Can a new coronavirus be cured?
Yes, sure. However, there is no specific antiviral drug for the new coronavirus – just as there is no specific treatment for most other respiratory viruses that cause colds.
Viral pneumonia, the main and most dangerous complication of coronavirus infection, cannot be treated with antibiotics. In the case of pneumonia, treatment is aimed at maintaining lung function.
Who is at risk?
People of all ages run the risk of contracting the virus. The Wuhan Health Commission said in a statement that the age of the 60 most recent cases is between 15 and 88 years old. However, as in the case of most other viral respiratory diseases, children and people over 65 years of age, people with a weakened immune system are at risk of a severe course of the disease.
Is there a vaccine for the new coronavirus?
Currently, there is no such vaccine, however, in a number of countries, including Russia, research organizations of Rospotrebnadzor have already begun its development.
What is the difference between coronavirus and influenza virus?
Coronavirus and influenza viruses may have similar symptoms, but genetically they are completely different.
Influenza viruses multiply very quickly – symptoms appear two to three days after infection, and the coronavirus requires up to 14 days for this.
How not to infect others
• Minimize contacts with healthy people (welcome handshakes, kisses).
• If you feel unwell, but are forced to communicate with other people or use public transport, use a disposable mask, be sure to change it to a new one every hour.
• When coughing or sneezing, be sure to cover your mouth, if possible, with a disposable handkerchief, if not, with your palms or elbow.
• Use only personal or disposable tableware.
• Isolate your personal hygiene items from the household: toothbrush, washcloth, towels.
• Wet house cleaning daily, including the processing of door handles, switches, office equipment control panels.
In the last two decades interest in Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), has increased rapidly, particularly in the United States yet it is not a new subject within psychiatry. The phenomenon of multiple personalities or dissociative identities has been documented intermittently for the past two hundred years. In the eighteenth century, this phenomenon was diagnosed and researched, but in the nineteenth century, it fell into oblivion.
The history and documentation of MPD/DID suggest that there is a long-standing focus on this diagnosis associated with long-standing confusion. There has been a lack of clarity in both defining and understanding DID. The rise and fall in the popularity of this diagnosis are the results of historical and contemporary critiques that even dispute the existence of the dissociative identity or multiple personality phenomena. The questions range from philosophical issues, such as the possibility of one person having multiple personalities, to claims that childhood sexual abuse is the primary cause of this disorder.
One long-standing critique questions the existence of different alters in the patient. The term alters is defined in the literature as states exhibited by a person that appear as separate and distinct personalities. The symptoms associated with the disorder are intrusive and recurrent cognitions connected to the traumatic event or stimulus, flashbacks, sleep difficulties, irritability, difficulty concentrating, active behavioural avoidance of stimuli related to the traumatic event, and psychological distress associated with expose to stimuli or symbols related to the traumatic stressor or event. Secondary trauma has been documented previously and can be seen, for example, in situations where parents who are war veterans pass on trauma-like responses to their children
The long-term success of any organization depends primarily on the quality of people who assume its leadership positions. Yet, for many organizations, the process by which people are developed, identified, and selected for top management roles is relatively unplanned and, in large part, undescribed.
Only a few aerospace companies have a well-developed formal succession plan for the purpose of operating efficiently in the future. One of the companies engaged in aerospace that has developed a workable succession plan is General Electric. Unlike other companies in the aerospace industry, General Electric has consistently been applauded for having one of the most outstanding succession planning programs in the industry. General Electric does not stand in complete isolation as a company that takes pride in developing employees for management continuity. Over the years a few companies have consistently stood out in their ability to plan for management succession.
Among them are International Business Machines, Procter and Gamble, Mobil, General Motors, DuPont, and Exxon. With the exception of General Electric, the names of aerospace companies are noticeably absent when listing companies that practice formal succession planning. However, such leading aerospace companies as TRW, Rockwell, Northrop and McDonnell Douglas as well as others are starting to initiate succession plans which are in various stages of development.
Aerospace companies are starting to realize that all too often large companies make the mistake of thinking they can find the best people in the organization whenever the need arises for management talent. Unfortunately, efforts to do so have been met with numerous obstacles resulting in costly mistakes and/or contracting with expensive search firms. Large companies that practice succession planning engage the services of search firms sparingly, if at all because they generate their own talent pools. Board members are beginning to admit that they are not aware of management continuity practices. To compensate for this deficiency, boards are starting to appoint succession committees. One out of four major corporations now have boards with standing succession committees.
Judicial instructions provide the law which jurors are to follow when making their decisions. These decisions range from decisions about negligence and compensation in civil trials to guilt or innocence decisions in criminal trials and ultimately life and death decisions in capital trials. The purpose of judicial instructions in all trials is to guide jurors in their decisions.
One area of the law in which judicial instructions are most important is in capital sentencing where jurors are asked to decide between a life or death sentence for a person convicted o f a capital crime. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of such a decision, and in an attempt to reduce arbitrary and capricious sentencing, held that states must provide jurors with “guided discretion”.
However guided discretion is ambiguous and has been translated into varied procedures across different states. Although these varied procedures have been constitutionally upheld, there is reason to suspect that they may be inadequate. That is, they may indeed lead to arbitrary and/or biased sentencing. Thus the purpose of this research is to empirically assess bias in capital sentencing instructions. Instructions differ in the extent to which they
a) provide a death as a default sentence,
b) focus on future dangerousness, and
c) emphasize mitigation. If one set of instructions consistently yields a greater number of death sentences while another consistently results in life sentences, given the same case material, then the adequacy of guided discretion is seriously questioned.
It is constitutionally acceptable for states to differ in their procedures and outcomes. However, at what point do different procedures yielding consistently different outcomes become effectively biased and unconstitutional? Although states have made an effort to guide jurors in their decisions, social science research has continually shown that arbitrary and biased sentencing still exists. There are six independent lines of research that provide “factual evidence” suggesting that the death penalty is applied in a biased and/or arbitrary manner.
The first line of research provides evidence of consistent racial bias. The remaining five show that sentencing may be arbitrary. The second line of research has shown that prisoners with commuted sentences are no more dangerous than prisoners with death sentences. Third, there are more reversals in capital cases than in other types of cases. Fourth, there is some evidence that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Fifth, there is little consistency between judges’ and juries’ decisions for death. Finally, citizens and jurors who have served on capital cases actually report that the death sentence is arbitrary .