall, which is currently on long-term loan in Senegal. If passed by the French Senate, the law would require the objects to be returned to their sites of origin within one year. But critics, including Diyabanza’s UDC group, have said that the French government and institutions are still dragging their feet on the process. “The French state is resistant to any change in its colonial, imperialist and repressive policies,” says Diyabanza. “We want restitution now, and unconditionally! Everything else is just a delaying tactic.”

The evening before the verdict, Diyabanza told TIME that whatever the result, at least it will acknowledge the group’s actions. And, he promised, UDC will use the news to launch a further campaign for the restitution of their heritage.

“In the case of a conviction, we will be among the martyrs for freedom and dignity who have paid the price for humanity’s progress, while in the case of an acquittal, we will be considered avant-garde pioneers in this honorable fight for the unconditional restitution of our heritage,” he said. “You don’t ask a thief for permission to take back what he stole.”

— With reporting by Maïa Booker

Apple or Android Nation?

Operating System Popularity Across Countries


While the difference in business models between the world’s two most popular smartphone operating systems means that they will never compete for market share on the same level, Apple is definitely not satisfied with how low its market share is in some emerging economies. For one nation with some of the fewest iOS users – India - this might change.

Apple will for the first time be able to open its own stores in the country after having invested in a local production facility. The rule is just one aspect of India’s protectionist economic policy that has in the past limited the brand's access to its market of over one billion people. Before the new facility was up and running, Apple also had to pay substantial import duties on phones for the Indian market, which resulted in a price tag that was out of the reach even of wealthy Indian consumers.

Right now, Indian iPhone owners are making up only 3 percent of smartphone users – fewer than in most African, Latin American or Southeast Asian nations. With the price of the locally produced iPhone SE down to $484, Apple is hoping to boost sales at a time when mid-range and premium smartphone market segments are beginning to grow. The company has achieved market shares between 10 and 20 percent in emerging economies like Brazil and China, but its system of one brand, one OS and the premium nature of its products means that its market share has been limited to around 60 percent even in its biggest markets, the U.S. and Japan.Infographic: Apple or Android Nation? Operating System Popularity Across Countries | Statista

Thursday, October 15, 2020

What We Can Learn From the 1918 Flu

Here's What We Can Learn From the 1918 Flu

How Does a Pandemic End? 

Red Cross volunteers in the United States, circa 1918. Apic—Getty Images
BY OLIVIA B. WAXMAN

More than six months after the World Health Organization declaredCOVID-19 a pandemic, as scientific understanding of the novel coronavirus continues to evolve, one question remains decidedly unanswered. How will this pandemic come to an end?

Current scientific understanding is that only a vaccine will put an end to this pandemic, but how we get there remains to be seen. It seems safe to say, however, that some day, somehow, it will end. After all, other viral pandemics have. Take, for example, the flu pandemic of 1918-1919.

That pandemic was the deadliest in the 20th century; it infected about 500 million people and killed at least 50 million, including 675,000 in the United States. And, while scientific knowledge of viruses and vaccine development has advanced significantly since then, the uncertainty felt around the world today would have been familiar a century ago.

Even after that virus died out, it would be years before scientists better understood what happened, and some mystery still remains. Here’s what we do know: in order for a pandemic to end, the disease in question has to reach a point at which it is unable to successfully find enough hosts to catch it and then spread it.

In the case of the 1918 pandemic, the world at first believed that the spread had been stopped by the spring of 1919, but it spiked again in early 1920. As with other flu strains, this flu may have become more active in the winter months because people were spending more time indoors in closer proximity to one another, and because artificial heat and fires dry out skin, and the cracks in the skin in the nose and mouth provide “great entry points for the virus,” explains Howard Markel, physician and director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan.

Flu “does tend to go quiet when the cold weather regresses, but no one knows why,” Markel says.

But, by the middle of 1920, that deadly strain of flu had in fact faded enough that the pandemic was over in many places, even though there was no dramatic or memorable declaration that the end had come.

“The end of the pandemic occurred because the virus circulated around the globe, infecting enough people that the world population no longer had enough susceptible people in order for the strain to become a pandemic once again,” says medical historian J. Alexander Navarro, Markel’s colleague and the Assistant Director of the Center for the History of Medicine. “When you get enough people who get immunity, the infection will slowly die out because it’s harder for the virus to find new susceptible hosts.”

Eventually, with “fewer susceptible people out and about and mingling,” Navarro says, there was nowhere for the virus to go —the “herd immunity” being talked about today. By the end of the pandemic, a whopping third of the world’s population had caught the virus. (At the moment, about half a percent of the global population is known to have been infected with the novel coronavirus.)

The end of the 1918 pandemic wasn’t, however, just the result of so many people catching it that immunity became widespread. Social distancing was also key. Public health advice on curbing the spread of the virus was eerily similar to that of today: citizens were encouraged to stay healthy through campaigns promoting mask-wearing, frequent hand-washing, quarantining and isolating of patients, and the closure of schools, public spaces and non-essential businesses—all steps designed to cut off routes for the virus’ spread.

In fact, a study that Markel and Navarro co-authored, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007, found that U.S. cities that implemented more than one of these aforementioned control measures earlier and kept them in place longer had better, less deadly outcomes than cities that implemented fewer of these control measures and did not do so until later.

Public health officials took all of these measures despite not knowing for sure whether they were dealing with a virus or a bacterial infection; the research that proved influenza comes from a virus and not a bacterium didn’t come out until the 1930s. It wasn’t until 2005 that articles in Science and Nature capped off a nearly decade-long process of mapping the genome of the flu strain that caused the 1918 pandemic.

A century later, the world is facing another pandemic caused by a virus, though of a different sort. COVID-19 is caused by a novel coronavirus, not influenza, so scientists are still learning how it behaves. While flu is more active in the winter—and, as Markel points out, the 1918 flu died out in a way “we would expect now” of seasonal flu—COVID-19 was active in the U.S. over the summer. Doctors expect the COVID-19 pandemic won’t really end until there’s both a vaccine and a certain level of exposure in the global population. “We’re not certain,” Markel says, “but we’re pretty darn sure.”

And yet, in the meantime, people can help the effort to limit the impact of the pandemic. A century ago, being proactive about public health saved lives—and it can do so again today.