Philosophy of education in a new key: Who remembers Greta Thunberg? Education and environment after the coronavirus

This paper explores relationships between environment and education after the Covid-19 pandemic through the lens of philosophy of education in a new key developed by Michael Peters and the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA). The paper is collectively written by 15 authors who responded to the question: Who remembers Greta Thunberg? Their answers are classified into four main themes and corresponding sections. The first section, ‘As we bake the earth, let's try and bake it from scratch', gathers wider philosophical considerations about the intersection between environment, education, and the pandemic. The second section, ‘Bump in the road or a catalyst for structural change?', looks more closely into issues pertaining to education. The third section, ‘If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you', focuses to Greta Thunberg's messages and their responses. The last section, ‘Towards a new (educational) normal', explores future scenarios and develops recommendations for critical emancipatory action. The concluding part brings these insights together, showing that resulting synergy between the answers offers much more then the sum of articles' parts. With its ethos of collectivity, interconnectedness, and solidarity, philosophy of education in a new key is a crucial tool for development of post-pandemic (philosophy of) education.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

Futures Studies, Mobilities, and the Postdigital Condition: Contention or Complement

This paper explores relationships between recent developments in the fields of mobilities, futures, and postdigital studies. The article covers six main themes: questions and their histories;definitions;research methods and ethics;the nature and ownership of knowing and learning;understandings of time, space, identity, community, and relationships;and political processes and political legitimacy. The article was written in three steps. In the first step, the leading author (John Traxler) has identified the relevant themes. In the second step, proponents of each position have freely responded to the themes (futures studies, Stuart Connor;postdigital theory, Sarah Hayes and Petar Jandrić;mobilities, John Traxler). In the third step, the responses have been collectively (re)mixed and edited, identifying complementary and conflicting concepts and ideas. The article was initiated a month before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and it was completed over one and a half years later. Thusly, responses and analyses have included the pandemic experience without explicitly focusing to the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper concludes with drawing together contributions, seeking underlying commonalities and differences, and looking for trends, convergence, and change. Epistemically, the three positions discussed in this paper are far from commensurable. Yet they are compatible and complementary, in a postdigital dialogue, in a sense that they all need each others’ inputs on the road to a better understanding of our current condition, and the road to a better future.

COVID-19 Mortality and Therapeutics in Nebraska and Southwest Iowa during Early Pandemic.

Different pharmacotherapeutics have been introduced, and then stopped or continued, for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated the risks associated with mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Data was concurrently or retrospectively captured on COVID-19 hospitalized patients from 6 regional hospitals within the health system. Demographic details, the source of SARS-CoV-2 infection, concomitant disease status, as well as the therapeutic agents used for treating SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., antimicrobials, dexamethasone, convalescent plasma, tocilizumab, and remdesivir) were recorded. Discrete and continuous variables were analyzed using SPSS (ver. 27). Logistic regression identified variables significantly correlated with mortality. RESULTS: 471 patients (admitted from 1 March 2020 through 15 July 2020) were reviewed. Mean (±SD) age and body weight (kg) were 62.5 ± 17.7 years and 86.3 ± 27.1 kg, respectively. Patients were Caucasian (50%), Hispanic (34%), African-American (10%), or Asian (5%). Females accounted for 52% of patients. Therapeutic modalities used for COVID-19 illness included remdesivir (16%), dexamethasone (35%), convalescent plasma (17.8%), and tocilizumab (5.8%). The majority of patients returned home (62%) or were transferred to a skilled nursing facility (23%). The overall mortality from SARS-CoV-2 was 14%. Logistic regression identified variables significantly correlated with mortality. Intubation, receipt of dexamethasone, African-American or Asian ethnicity, and being a patient from a nursing home were significantly associated with mortality (x2 = 86.36 (13) p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients had significant mortality risk if they were intubated, received dexamethasone, were of African-American or Asian ethnicity, or occupied a nursing home bed prior to hospital admission.

Tenecteplase use in the management of acute ischemic stroke: Literature review and clinical considerations.

PURPOSE: Several research articles have been published within the last decade comparing the use of tenecteplase to alteplase in ischemic stroke management. Prior reporting on the comparative therapeutic efficacy and safety profiles of tenecteplase and alteplase is reviewed. SUMMARY: Tenecteplase is a variant of native tissue-type plasminogen activator, which rapidly promotes thrombolysis by catalyzing formation of the serine protease plasmin. Tenecteplase has theoretical advantages over alteplase as it has greater fibrin specificity and has a longer half-life than alteplase. This allows the administration of a single bolus over 5 to 10 seconds, as opposed to a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with alteplase. While currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, tenecteplase has also been studied in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and has extensive data for this off-label indication. The most comprehensive trials to date evaluating the use of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke include the TNK-S2B, Australian TNK, ATTEST, Nor-Test, and EXTEND-IA TNK trials. Findings from these randomized controlled studies suggest that tenecteplase is at least as efficacious as alteplase in terms of neurological outcomes. The majority of these studies also reported a trend toward improved safety profiles with the use of tenecteplase. CONCLUSION: Current clinical evidence shows that tenecteplase is not inferior to alteplase for the treatment of ischemic stroke and suggests that tenecteplase may have a superior safety profile. Furthermore, tenecteplase also has practical advantages in terms of its administration. This can potentially lead to a decrease in medication errors and improvement in door to thrombolytic time.

Anonymised and aggregated crowd level mobility data from mobile phones suggests that initial compliance with COVID-19 social distancing interventions was high and geographically consistent across the UK.

Background: Since early March 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic across the United Kingdom has led to a range of social distancing policies, which have resulted in reduced mobility across different regions. Crowd level data on mobile phone usage can be used as a proxy for actual population mobility patterns and provide a way of quantifying the impact of social distancing measures on changes in mobility. Methods: Here, we use two mobile phone-based datasets (anonymised and aggregated crowd level data from O2 and from the Facebook app on mobile phones) to assess changes in average mobility, both overall and broken down into high and low population density areas, and changes in the distribution of journey lengths. Results: We show that there was a substantial overall reduction in mobility, with the most rapid decline on the 24th March 2020, the day after the Prime Minister's announcement of an enforced lockdown. The reduction in mobility was highly synchronized across the UK. Although mobility has remained low since 26th March 2020, we detect a gradual increase since that time. We also show that the two different datasets produce similar trends, albeit with some location-specific differences. We see slightly larger reductions in average mobility in high-density areas than in low-density areas, with greater variation in mobility in the high-density areas: some high-density areas eliminated almost all mobility. Conclusions: These analyses form a baseline from which to observe changes in behaviour in the UK as social distancing is eased and inform policy towards the future control of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK.

Potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has the potential to cause substantial disruptions to health services, due to cases overburdening the health system or response measures limiting usual programmatic activities. We aimed to quantify the extent to which disruptions to services for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in low-income and middle-income countries with high burdens of these diseases could lead to additional loss of life over the next 5 years. METHODS: Assuming a basic reproduction number of 3·0, we constructed four scenarios for possible responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: no action, mitigation for 6 months, suppression for 2 months, or suppression for 1 year. We used established transmission models of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria to estimate the additional impact on health that could be caused in selected settings, either due to COVID-19 interventions limiting activities, or due to the high demand on the health system due to the COVID-19 pandemic. FINDINGS: In high-burden settings, deaths due to HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria over 5 years could increase by up to 10%, 20%, and 36%, respectively, compared with if there was no COVID-19 pandemic. The greatest impact on HIV was estimated to be from interruption to antiretroviral therapy, which could occur during a period of high health system demand. For tuberculosis, the greatest impact would be from reductions in timely diagnosis and treatment of new cases, which could result from any prolonged period of COVID-19 suppression interventions. The greatest impact on malaria burden could be as a result of interruption of planned net campaigns. These disruptions could lead to a loss of life-years over 5 years that is of the same order of magnitude as the direct impact from COVID-19 in places with a high burden of malaria and large HIV and tuberculosis epidemics. INTERPRETATION: Maintaining the most critical prevention activities and health-care services for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria could substantially reduce the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, and Medical Research Council.

The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a severe threat to public health worldwide. We combine data on demography, contact patterns, disease severity, and health care capacity and quality to understand its impact and inform strategies for its control. Younger populations in lower-income countries may reduce overall risk, but limited health system capacity coupled with closer intergenerational contact largely negates this benefit. Mitigation strategies that slow but do not interrupt transmission will still lead to COVID-19 epidemics rapidly overwhelming health systems, with substantial excess deaths in lower-income countries resulting from the poorer health care available. Of countries that have undertaken suppression to date, lower-income countries have acted earlier. However, this will need to be maintained or triggered more frequently in these settings to keep below available health capacity, with associated detrimental consequences for the wider health, well-being, and economies of these countries.